22628
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 13 May 2010
______
The President (The Hon. Amanda Ruth Fazio) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.
The President read the Prayers.
COURT INFORMATION BILL 2010
Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly, on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzisgergos.
Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
Second reading set down as an order of the day for a later hour.
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Report
The President tabled, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the report entitled "Investigation into the Offer of a Corrupt Payment to an Officer of Strathfield Municipal Council", dated May 2010, received and authorised to be made public this day.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.
CALGA SAND QUARRY
Production of Documents: Order
Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:
That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents created since 2000, excluding any documents previously provided to the House or available on the website of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Water, the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, the Minister for Transport and Roads or the Roads and Traffic Authority relating to the Calga Sand Quarry:
(a) all documents relating to Major Project Applications No. 94-4-2004 and No. 06-0278,
(b) all documents relating to the following properties:
Lot 2 - DP229889 Lot 1 - DP660459 Lot 1 and 2 - DP 805358 Lot 121 - DP755221, and
(c) any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.
TABLING OF PAPERS
The Hon. Tony Kelly tabled, pursuant to the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act 2000, the report of the Community Relations Commission entitled "2009 Community Relations Report", dated March 2010.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.
13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22629
PETITIONS
Westport Park
Petition opposing any proposal to allow foreshore reserve areas to be used for commercial development, received from the Hon. Greg Pearce.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [11.07 a.m.]: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forth with that Private Members' Business item No. 256 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to censure of the Treasurer, be called on forthwith.
As members would be aware, this censure motion arises out of the sale of NSW Lotteries that was completed by the Government earlier this year. In particular the motion centres on a letter of complaint from an unsuccessful bidder sent on 17 March this year to, among others, the Government's legal representatives, the Government's probity auditor—
The PRESIDENT: Order! At this stage the member with the call should be speaking to the reason why this item of business is more important than other items on the Notice Paper and not to the substantive motion.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: I certainly am, Madam President. As I was saying, in particular the motion centres on a letter of complaint from an unsuccessful bidder sent on 17 March this year to, among others, the Government's legal representatives, the Government's probity auditor for the transaction, and a senior New South Wales Treasury official. It is urgent that we consider this motion today, because the Treasurer has, in response to questions put to him in this place, denied to this House that any complaint was received from an unsuccessful bidder in the NSW Lotteries sale.
As a result this motion is urgent because the receipt of this letter directly contradicts the statements of the Treasurer to this House, and it is in the interest of public accountability that his statements be tested. The continued confidence of this House in the Treasurer is indeed at stake. This motion is urgent because the deliberate misleading of this House is one of the greatest transgressions a member of this place can commit. As a Minister of the Crown, conduct of this nature goes to the heart of ministerial responsibility and accountability. This motion is urgent to protect the interests of good government in this State and I urge all members to support it coming on for debate forthwith.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Citizenship, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.10 a.m.]: The Government has no objection to this motion being brought on forthwith. In fact, the Government would have liked it debated yesterday.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox agreed to:
That Private Members' Business item No. 256 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
TREASURER, AND SPECIAL MINISTER OF STATE
Motion of Censure
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [11.10 a.m.]: I move:
1. That this House notes:
(a) the statement of the Treasurer to this House, on 21 April 2010, that, "No complaint has been made by any of the unsuccessful bidders about the Lotteries sale process", and
22630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
(b) that a letter by an unsuccessful bidder was sent to Treasury, and all key advisers in the lotteries transaction, on 17 arch 2010 titled, "Concerns concerning offer based on retention of unclaimed prizes".
2. That this House notes that:
(a) the Treasurer has made no statements on how this complaint was addressed and how he personally satisfied himself that the lotteries sale process was both "fair and transparent", and
(b) the Treasurer has made no statements on why unclaimed prize money was sold without competition and for proceeds well below market estimates.
3. That this House:
(a) notes with great concern the Government's apparent belief that it is not accountable to the people of New South Wales through this House of Parliament, and
(b) affirms the need to protect the high standing of this House of Parliament and to ensure that it may discharge its duties and responsibilities with the confidence of the community which elects its members.
4. That, for the above reasons, this House censures the Honourable Eric Roozendaal MLC, Treasurer, and Special Minister of State, for misleading the Parliament and the people of New South Wales in response to serious concerns regarding the sale of NSW Lotteries, and calls on him to clarify his actions in this regard.
I say at the outset that the deliberate misleading of this House is one of the gravest transgressions a member of this place can commit. As a Minister of the Crown, conduct of this nature goes to the heart of ministerial responsibility and accountability. It is important in the context of this censure motion to reflect on the precise nature of the Treasurer's responsibility under the Westminster convention of parliamentary responsibility.
I refer members to the authoritative fifth edition of the House of Representatives Practice that directly quotes from the 1976 report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration:
It is through ministers that the whole of the administration—departments, statutory bodies and agencies of one kind and another—is responsible to the Parliament and thus, ultimately, to the people … The evidence tends to suggest rather that while ministers continue to be held accountable to Parliament in the sense of being obliged to answer to it when the Parliament so demands, and to indicate corrective action if that is called for, they themselves are not held culpable—and in consequence bound to resign or suffer dismissal—unless the action which stands condemned was theirs, or taken on their direction, or was action with which they ought obviously to have been concerned.
The House of Representatives Practice goes on:
As the Royal Commission and other authorities have noted, there are still circumstances in which a Minister is expected to accept personal responsibility and to resign (or be dismissed).
I continue to quote from that text:
In cases where the minister has misled Parliament … factors which may often excuse the minister from blame for administrative blunders do not operate to the same degree: the minister's personal responsibility may be more easily isolated … The responsibility of ministers individually to parliament is not mere fiction. An individual can be disciplined whereas the whole cannot ... When responsibility for a serious matter can be clearly attached to a particular Minister personally, it is of fundamental importance to the effective operation of responsible government that he or she adheres to the convention of individual responsibility.
This is the accepted touchstone against which the Treasurer's conduct in this matter must be judged. If it can be shown that the Treasurer deliberately misled the House, then it follows that the Treasurer is in breach of this long-established convention of ministerial responsibility and should be disciplined by this House.
Let us now consider the facts. Members will recall the fanfare surrounding the announcement of the Lotteries sale on 2 March this year. In his media release at the time, the Treasurer trumpeted a headline figure of $1.01 billion but then went on to say that the figure to be paid by the Tatts group as consideration for the 40-year exclusive licence to conduct public lotteries in New South Wales was really only $850 million. Nowhere in the Treasurer's media release, or accompanying fact sheet, is there any mention of the fact that this sale included rights to moneys in the unclaimed prizes pool, money that the sale legislation itself had mandated to be paid to the New South Wales Consolidated Fund pursuant to section 27A of the Public Lotteries Act.
Subsequently, as members will recall, this fact, this breach of the Government's own sale legislation, became known and one of the unsuccessful bidders sent a letter, through its lawyers, dated 17 March 2010 to the Government's legal advisers Gilbert and Tobin, lawyers, with copies to, among others, RSM Bird Cameron, the Government's probity auditor, and to Mr Richard Timbs, Deputy Secretary, Commercial Management, New 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22631
South Wales Treasury. The letter was headed "Concerns concerning offer based on retention of unclaimed prizes" and specifically stated that the unsuccessful bidder and its advisers were told that the State would sweep the unclaimed prizes on a monthly basis, and that it would not be possible to utilise unclaimed prizes for the licensee's purposes. The letter went on to state that based on information available the unsuccessful bidder may not have been given the opportunity to treat with the State on the same basis as Tatts.
Further clarification of what had happened was sought from the Government's advisers at the time, but none has been forthcoming. Since that time it has been revealed that an independent analyst from Deutsche Bank has valued the unclaimed prizes pool at $200 million, yet it appears that the Government has sold this in contravention of its own sales legislation to the successful bidder for only $150 million. The following advice has also been received from a leading Sydney law firm, which reviewed the legislation when the claims in respect of the unclaimed prize pool was first made:
The Minister cannot override a mandatory requirement in the Act to pay unclaimed prizes into the Consolidated Fund … As a matter of law, the regulations and licence are subordinate to the Act and cannot override a provision of the Act.
Legal advice has also been received from another leading Sydney law firm, which states that the only way that Tatts could keep and use the unclaimed moneys would be by a further amendment to the Lotteries Act, by the Minister failing to direct unclaimed prizes into the Consolidated Fund, by the Minister approving the disposal under regulation 5, or by relevant condition within the licence that overrides section 27A. We have no evidence of any of these matters. These concerns have also been raised by direct questions to the Treasurer in this place over the past month. Indeed, I refer the Treasurer to a question that was asked of him on 21 April 2010 by me. I asked the question:
… When he stated at his press conference that proceeds from the sale of NSW Lotteries were beyond market expectations, was he aware that that was because unclaimed prizes were sold without competition despite it being contrary to his own legislation? Will he explain to the House how he decided that the $150 million paid for the lotteries unclaimed prize revenue was sufficient when a prominent market analyst suggested it was worth $200 million?
The Treasurer's comments in reply were quite revealing. The Treasurer confirmed that no complaint had been made by any of the unsuccessful bidders about the Lotteries sale process. He said:
Of course, if we took heed of the Opposition's muckraking, its deliberate lies and its deliberate attempts to talk down this transaction, it could be said that something untoward had happened and, clearly, that has not occurred. After the transaction not one of the successful bidders put in a complaint through the processes that are available to them and not one of them complained to the probity officers about the transaction.
Again, the next day, 22 April 2010, I put to the Treasurer:
Can the Treasurer confirm to the House whether bidders were advised to comply with the lotteries sales legislation in the bid instruction letter issued by the New South Wales Government project team? Were bidders advised that the New South Wales Government project team would consider only conforming bids? Can the Treasurer also confirm to the House whether all bidders were advised of the Government's decision to include the unclaimed prizes pool in the final transaction documentation?
The Treasurer's glib response was:
I refer to my previous answers in relation to the sale of NSW Lotteries.
Furthermore, on 22 April my colleague the Hon. Greg Pearce asked the question directly of the Treasurer:
Can the Treasurer explain to the House how he reached the conclusion that the $150 million paid for the lotteries unclaimed prize revenue represented fair market value? In particular, what discount rate was used in making that assessment?
Again the Treasurer ducked and weaved and gave a part answer, saying to the House:
The licence to conduct NSW Lotteries is highly sought after and it is understandable that unsuccessful bidders would be disappointed.
The Treasurer went on to say:
I understand that. However, being disappointed and raising media speculation through the former merchant banker in the Opposition is different from making a complaint.
22632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
Again, there was no mention of the letter dated 17 March 2010, which had been provided to senior Treasury officials, the probity auditor and all advisers for the Government in relation to the sale. The matter was raised again this week with the Treasurer to elicit further responses. On 11 May I asked the Treasurer:
Does the Treasurer recall his answer to my question on 21 April 2010 concerning the sale of NSW Lotteries, when he stated to the House:
No complaint had been made by any of the unsuccessful bidders about the Lotteries sale process.
Again the Treasurer flippantly responded. He said that whilst he appreciated the question, he was twittering that morning and had noticed that the shadow Treasurer, who he said was a regular twitterer, was also twittering. He went on to talk about twittering, rather than answering the direct and serious question that was put to him. He reflected on the shadow Treasurer's work ethic and other matters that were completely unrelated to the question about the 17 March letter sent to the Treasurer. Again, he gave no answer and he showed no willingness to respond to a direct question in this House in question time. It was a complete flouting of his ministerial responsibilities in that regard. On 11 May this week my colleague the Hon. Greg Pearce directed a question to the Treasurer in relation to the Opposition's call for papers on the NSW Lotteries and to provide an assurance to the House that no-one in the advisory team, his staff or Treasury staff had been involved in the shredding of documents associated with the Lotteries transaction. Again the Treasurer gave another glib answer:
I am advised that all appropriate processes were put in place to meet that call for papers.
I remind the Treasurer that the call for papers has not been brought on. We were seeking an assurance that there would be no shredding of papers and materials held by the Treasury and related agencies. It is important that I put on the record the number of times the Treasurer has been directly asked in question time by Opposition members questions about the sale of NSW Lotteries. It goes to the heart of his responsibility and his refusal to provide answers directly to the questions. I also note that in the media the Treasurer as late as last night finally acknowledged that the letter of 17 March from the unsuccessful bidder does exist but that the letter was not an official complaint because it did not come through official channels. This seems to be the basis of his defence to the censure motion today: An official complaint did not come through official channels; therefore, it is not a complaint worthy of consideration by the Government.
The Treasurer has been asked for clarification of these matters for the past month in this place. He has refused to answer in any detail. Indeed, he has treated the whole matter with contempt. Last night he lamely said that the complaint received does not matter because it did not come through official channels. Treasurer, that simply is not good enough. The Treasurer cannot hide behind semantics in this matter. A complaint is a complaint, and that is the end of the matter. The matter has been brought to his attention five separate times in this House. Yet he has refused on every single occasion to acknowledge even the existence of the letter of 17 March and he has ruled out any complaint having been made in relation to this process. By his own statements last night, which confirmed the existence of the letter, to the media, not to this House—he would not give that indulgence to this place—he has acknowledged that a complaint in relation to the process has been made.
The Treasurer has consistently refused to deal with this matter seriously from the very start. Instead he has hidden behind the probity auditor's report. He failed to make an independent assessment of a complaint, even when it was put directly to him on no less than five occasions in this House. That may suffice in the murky world of Sussex Street, but it falls well short of the standards he is expected to uphold in this place. After all, it was the Treasurer who in the first instance stated to this House that no complaint had been made by any unsuccessful bidders about the Lotteries sale process. The Treasurer now freely acknowledges the existence of this letter of complaint. He cannot have it both ways.
As I outlined earlier, the accepted authority and parliamentary conventions make it abundantly clear that the Treasurer's responsibility as a Minister of the Crown is not mere fiction, as the Treasurer's conduct would have us believe. The letter of complaint of 17 March is the clear, unequivocal smoking gun that directly contradicts the Treasurer's statement to this House that no complaints had been received from unsuccessful bidders in the Lotteries sale. That evidence is incontrovertible. There is no credible argument to the contrary. This is a clear-cut, black-and-white case of a Minister of the Crown misleading Parliament. It is compounded by the fact that yesterday we again gave the Treasurer the opportunity to withdraw his misleading statements to the House, but he again refused. Not only did he refuse, he did so contemptuously, referring in an unparliamentary way to the shadow Treasurer and, indeed, twittering. I note he is now twittering on his phone in the Chamber. 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22633
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: No, I am not. I am reading an email.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: There is ample precedent in this House for the disciplining of errant Ministers. In particular, I refer to the successful censure of the former Minister for Transport Services, the Hon. Michael Costa, on 24 February 2004 and the unsuccessful censure of the Hon. Eddie Obeid also in 2004. This House has disciplined members in the past. It is important to continue to uphold the dignity of this place by acting to discipline this Treasurer in relation to the circumstances before us today. This censure motion is more than about holding the Treasurer accountable as a Minister of the Crown. It goes to the heart of our Westminster system and to the dignity of this House. Members and the wider public must have confidence that Ministers of the Crown will be honest in answering questions in this place and when they are not they will be held accountable. This recognises the undeniable fact that ministerial responsibility and accountability is at the core of the Westminster system of government. Accordingly, I call on members of this House to support the censure motion and send a clear message to the Treasurer that his conduct in misleading the House is unacceptable for a Minister of the Crown and will not be tolerated by this House.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Treasurer, and Special Minister of State) [11.28 p.m.]: It is a shame that the House could not have debated this motion yesterday. Apparently it was not urgent enough for the Opposition to raise it yesterday. As I made clear to the Opposition yesterday, I am more than happy to debate this issue and bring it on. I appreciate that the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox probably had his speech written by the shadow Treasurer, because it has all his questions in it. It has not been a good week for the shadow Treasurer.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: This motion is about you.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I will get there. As I said, it has been a bad week for the shadow Treasurer.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox was heard in relative silence, and I expect the Treasurer to be given the same courtesy. If members repeatedly interject during this important debate, I will call them to order. Any member placed on three calls to order will be asked to leave the Chamber. The Treasurer may continue.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I can understand that the shadow Treasurer has had a bad week.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: My point of order is to do with personal vilification. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox was heard in silence because he did not indulge in personal vilification, which the Treasurer is doing now.
The PRESIDENT: Order! A point of order cannot be taken relating to personal vilification. The Hon. Duncan Gay should either reacquaint himself with the standing orders or refrain from taking points of order. There is no point of order.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: This week the shadow Treasurer was overruled by the Leader of the Opposition on the costing of election promises. The Leader of the Opposition has now agreed to our bill to ensure that the costing of election promises is done correctly. That is a first strike against the shadow Treasurer. Last night he had an intense debate with David Oldfield, that excellent commentator—
Dr John Kaye: Point of order: It goes to the issue of relevancy. While the matters that the Treasurer raises are quite interesting, and I would like to hear them at some other time, the allegations that have been raised here are substantive and they ought to be addressed. The Minister should be relevant.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister is being generally relevant. If members care to listen, the Minister is responding to issues that were raised by the mover of the motion.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The relevancy goes to the motive of the attacks on the Lotteries transaction. Yesterday the shadow Treasurer attacked the new ad valorem charge that has been announced. Yet, last night on radio he was exposed by David Oldfield as admitting that he would not remove it, as he sat there on the barbed wire fence trying to have two cents each way. The relevancy goes to the basic motive of what the attack has been on the Lotteries transaction from day one. From day one the Opposition has been one out from the reality of the Lotteries transaction. On 17 June 2009 the shadow Treasurer said, "This is the wrong time to 22634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
sell Lotteries. It is a fire sale. If we had done it we would have got $600 million for it. They are only going to get $500 million." That is the essence of the Opposition's case. They got it wrong from day one and they have been embarrassed.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You're in denial, Eric.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: You want to talk about obligations to the State? How bad is it for the shadow Treasurer to start throwing out prices and values of assets we are trying to sell into the market and to talk down the value of the assets? The point is that the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have a history here. They were wrong on the sale of Lotteries and they were wrong on what we sold it for. I love it when the Opposition quotes market analysts: "We have got a market analyst that says this is worth this. We have got a market analyst that says you did this." The market analysts were telling us that $400 million was the best value for Lotteries—maybe $500 million would be the best value. What did we get for Lotteries? We got over $1 billion in total proceeds. The transaction that was delivered was a $1 billion reward for the families of New South Wales. This was a successful transaction for New South Wales.
The Hon. Don Harwin: You are still misleading. You just misled the Parliament, claiming it was over $1 billion. You know that.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: That's right, and you know it's right—over $1 billion.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: How much have they paid—$850 million?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I will get to that. The transaction for NSW Lotteries returned more than $1 billion to the taxpayers of this State to secure front-line infrastructure, to pay down State debt and to strengthen this State's balance sheet. I am advised that all proper probity processes were followed at all times during the transaction. The probity adviser to this transaction, RSM Bird Cameron, provided an unqualified opinion on this transaction. The probity adviser said:
It was fair. It provided value for money. It was transparent. It was confidential and it was secure.
I will quote directly from the RSM Bird Cameron probity report, which has been on the Treasury website for two months for everyone to read. It states:
We are satisfied as to the Probity associated with fairness [page 4]. We are satisfied as to the Probity associated with the accountability of Project team members, transparency and consistency of processes [page 5]. We are satisfied as to the Probity associated with the management of Value for Money [page 6].
The reason why we had a probity adviser in this transaction from the very first step to the very last step was precisely to protect the transaction from the smear and muckraking, which has been the hallmark of the Opposition. The reason why we had independent professional probity officers was to protect the integrity of the transaction, because the Government did it at arms-length. The Opposition fails to understand that we had a team of Treasury, Gaming and Racing, independent legal advisers, independent financial advisers and probity advisers working together to ensure this transaction was done in a clear, honest and appropriate manner. This was not the sale of a packet of lollies at the supermarket; this was a $1 billion transaction, and the Probity Office has made it very clear that this transaction was conducted appropriately.
The winning bid in this process was the Tatts Group because they lodged the highest conforming bid. That is a fact. But they also lodged the highest alternative bid. That is also a fact. It is important to explain to the House exactly what the bid process was, because it is clear the shadow Treasurer does not understand probity. As a former merchant banker I can appreciate that that is probably quite understandable. I can understand how the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox has taken the word of the shadow Treasurer and has, unfortunately, been misled. Let me explain the basic terms under which the Lotteries bid operated.
First, every bidder was asked to put in what is called a conforming base bid, and all the bidders did so. They were also asked to put in an alternative bid. It is important that I explain this process to the House, because in relation to the alternative bid each of the bidders was told that they could put whatever they wanted into that alternative bid: they could go for leather; they could go wild. They were told, "Give us your best bid and we will consider it." There were no restrictions on the alternative bid.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Duncan Gay to order for the first time. 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22635
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: But, just as importantly, all bidders were told that they had one shot: they put in their conforming bid and their alternative bid. That was it; there would be no discussions after those two bids were lodged. All bidders were told that this would be their best and final offer stage with no further discussions. All bidders were told this process would be put in place to keep it fair for everyone. It was up to the bidders and their highly paid lawyers and advisers to think outside the square and put forward their best ideas, and each of the bidders did put forward their best idea.
In the alternative offers—the Opposition will learn something here—the bidders submitted a variety of different possible structures. For instance, one of the bidders sought to change the rate of taxation in their alternative bid. Another one of the bidders sought the retention of unclaimed prize money, and that was the final successful bidder. Another bidder sought to change other gaming-related licences not directly connected with Lotteries. That meant that each of the bidders put in a very different alternative bid. But it showed that each bidder understood the alternative bid was a process they all could use and it had no parameters.
Let me be clear on both counts. With the conforming base bid and the alternative bid, the Tatts bid was the biggest bid and the most superior bid for the taxpayers of New South Wales. On either account it was the best bid. It had the biggest price of $850 million, and that was larger than any other bidder's. The bidder had a sound business plan and a financial and contractual structure that minimised the risk to government. Acceptance was recommended by the group consisting of Gaming and Racing, Treasury, financial advisers and legal advisers—and, of course, the transaction was overseen by the probity advisers at all times.
As I said, this was a $1 billion transaction, and it is not surprising when you are dealing with a $1 billion transaction and competing for a very valuable and highly desirable asset that there are strict rules in place to deal with anybody who feels that the process has not been fair. I can understand that the shadow Treasurer does not understand probity. I can understand that the shadow Treasurer may not understand the basic rules in bidding. But there were strict complaint rules put in place precisely to protect the transaction from a bidder who was unsuccessful trying to sabotage the transaction. Why do you think we have strict processes for lodging a complaint? You just cannot write a complaint on a piece of paper, throw it in and say, "I have complained in the process". All complaints have to go to the probity advisers.
There was a process and it was clearly set out in the bid documents dated 1 November 2009. All bidders were advised of the process in writing at the start of the NSW Lotteries sale process. There is a formal process for complaints to be lodged through the probity officers. That is a standard practice designed to protect the integrity of the transaction. Whingeing through the media, sending emails and letters to different lawyers, or to Mike Baird or the media, does not constitute a formal complaint under this process.
The latest advice, as of this morning, is that the probity advisers have received no direct complaints through the formal procedures established as part of the transaction process. I will table a letter from the probity advisers confirming that as of yesterday no complaints have been lodged through the formal process. That is a fact. We are not talking about a wayward email. Sending someone a copy of a letter between lawyers does not constitute a formal complaint. An email from Mike Baird to the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox does not constitute a complaint under the rules.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Melinda Pavey will come to order.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: All bidders and advisers knew that because of the letter dated 1 November 2009 setting out the complaints process. I also have a copy of an email between a journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald and lawyers Baker and McKenzie dated 23 April 2010. I will table that document. It will no doubt appear in any upcoming call for papers regarding the NSW Lotteries transaction. The email is from journalist Andrew Clennell to partner Michael Kunstler of Baker and McKenzie. Andrew Clennell wrote:
Hi Michael,
Andrew Clennell from the Sydney Morning Herald here.
Can you confirm that Baker McKenzie regarded the letter sent to Gilbert and Tobin concerning NSW Lotteries on March 17 as a formal complaint?
Regards,
Andrew Clennell
22636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
That is a question from a Sydney Morning Herald journalist to lawyers about the letter that the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox and the shadow Treasurer claim is a smoking gun. Michael Kunstler replied:
We cannot comment on correspondence between our clients and government without our client's instructions except that I can confirm that no formal complaint was made including pursuant to the letter referred to below.
I will table that email. Even the author of the letter says it is not a complaint. The lawyers say it was not a complaint and it was not lodged through the complaints process, but the genius shadow Treasurer and his post boy, the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, think they know better than the lawyers, the probity officers, Treasury, the financial advisers and the legal advisers. That goes to the heart of this Opposition: It will say or do anything to score a cheap political point. Members opposite cannot live with the fact that this was a successful sale for the people of New South Wales that raised $1 billion. It was a successful sale. Yet again today members opposite have been exposed. I can understand that a former merchant banker thinks probity is something to be dismissed.
The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: These sorts of reflections on a member of another place are clearly unparliamentary and contrary to the standing orders. I have not taken a point of order earlier in this debate, but these reflections have been made deliberately time and again. Vilification in contravention of the standing orders is just not appropriate.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Treasurer that if he wants to make reflections on other members, he should do so by way of substantive motion.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: We have the Mark Latham of the Liberal Party.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: I personally take offence that one of my colleagues—
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Duncan Gay will be placed on a second call to order if he does not resume his seat immediately.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: We have an Opposition that will say or do anything to damage the economy of this State and the NSW Lotteries transaction. I have it in black and white: Even the authors of the letter that members opposite claim is the smoking gun admit that it is not a formal complaint. No formal complaint was lodged under the rules of the transaction with the probity advisers. This is a great deal for the people of New South Wales. The advisers, the public servants and the legal team did a great job.
This is an important point. The Opposition has a long history of saying or doing anything to score a cheap political point. Members opposite were exposed on the ad valorem charge last night on David Oldfield's show as yet again being two-faced and sitting on a barbed wire fence. They have also been exposed with regard to election promise costings—Mike Baird says he will not support them and Barry O'Farrell says he will. Members of the Opposition make it up as they go along and will say anything for a quick, cheap media shot.
This is the end of the debate on the NSW Lotteries sale. The proof is here from the probity advisers, the lawyers and everyone else in the team. This is a good result for the people of New South Wales. I have not misled this place. I will confess that I do hold members opposite in contempt. That is the only thing that the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox said that was true. Why would I not have contempt for them given that they have talked down the transaction, the advisers, the lawyers and the probity officers? They have tried to reframe one email to make it say something it did not.
Even Andrew Clennell has dropped the story because he knows the truth. He has more morals and integrity than the Opposition. That is why I am contemptuous of members opposite. They are not fit to govern or to preach to me about ministerial responsibility. I will continue to serve the people of this State and to steer New South Wales past the global financial crisis to recovery. When the budget is delivered members opposite will see evidence of the hard work this Government has done for the people of New South Wales. Members opposite can continue to talk down this transaction and the economy, but the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox has learned a lesson today: Do not trust Michael Baird's advice, because it is wrong. I seek leave to table the documents to which I have referred.
Leave granted.
Documents tabled. 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22637
Dr JOHN KAYE [11.47 a.m.]: I support this censure motion against the Treasurer.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Oh, what a surprise!
Dr JOHN KAYE: It is not a surprise.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I was being facetious.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Perhaps, but the reality remains that the evidence presented is very damning for the Treasurer. It is clear that he failed to disclose that a letter of complaint—not necessarily a formal letter of complaint—had been sent to Treasury and that that letter very clearly stated that there were concerns about the transactions surrounding the unclaimed prize money. It is clear that the Treasurer has misled Parliament and that he is in breach of the convention that he should be open and candid, tell the truth and answer questions fully and truthfully. This motion raises three substantial matters of concern that must be resolved, and until they are resolved there will be a stench hanging over the sale of the NSW Lotteries. That issue has not been resolved.
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Shame on you!
Dr JOHN KAYE: The shame in this place is the Treasurer's because he has failed to be honest about a transaction that could cost this State $150 million.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting.
Dr JOHN KAYE: This State has lost $150 million and the Treasurer is refusing to account for it. Three substantial matters should be addressed. The first is the lack of fairness to the other bidders. They were not told that their non-conforming bids could break the law. I would imagine that the first thing a bidder would do when submitting a conforming bid would be to examine the legislation and ascertain the will of Parliament. Parliament said very clearly in section 27A of a bill that the Greens proudly opposed—although the rest of the Chamber supported—that the prize money was not on the table; that is, the prize money had to go back into general revenue.
I notice that the Treasurer has left the Chamber. Maybe that is a measure of how little he is prepared to defend himself against what are substantial allegations. The other bidders presumed: There is the prize money; section 27A says clearly that prize money is not on the table for the non-conforming bids, so let us look at things that are within the law but push policy in different directions. That in itself says a lot about why the Greens oppose privatisation. Bidders were invited to look for ways they could produce new products and obtain new revenue at the expense of gamblers, especially at the expense of problem gamblers.
The second issue was the damage to the reputation of the State of New South Wales. The Treasurer talks about a billion dollars of transactions. The Treasurer is embarking on billions of dollars of other transactions that go beyond the sale of lotteries, in particular, the ill-fated proposed sale of electricity retailers and the so-called gentraders. How will bidders view the words of the Treasurer? How will bidders view the legislation in place under the State Owned Corporations Act? How will bidders view the reputation of the State when they come to lodge their bids?
Is it not true that other bidders, other than Tatts, feel they were badly cheated? How can bidders who are looking to purchase part of the electricity industry—and I hope the process falls over, and the party I represent and I are committed to bring that process down by any lawful means we can—feel in any way confident that what they are being told, what is written into law, is reality? How will they feel confident that they are not going to be shafted by some internal deal that has been done with another bidder? How can they feel any degree of confidence in the reputation of New South Wales as a place, as the Treasurer puts it, to do business?
The third issue the Treasurer needs to redress is this issue of $150 million. If what was on the table was allowed to go outside of section 27A of the legislation, if bidders were allowed to say we will rewrite the law and the will of Parliament and go for a different kind of transaction, what would have happened if other bidders were aware that 27A was on the table? There would have been competitive tension around the bidding for that. Some observers are saying that the reinvestment of the unclaimed prize money could be worth between 22638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
$200 million and $300 million. We also know that the Tatts Group's conforming bid was $700 million; its non-conforming bid, which included the unclaimed prize money, was $850 million. That is to say, by the violation of section 27A of the Act the people of New South Wales receive about $150 million.
Some observers are saying that prize money could add value to the business by up to $300 million. That is $150 million that has gone missing—$150 million that the Treasurer was not prepared to admit there were concerns about. The Treasurer was not prepared to be honest with the House and say there are serious issues about $150 million that he might have blown by not telling all the bidders that their non-conforming bids could address the unclaimed prize money.
The Treasurer says this is all okay because the bids were conforming. This is all about non-conforming bids and the non-conforming bidders were told to "go for it". What does go for it mean? Go for it seems to mean—and I do not think any other bidder interpreted it this way—when you write your non-conforming bid feel free to rewrite the laws of New South Wales: whatever you want is on the table and we will see what we can do. That is no way to sell off State assets. It is an exceptionally poor way to sell off State assets.
The Minister's defence is: We did not receive a formal complaint. I counted the word "formal" six times. I may have lost count of the word formal. This is not about formal complaints. The motion does not refer to formal complaints. The motion clearly refers to complaints. The response the Treasurer gave to the House was that there were no complaints. He did not say there were no formal complaints. The Treasurer is using semantics. He is using equivocation. He is using formalistic language to escape from the fact that he misled the House. He said there were no complaints; there was a complaint—it is an open and shut case. His words to the House were that no complaint has been made, yet his defence was about formal complaints—a totally different issue. Yes, we accept no complaints have been lodged through the formal process of complaints. In his answer to the question he denied there were any complaints. He was trying to bury the $150 million that he could well have squandered of public funds. That is $150 million that went out the door, that sits in the pocket of the Tatts Group and does not sit in New South Wales Treasury, does not sit in infrastructure—as the Government will spend this—or in the goods that will be offered in the lead-up to the next election.
The Treasurer told the House when this went through that it was an exceptional set of proceeds. The Minister basked in the glory of the money markets when he was told this was a wonderful outcome. Who can forget that day in March when Eric Roozendaal was walking around among the media saying what a wonderful job he had done for the people of New South Wales, what a great price he had got for the people of New South Wales. He did not get a great price. It was hubris, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition points out. What he was not saying then and what he refused to admit, what he was not open with this Chamber about, was that the unclaimed prize money and freedom from section 27A had been given to one bidder and one bidder only and that the other bidders entered into the process without knowing that they could violate section 27A. They did not know that the laws of the State were up for them not to conform to in their non-conforming bids.
I want to make an observation about the Opposition in all of this. The Opposition voted for the legislation. The Opposition was warned that it was tricky and dangerous legislation but it went ahead with that legislation. I support its motion and I welcome the fact that it has brought it before this Chamber. However, members opposite should reflect on the fact that this is what happens when they privatise State assets. This is what happens when they seek to get the best media story rather than the best long-term deal for the people of New South Wales. If all they are interested in is having the Treasurer basking in the glow of the praise of financial journalists who did not know that a swiftie had been pulled, sure, go ahead and flog off assets, do sweetheart deals with individual bidders. But if what they really want is long-term value for the people of New South Wales we would never have privatised lotteries, we would never contemplate privatising the electricity industry or parts thereof, we would not be privatising the waste services network and we would not look at privatising Pillar and private school lands.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Is there anything you would privatise?
Dr JOHN KAYE: The Attorney General has asked a challenging question. I must say, I was thinking of the Attorney General himself when he asked that question. We would sell off unused school land where it would be replaced by land of equal value, where you can prove there is a good long-term outcome for the people of New South Wales. There is absolutely no question that the sale of lotteries was a bad deal for the people of New South Wales. And it is now $150 million worse than it was before. The Treasurer stands accused of having failed to tell the people of New South Wales that he squandered possibly up to $150 million. He stands accused of having hidden that from the Parliament. He stands accused of having failed to be honest with the Parliament 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22639
when he was asked questions. The Treasurer failed to answer those accusations in his response. I congratulate the Treasurer's advisers on a very well crafted speech. They did an excellent job when they typed up in double space, 14-point speeches for the Treasurer, but they failed to answer the substantive questions. The Treasurer stands condemned. The Greens support the motion.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 12 noon for questions.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______
CESSNOCK PLANNING
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Planning. Why is he continuing to threaten Cessnock City Council with the removal of its planning powers when the major release areas of Bellbird North and Kitchener are not with the council for approval but, rather, awaiting approval from the Department of Planning and have been there for the past 12 months? Given that the department's correspondence to Cessnock council provided no evidence to substantiate the Minister's claims that the council's approval process is inefficient, will he outline and substantiate those claims to the Parliament and in doing so let Cessnock council know exactly what it is alleged not to have done?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I was not allowed to elucidate my answer yesterday, so I am really pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has now given me a chance to complete what I was saying. I have written to Cessnock council, giving it 21 days to explain to the Department of Planning why a planning panel should not be placed there. I have had personal discussions with the general manager of the council. I went to the council chamber, in the middle of his management review, I might add, and had discussions with him. I asked him then to come down here. We have had those discussions with him. The Department Planning has done exactly that with them. I was going to give some examples yesterday.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Please do that now.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: The kookaburra was one that I was going to talk about. In that case a local business community group at Kurri Kurri wanted to put up a 19-foot tall metal kookaburra to promote their area. They wanted to put it in a particular spot. They went to council and had discussions with four officers, who said: Don't put it there, put it in a particular reserve. They lodged a development application and 19 weeks—134 days later—the council refused the application even though the council picked the spot. That is the sort of complaint I get from that area.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: That is one. You were going to give a few examples.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I have 26 pages of examples, but before I tell somebody other than council, I firstly want to know whether those people who have written to me are prepared to have it made public. For example, one real estate agent in the area has given me nine examples of the council's tardy approach. For example, it took council three to four years to assess those. Council continually says that it cannot get development in the Hunter economic zone [HEZ] because of the planning. The Department of Planning told council that was not true. Council also refused to deal with any development applications until the local environmental plans were done or until the Hunter strategy was re-endorsed.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I have given examples that are public knowledge. Council has taken three or four years to deal with changes to three or four of its local environmental plans. The Department of Planning continually has discussions but why will council not respond directly to the Department of Planning rather than try to have the fight publicly?
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Because your letter is so vague.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: Council knows the examples, and they will certainly be given to them directly as well.
STANDING COMMITTEE OF ATTORNEYS-GENERAL
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. Would you please update the House on the recent meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General? 22640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: What a wonderful organisation this is because, from time to time, it meets and makes important decisions relating to the justice system nationally—and 7 May 2010 was no exception. I was joined by the Attorneys-General from across Australia, as well as the Minister of Justice of New Zealand. This was a valuable opportunity for jurisdictions to compare progress on key reform priorities and voice suggestions for further areas where nationally consistent legal arrangements would be desirable. A number of issues were raised at the meeting and I take this opportunity to update the House on significant issues.
The National Partnership Agreement for Legal Assistance Services was discussed. Under this arrangement, the Commonwealth provides funding for jurisdictions' legal aid activities. I am pleased that the budget that was announced earlier this week by the Federal Treasurer, which announced that it will invest an additional $154 million over four years in legal assistance programs to improve access to justice in the community. Of this, Legal Aid NSW will receive an additional $10 million in the 2010-2011 budget, taking total Commonwealth funding to $60.3 million.
This will allow Legal Aid NSW to make free, face-to-face legal advice available in more communities across the State. It will also enable Legal Aid NSW to expand services for families facing mortgage stress. It does not, however, make up completely for the shortfall occasioned during the period of the Howard Government, when there was a reduction of $77.9 million in real terms over the past 10 years. We look forward to further progress being made in redressing the imbalance that accumulated during that period. The standing committee considered opportunities and challenges for the law and justice sector offered by the developing complexity and sophistication of technology.
In the field of cyber crime, the meeting resolved to create the National Cyber Crime Working Group to better coordinate actions taken across and within jurisdictions. As part of this work to tackle computer-related crime, I am pleased that the budget announced $24 million for new analytical technologies to improve the ability of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre to target serious and organised crime, revenue evasion and financial fraud. Considering the benefits of technology, the meeting discussed ways to improve access to law and increase efficiency through computer and information technology systems.
The ongoing Council of Australian Governments project of national legal profession reform was also discussed. Accordingly, the meeting tasked the Council of Australian Governments Legal Profession Reform Taskforce to conduct public consultation on draft national laws regulating the profession, and report back to the standing committee on consultation outcomes. In the area of classification, the outcome of a public consultation process on the possible introduction of an R18+ rating for computer games was considered. Ministers requested further analysis of the arguments for and against the introduction of this rating and agreed that the question of whether this rating should be introduced in Australia would be determined at a future meeting.
The meeting made clear that New South Wales is leading the way in national legal reform in a number of key areas, such as the development of new uniform commercial arbitration legislation, which was introduced into this House yesterday, the development of a consistent system of proportionate liability for tort damages for economic loss or property damage, and the development of model laws regulating altruistic surrogacy. As I announced in this House yesterday, the Government led the development of the Model Commercial Arbitration Bill, which other jurisdictions agreed to adopt at last Friday's meeting. In keeping with our commitment to this keystone reform for modern commercial law, the Government aims to be the first to introduce these laws.
On the subject of proportionate liability reform, New South Wales is leading the crucial negotiations to resolve the key issue of whether parties may contract out of model proportionate liability laws. Accordingly, we are at the forefront of this fundamental change to the way private law operates. Furthermore, the State has led the project to draft model laws to regulate the field of surrogacy. Thanks to that leadership, we now have model laws that will deliver certainty and security to parents of children born through surrogacy arrangements.
MINING SUPER PROFITS TAX
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Treasurer. In relation to the mining tax, the Treasurer would recall that neither he nor the Premier has lobbied the Federal Government for changes to the resources tax. The Treasurer would also recall his comment yesterday that he thinks, "the principle is a good principle". Is the Treasurer aware that exploration drilling at Incitec Pivot's Phosphate Hill site has been halted in response to the Federal Government's decision to introduce a 40 per cent super profits tax on miners? Is the Treasurer also aware that the halting of exploration at the Queensland site will mean that the cost of fertiliser for 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22641
businesses and farmers here in New South Wales will remain impossibly high? Colin Barnett has said that Western Australia will lose around 25 per cent of future oil and gas investment because of the new mining tax. What modelling, if any, has Treasury done?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his question. We are certainly monitoring the implications of the resources super profits tax. Only this week I have had meetings with a number of coalminers and with the Minerals Council, and I am having ongoing discussions with the mining sector, with regard to the implications of the resources super profits tax. I have also asked Treasury to review potential implications of the tax, and I will continue to monitor the situation. We know that there is a consultation period that will take up the whole of this year, and we will carefully participate in that process.
ROCK FISHING
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Planning, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for Lands, on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries, who I understand is responsible for recreational fishing. Is the Minister aware of the hazards of rock fishing, and that 70 per cent of fatalities occur during rough, or very rough, sea conditions? Is the Minister aware of the recent drownings of a number of rock fishermen and women who were not using any appropriate protective gear or flotation devices? Is the Minister aware that many of the fishers who have needed to be rescued, and many of those who have drowned, are people not accustomed to the Australian surf and sea conditions? Will the Minister legislate that all fishers from rocks and the seashore must wear flotation devices, as must those who are fishing offshore on small boats?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes for his question. I undertake to pass on the question in full to the relevant Minister. However, I would like to make some comments about the issue he has referred to. During the brief period that I was Minister for Primary Industries last year—I think it was 19 days and four hours—I inspected some of the places the honourable member has referred to. Indeed, at the time the Government gave about half a million dollars to a lifesaving group that was putting lifebuoys along popular fishing areas—which it had been doing for some years. So we expanded the program. Members of the lifesaving group showed us some rock fishermen who were fishing off the rocks at the time, and we could see how easy it would be to be swept away.
Rock fishing is a very dangerous practice. Unfortunately, many of the people who engage in rock fishing are from non-English speaking backgrounds. For this reason the lifesaving group has tried to make sure that the messages displayed in those areas cover other languages. I cannot remember the statistic exactly, but a significantly higher percentage of those who have drowned while rock fishing were from non-English speaking backgrounds. The lifesaving group also conducts workshops that target these groups in particular; I think 20 workshops are to be conducted this year. With regard to the issue of vests that the honourable member raised specifically, I will pass on the question to the relevant Minister and get him a speedy answer.
[Business interrupted.]
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge the presence in the visitors gallery and the President's Gallery of members of the Procedure and Privileges Committee of the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia: the Chairman, who is also the Speaker, the Hon. Grant Woodhams; the Hon. Fran Logan, MLA; Mr Michael Sutherland, MLA; and Mr Frank Alban, MLA, who are accompanied by the Clerk, Mr Peter McHugh, and Dr Julia Lawrinson. Welcome to the Parliament.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
[Business resumed.]
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: My question is addressed to the Minister for Volunteering. Will the Minister update the House on what the Government is doing to support National Volunteer Week in New South Wales? 22642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: As honourable members would be aware, this is National Volunteer Week, an annual event aimed at acknowledging the invaluable contribution of volunteers. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that there are more than 1.7 million formal volunteers in New South Wales who give more than 241 million hours of voluntary work to our community. And we estimate that there are another one million people who volunteer in informal ways.
The roles that volunteers undertake are as diverse as the volunteers themselves. There are some roles that probably come to mind more immediately, like our greatly respected emergency services volunteers in the Rural Fire Service and the State Emergency Service, and our dedicated Meals on Wheels volunteers. But there are also roles that might not always come to mind immediately, such as those who provide advice and expertise on the thousands of local sporting boards and other clubs that keep so many of our sporting and leisure activities running for children and adults. Then there are those in our culturally and linguistically diverse communities who provide vital assistance to new arrivals to help them with life in a new country, helping them to connect to essential support, services and networks. And then there are our indigenous volunteers, who provide invaluable support to "uncles" and "aunties" in their communities.
Organisations including the State Emergency Service and the Rural Fire Service are actively reaching out to culturally and linguistically diverse and Aboriginal communities. A partnership between the State Emergency Service and the Department of Education and Training to increase the number of Aboriginal State Emergency Service volunteers has enabled the service to extend a program piloted in Moree in 2007 to a range of other communities over the last three years.
During National Volunteer Week I have been lucky enough to host and attend a number of events that have allowed me to meet volunteers and volunteer managers from all over New South Wales. At an event this morning I launched a project co-funded by the New South Wales Government through the Community Relations Commission which will enable the Centre for Volunteering to develop a resource to assist community organisations to better engage highly skilled volunteers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. The project also offers these volunteers important opportunities to further develop skills and experience, and build vital networks, to assist them with the transition to full-time employment.
Tomorrow I will have the privilege of presenting certificates to graduates, many of them volunteers, who have completed a Department of Education and Training-funded Recognition of Prior Learning program. The School of Volunteer Management at the Centre for Volunteering developed and piloted the initiative, which has had 50 graduates. In addition, at the start of this important week I addressed a Volunteering Awareness Forum, which was hosted by the Centre for Volunteering. The forum was aimed at attracting new volunteers and gave me the opportunity to launch the centre's 2010 Volunteer of the Year Awards. In doing so, I announced the New South Wales Government's financial support for the awards, which are the only statewide awards open to all volunteers in all areas of volunteering in New South Wales.
In launching the awards I officially opened nominations, which will close at the end of September. Categories include Young Volunteer of the Year, Senior Volunteer and Volunteer Team of the Year. More information can be found at the website of the Centre for Volunteering, the address for which is www.volunteering.com.au. I call on members to help get the word out about these awards and to encourage nominations. There are many other events being held around the State this week and I cannot mention them all. On behalf of all members, I congratulate all volunteers and organisations that are marking this week.
MINING SUPER PROFITS TAX
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Treasurer a question without notice. Is it a fact that the mining industry had, prior to the Federal budget, proposed a new Federal tax on mining in place of State mining royalties? What impact will the new proposed 40 per cent mining super profits tax have on the New South Wales budget, if it becomes law, given that State tax mining royalties are supposed to be replaced by this new Federal tax? What action will the Treasurer take, or is he taking, to ensure that the income currently raised through State tax mining royalties will continue to be used for the benefit of the people of New South Wales?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for his question and interest in this matter. I take this opportunity to compliment him on his shirt and tie, which is an impressive combination. In relation to the super profit resources tax, the advice I have received is that State royalties will be preserved and will be rebated back to mining companies, so there is no impact on State royalties with the introduction of a super profit resources tax. 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22643
The PRESIDENT: Order! I congratulate Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile on being the only member of the House brave enough to participate in Loud Shirt Day. I remind all members that if they wish to make a donation they can do so at the attendant's desk.
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I direct my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Energy, and Minister for Public Sector Reform. What role will the Minister take in implementing the agreement of the ministerial council dealing with harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws? Will the Minister direct the prompt enactment of fair harmonised occupational health and safety laws in New South Wales or will the Minister be sidelined in the way that the Hon. John Hatzistergos was sidelined by Joe Tripodi last year?
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for his question, and I note that it is the first question that he has asked me since I have been Minister for Industrial Relations.
The Hon. Greg Pearce: I have been saving it.
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: And I think I know why: Tomorrow he and I are both going to the Industrial Relations Society conference in Kiama and I do not think he wanted me to start my speech by saying that the whole time I have been Minister he has never asked me a single question. So he has gazumped me and I will now have to go and rewrite my speech. He has gazumped me already. He should have asked me what the role of the Minister for Industrial Relations is, because obviously he does not know. The problem is he does not know what he should be doing as shadow Minister when it comes to industrial relations, so he has to keep asking. The problem is that when he gets told what the role of the Minister for Industrial relations is, he does not listen, or he wants to expand his responsibility somehow to what he wants to be responsible for. If that is the case, he should talk to Barry—go and talk to Barry.
This is a man who is not sure what his role is as shadow Minister. I do not know whether he has asked me this question so he can get some tips—I think he wants some tips for his speech tomorrow. He should come to my office at the end of question time and I will help him out and explain to him what is involved in industrial relations. Or he asks a question and he already knows the answer. The Attorney General answered it when he was Minister for Industrial Relations. He tells me that he is responsible for occupational health and safety because he is shadow Minister for Finance, yet he asks that question. In fact, he is admitting the real reason he wants his question answered is so that he knows what to say tomorrow. I suggest if he wants help with his speech then he should come to my office later.
CROWN RESERVE TRUSTS COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS
The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: I address my question to the Minister for Lands. Will the Minister outline how the Keneally Government honours the thousands of volunteer trust board members managing reserves on Crown lands?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: That is an important question to be asked in National Volunteer Week, as was pointed out earlier by the Minister for Volunteering. I take this opportunity to recognise the outstanding achievements of our many volunteers who manage Crown reserve trusts right across New South Wales, and to recognise the community spirit, and the commitment of the trust board appointees, as they manage Crown reserves for the benefit of all the people of New South Wales. There are around 6,000 volunteers on community reserves trust boards, managing over 700 Crown reserves across New South Wales. The leadership, expertise, skills and vision of volunteers are responsible for the range of good works required to build civic pride and keep communities together. It is an appropriate time to recognise these selfless volunteers. These volunteers are the only ones that look after, particularly in isolated rural areas, community halls and other reserves. This week is National Volunteer Week—celebrated from 10 to 16 May—a week in which we can celebrate our volunteers across the nation. As the Minister for Lands, I value and appreciate these volunteer reserve trust board members.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Hear! Hear!
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I acknowledge the support from the Opposition. The volunteers support rural and regional communities throughout the system of Crown reserve trusts. It is a system of public land management that has worked successfully for over 150 years. The reserve trust volunteers manage local 22644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
community halls, youth clubs, sporting fields, state parks, local parks, playgrounds, showgrounds, tennis courts, preschools, racecourses, cemeteries and environmental protection reserves. Some are local tourist attractions such as heritage buildings, parks and showgrounds, with a capacity to stimulate local economies and to protect jobs.
The commitment of this Government to support reserve trust volunteers can be measured in a number of ways. We sponsor the New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory Regional Achievement and Community Awards. One of those rewards is for Crown reserve trusts, recognising the important work that trust members do in the community. That award is part of a broader campaign by the Government to acknowledge and encourage reserve trust service. The campaign's tagline sums it up nicely: "It only takes a small effort to build a community".
In 2008 the Ashby Community Centre and Recreation Reserve, near Yamba, was the recipient of the Community Crown Reserve Trust Award. It won the award for its work in maintaining this vital sports and leisure facility for a village of 1,000 people. Last year the Broken Hill Regional Events Centre Reserve Trust, another very good reserve trust, won the award. That community trust board raised $700,000 to help build the events Centre in Broken Hill—a very significant community hall and I am not sure that there is anything west of Dubbo that would come anywhere near the size of that hall, including some halls in Dubbo. There are hundreds of other reserve trust boards doing great work for our State—for example, the Booyong Recreation and Flora Reserve, which is a highly significant remnant of the big scrub rainforest in far northern New South Wales. That board of trustees epitomises the long-term local commitment to stewardship of this unique site and two generations of the Fiedler family have served on that trust.
The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: The remote village of Silverton, west of Broken Hill, for example, has a population of 46 and is unincorporated—that means it does not have a local council. Yes, Mad Max country as the member interjects. As I said previously, that means it has no local government authority. In the absence of a shire council, a small group of locally elected volunteers coordinates the services ordinarily provided by a council. The Silverton Village Committee is also the reserve trust manager of most of the local Crown reserves, including a cemetery, the local visitor centre and youth hostel. On behalf of the Government I thank all these trustees and the many thousands more across the State.
The Government is supporting these volunteers by investing around $14 million this year through the Public Reserves Management Fund to improve Crown reserves throughout the State. It is working in partnership with local trust board members and rural communities. We also recognise our volunteers by presenting long service certificates to trustees who have served 10 or more years. I have had the honour of presenting those awards on a number of occasions. Many of the trustees I have met have served 20 years, 30 years and even 40 years. Mr Alex Cork of Dorrigo, who recently passed away, served on the Dorrigo Showground Trust for over 54 years—from 1954 to 2008. In 2004, Mr Cork was recognised with a long service award for 50 years service.
Another remarkable achievement is Arthur Napper's 47 years on the Booyong Recreation and Flora Reserve Trust, and he is still an active member. The community would be a poorer place without the hundreds of men and women who volunteer their time and skills on trust boards right across the State. It is an effort we all should applaud and I know every member of this House joins with me in congratulating our volunteers.
MELANOMA AND ARTIFICIAL TANNING
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Youth. Given that melanoma is a serious health risk for young people in New South Wales and is responsible for 30 per cent of all cancers in people aged 15 to 30 years, that one-quarter of people in New South Wales aged 13 to 44 years mistakenly believe tanning in a solarium is safer than tanning in the sun, that last year the World Health Organization classified the use of sun beds as "carcinogenic to humans", that the International Agency for Research on Cancer deems that even one session on a sun bed by a person under the age of 35 poses a significantly increased risk of developing a melanoma, and that regular use of solariums before the age of 30 increases the risk of developing melanoma by a staggering 75 per cent, does the Minister for Youth support the inclusion of a course in the New South Wales secondary schools syllabus on the health risks of melanoma from solarium use? 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22645
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: As the representative in this Chamber for the Minister for Health, I will refer the question to the Minister for Health.
WSN ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. What action is the Treasurer taking to ensure that odour issues associated with WSN Environmental Solutions Macarthur Resource Recovery Park will be resolved prior to the sale of the asset? Can he confirm that the alternative waste treatment facility at the site requires a significant upgrade at a cost likely to exceed millions of dollars? Why has WSN Environmental Solutions failed to make provision to finance such an upgrade? Will he rule out the use of the special immunities granted to him by Parliament for the purpose of the sale to enable WSN Environmental Solutions to vary service contracts and impose additional costs upon client councils in order to fund rectification of works at this Jacks Gully alternative waste treatment facility?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: While I am responsible for the WSN Environmental Solutions sale transaction—
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Would you speak louder? I cannot hear you.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: If the colleagues of the member were to stop speaking, perhaps she could hear me. While I am responsible for the WSN Environmental Solutions transaction, I am not responsible for the day-to-day operations of the organisation. I will pass on the member's question to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Citizenship. Would the Minister update the House on the activities the Government has supported in culturally and linguistically diverse communities over the past year?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane for his diligence in asking this important question. I am pleased to announce that today the Government will table the 2009 Community Relations Commission report. Every year the Community Relations Commission produces a report on the state of community relations in this State and an assessment of the effectiveness of public authorities in observing the principles of multiculturalism in the conduct of their affairs. The 2009 report provides a snapshot of the myriad activities and opportunities supported by the Government over the past year to celebrate our State's diversity, to encourage mutual respect and cohesion and to assist the social integration of people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
The New South Wales Government was the first in the nation to legislate to give statutory recognition to the principles of multiculturalism and we established the then Ethnic Affairs Commission to coordinate government support for multicultural community events. Ours is a great State because of the commitment shown by people of diverse cultural backgrounds to our public life, our economy and our social fabric. The Government is proud of the social cohesion that exists in this State and is committed to ongoing practical support of our rich cultural diversity.
A small selection of some of the activities over 2009 that the report records gives a flavour of the varied programs undertaken by the Government to foster and promote the twin objectives of cultural diversity and social harmony. We have held a series of roundtable conferences with the Chinese, South East Asian and Indian communities, including specific negotiations with the Indian community to address concerns over the safety of international students in New South Wales. The highly successful National Multicultural Marketing Awards, a Government invention, is now the premier mechanism to stimulate business engagement with the cultural and linguistic diversity of consumers in New South Wales.
The Government also has developed and rolled out a variety of sport and recreation programs specifically designed for multicultural communities, including adult learn-to-swim programs for refugees and sports tournaments in metropolitan and regional New South Wales, giving young people of predominantly refugee or new migrant backgrounds opportunities to have fun, join local clubs and learn about health and fitness. In the arts, the Government has invested heavily in maintaining and expanding the collection in the State Library of New South Wales of multilingual, bilingual and English as a second language resources, with printed volumes now numbering almost 100,000. 22646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
Direct financial support from the Government has delivered a huge range of concerts and cultural festivals, from African music and flamenco at the Sydney Opera House to the Indian-Australian Friendship Fair at Sydney Olympic Park, South American and world music across Sydney and the highly popular Cafe Carnivale program. I commend the 2009 Community Relations Commission report to honourable members. It indicates in clear terms the consistent, practical steps being taken by the Government to celebrate culture and support communities and to make our great State a more welcoming and more vibrant society.
VOLUNTEERING
Mr IAN COHEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Volunteering. What factors are behind New South Wales having a lower volunteering participation rate than the national average? Will the Minister outline what measures he has considered to encourage volunteering in this State? Has he considered providing transport concessions or vehicle registration discounts for volunteers who provide a substantive number of hours in volunteering service each week? Does he have any data on the economic value of volunteering in New South Wales? If so, will he provide the data to the House?
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I thank Mr Ian Cohen for his question—actually, he asked about 15 questions. In relation to the Government's plan to increase the number of volunteers, as I indicated earlier, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that there are about 1.67 million formal volunteers in New South Wales and, at best guess, about one million informal volunteers. As I indicated also earlier, this morning I introduced a project, funded by the Council of the City of Sydney and the Community Relations Commission, which seeks to increase the number of people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities and members of the Aboriginal community in volunteering. All of this is designed as part of the Government's announcement in the State Plan to increase the number of volunteers in New South Wales by 10 per cent by 2016. We are on the way to achieving that goal.
The Government is developing a New South Wales volunteering strategy that supports volunteers and increases participation across generations and communities. That is beneficial not only to communities but also to the volunteers. As I indicated this morning, some of the great benefits of volunteering to those from culturally and linguistically diverse communities are that it gives them the opportunity to volunteer within their communities, improves their sense of wellbeing and provides recognition of their skills. For those who come from backgrounds where high value is placed on work, their participation in volunteering activities will encourage them and give them the ability to return to the paid workforce. The Government also is promoting volunteering to segments of the community that have low participation rates. We are working through cultural, sporting, environmental, educational, community welfare and emergency service groups and organisations to provide appropriate training and support to attract and retain volunteers.
The Volunteering Unit is coordinating the implementation of strategies to meet those State target plans. This includes working with the non-government and volunteering sector in developing a volunteering strategy for New South Wales, introducing mechanisms to encourage and support volunteering across generations and communities and implementing initiatives to support and provide appropriate training to attract and retain volunteers. We also are working with other State governments, the Federal Government and local government to develop this strategy. The Volunteering Unit was established by the Department of Premier and Cabinet in September 2007 to implement the volunteering commitments that were made in the 2006 State Plan.
The unit became part of Communities NSW when that department was established in July 2009. A range of New South Wales government agencies contribute to resourcing the unit either by providing seconded staff or by contributing towards the unit's budget. Activities that have occurred within the unit include the establishment of the New South Wales Government's volunteering web portal. The web portal links to key information about volunteering resources and opportunities within government and non-government agencies and two other key government websites such as the community builders website. I urge the honourable member to have a look at www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au. There is also a whole range of other guides available, but my time for responding has expired and I do not have the opportunity to continue. [Time expired.]
MENAI POLICE STATION
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question is directed to the Minister for Lands, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware of plans to close the Menai police station? What community consultation has been conducted to ensure that this station's closure is a satisfactory outcome for the community, and what future consultation will be conducted to inform the Menai community about the rationale behind this decision? 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22647
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for his question and I undertake to pass it on to the Minister for Police and get an answer within the required time.
STATE ECONOMY
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the latest economic data?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the honourable member for her question and for her interest in this matter. This morning the latest unemployment data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics were released. The unemployment rate for New South Wales for April 2010 was 5.8 per cent. Even so, today's figures show more than 10,000 jobs were created in the New South Wales economy in April. The increase in the rate reflects the fact that more people are now rejoining the workforce, and that is a good sign for the State. We want people to contribute; we want them to look for and enjoy the opportunities our economy affords them. There is good news for returning jobseekers. Since March last year more than 74,200 additional jobs have been created in the New South Wales economy.
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: The green shoots of recovery.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Indeed, as Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes has pointed out, the green shoots of recovery continue through our economy. On a trend basis, employment in New South Wales has grown for 13 consecutive months. The number of full-time jobs in New South Wales has grown now for six consecutive months on a trend. Today's figures show that there is still more work to be done. That is why we will deliver our $65.5 billion program in investing in infrastructure, which is supporting around 165,000 jobs each year. New South Wales is leading the nation's economic recovery. Our $380 billion New South Wales economy has outperformed every other State for the first half of the financial year. Not performing so well is the shadow Treasurer.
The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: The Treasurer has referred to this morning's unemployment figures, which do show that New South Wales is leading the country—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Is the member taking a point of order?
[Interruption]
The PRESIDENT: Order! The member will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
The PRESIDENT: Order! I place the Hon. Greg Pearce on a call to order.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I acknowledge the Opposition's consistent pattern of talking down the State economy at every twist and turn. Every day in this Parliament the Opposition talks it down. Last night I was listening to David Oldfield—a former member of this House—on 2UE, conducting an in-depth interview with a member of the other place. He exposed the shadow Treasurer as sitting on the old barbed wire fence, as Joh Bjelke-Petersen used to say. And what happens when you sit on a barbed-wire fence? It hurts. The shadow Treasurer was caught sitting on the barbed wire fence, because he refused to take a position on the ad valorem tax. When he was asked consistently where he stood on the issue he refused to give an honest answer, because the Opposition continues to talk down the State economy at every opportunity.
The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The question was about the latest economic data, not about this Government's latest great big tax on the property industry.
The PRESIDENT: Order! That was not a point of order. The Minister may proceed.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I appreciate the Hon. Greg Pearce is trying to give a bit of guidance to the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, who has had a bad morning, and he is showing him how he should conduct himself in the House. I commend the Hon. Greg Pearce for giving tips to the new boy. What is performing well in this State—unlike the shadow Treasurer—is the State's retail sector. Our retail sales growth 22648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
for March was more than twice as strong as the next best State. This is more good news for New South Wales businesses and the New South Wales economy as the green shoots of recovery continue to grow in New South Wales.
CESSNOCK PLANNING
Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Planning. On Tuesday, in answer to a question I asked, the Minister said that a Greens Cessnock councillor had voted "78 per cent of the time against development". In view of the following facts, will the Minister withdraw that statement? First, in 2010, of eight development issues reported to Cessnock council, Greens councillor James Ryan voted against only two—that is 25 per cent. Secondly, in 2009, of 49 development issues before Cessnock council, Councillor Ryan voted against development 24 times—that is 49 per cent. Thirdly, the Local Development Monitor in 2008-09 shows that Cessnock staff determined 724 development applications and councillors determined only 26—that is less than 3 per cent. Will the Minister withdraw his egregious and misleading slur against Councillor Ryan?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: No.
POLICE NUMBERS
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning, who represents the Minister for Police and who used to be the Minister for Police. Regarding the latest police attestation of 131 officers from the Goulburn Police College, can the Minister give an assurance that the reason for this smaller than average class—in fact, the smallest since 2005—is not to push more officers into classes that graduate closer to the general election?
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Oh, they wouldn't!
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I reckon they might. And what guarantee can the Minister give that, taking attrition into account, the Government will be able to meet its commitment to providing 750 additional officers before the end of 2011?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I acknowledge that the Hon. John Robertson, together with the Commissioner of Police, attended the attestation alluded to by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner. I have been to a number of attestations and I repeat, and we will repeat it consistently, that we will have 750 new police officers—net, not gross—in our four-year term. From memory, that will bring the number to 15,950 police officers—the fourth largest police force in the Western World.
SCONE AIRPORT UPGRADE
The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: My question is directed to the Minister for State and Regional Development.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Government members will cease interjecting. I cannot hear the question from the Hon. Michael Veitch.
The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: Could the Minister please update the House on plans to upgrade Scone Airport and the benefits for this region?
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: The Minister is putting a chairman's lounge in there, is he?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: And I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be the first to use it! I thank the honourable member for his question. As duty member of the Legislative Council for Upper Hunter, he is a hardworking person for that area—much better than the lazy, sleeping local member. Just this morning I announced that the Upper Hunter town of Scone will receive $2 million worth of upgrades to its airport facilities. These upgrades are designed to enlarge services and capacity and boost local businesses. This funding has been made available through the cooperative efforts of the New South Wales Government via Industry and Investment New South Wales, the Upper Hunter Council and key local industries. The planned upgrades include improvements and extensions to the runway, construction of an additional taxiway and improved drainage. What is exciting about these improvements is that they will help to attract more people to the region and will support the valuable industries operating from this part of New South Wales. 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22649
An improved Scone airport facility will generate growth for the local economy and support up to 86 direct jobs over five years. Scone airport was built in 1958 and is now in serious need of upgrading to service current and future levels of economic activity. These upgrades will support and strengthen the region's local equine, energy, wine, mining and tourism industries, and create new opportunities for recreational flying club activities. There will also be benefits for local support service industries, such as accommodation providers and hospitality enterprises as a result of more people coming into the area because of the improved air services. The equine industry alone, which is an important economic contributor to the region, expects regular major thoroughbred sales to attract up to 1,200 people to Scone with improved access to the area. Scone hosts one of three international thoroughbred breeding centres and is home to the largest equine hospital in the Southern Hemisphere.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: They are going to move to Tamworth.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I doubt that that will happen now. These new airport facilities will also improve access for the significant resources sector in the region that provides a valuable contribution to our regional economies. Scone airport has the potential to become very significant in the Upper Hunter, being just 100 kilometres from Werris Creek, 75 kilometres from the booming town of Quirindi, 40 kilometres from Murrurundi, 30 kilometres from Muswellbrook, 55 kilometres from Denman and about 150 kilometres from Gunnedah, and therefore has great potential as a hub airport for this growing region. Today's airport upgrade announcement follows on from the Government's recent contribution of $591,000 towards improved water mains and sewerage services to the neighbouring industry precinct.
The Scone Airpark is a commercial land development located next door to the local airport. The precinct has already seen a healthy take-up and presently supports a range of local businesses. The funding the Government is providing will support proposed businesses, including a veterinary hospital, student accommodation facilities and airport-related businesses. It will also increase the site's appeal for attracting further business investment. The Scone Airpark upgrades will result in a $59-million contribution to the State's gross product and create up to 86 local full-time jobs over five years. This is in addition to the economic benefits resulting from the airport upgrade, which will all be achieved in spite of the laziness of the local member for this region. In contrast to his efforts—or should I say lack of effort—we have been able to work together to facilitate these improvements to an important transport facility. It has the potential to become a significant transport hub for the Hunter and north-western New South Wales. It is a very exciting development for this region indeed.
POWER GENERATION
Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Minister for Energy. In light of his answer to a question from Linda Voltz yesterday in which he trumpeted recent and likely future developments in solar and other renewable energy electricity generation in New South Wales, and in light of the contribution this additional capacity will make to the supply-demand balance over the next three decades, how can the Minister explain his Government's continued pursuit of new fossil-fuel baseload power stations in this State?
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: As I have said in this House on at least one occasion, the Government's position has been and continues to be that the State will be fuel neutral with regard to development sites as part of the electricity reform process. We are in the process of developing clean energy policies. Obviously as part of that we expect to see an increase in the uptake of gas as a fuel source. As I am sure Dr John Kaye knows, with the increase in the uptake of wind power, gas generation peak plants will become essential in maintaining energy supplies. As such, the Government anticipates that the uptake of gas will increase as we see more and more wind power come onto the grid in New South Wales. As I have said previously, and I will say it again, the Government's view is that that will be a matter for the private sector. With regard to fuel sources, the Government's position is that this State will be fuel neutral.
VERBAL ABUSE OF POLICE OFFICERS
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: My question is directed to the Attorney General. Will the Attorney General be seeking an explanation as to why offences relating to verbal abuse of police officers continue to be treated as lesser offences by magistrates in contradiction of community expectations about the respect that should be accorded to front-line police? What steps will he take to resolve this ongoing matter?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I understand that police have sought the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions about the case to which the honourable member is referring. As those matters will 22650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
potentially be dealt with through that process it is inappropriate for me to comment directly. However, like most members, I believe that police officers are entitled to respect. As a community we must take respect more seriously, and that includes ensuring that our children learn its value at a very early stage of their lives.
LOCAL JOBS FIRST PLAN
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I direct my question to the Minister for Commerce. What action is the Government taking to support local jobs and to help small businesses in New South Wales?
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for her question and her ongoing interest in supporting the growth of local jobs. The New South Wales Government is putting New South Wales jobs first. The Local Jobs First Plan, which was announced last year and which is now in full operation, is about protecting local jobs and securing the economic future of our local communities.
More than 650,000 New South Wales businesses are being given preferred treatment under the plan to support the State's small business sector, which employs more than one million people. The Government spends billions of dollars on goods and services each year and this plan tips the balance in favour of local businesses, providing them with greater opportunities to expand and sell to government. The Local Jobs First Plan makes it clear that supporting jobs and opportunities for local industry is a high priority.
Since 29 April, the Government has been holding a series of targeted workshops across the State to inform New South Wales businesses of how they can benefit from the Local Jobs First Plan. The seminars are taking place in Lismore, Newcastle, Bathurst, western Sydney, Wollongong and Queanbeyan during May and June. They represent an important opportunity for thousands of small and medium enterprise owners and operators to hear directly about the plan and the benefits it can unlock for their business. Last week, I attended the Bathurst workshop with more than 50 representatives from local businesses in and around Bathurst. Also present was Gerard Martin, the hardworking member for Bathurst.
[Interruption]
The very hardworking member for Bathurst. I was very impressed with the way representatives from the Department of Services, Technology and Administration and Industry and Investment presented the policy to local business owners. The policy was explained clearly, and businesses were given the practical tools they need to bid for and win government contracts. I expect that many will be encouraged by the opportunities available to them to do business with the New South Wales Government. I encourage owners and operators across the State to come along to a seminar if they can or to contact the Department of Services, Technology and Information's Client Support Centre on 1800 679 289 for further information.
The Local Jobs First Plan recognises that value for money is about broader economic benefit and not only the lowest price. The plan encourages the purchasing of goods that are locally produced by small and medium enterprises through the application of price preference schemes and participation plans for tenders over the value of $700,000. This means that the local content of firms employing up to 500 full-time equivalent workers are given a 20 per cent price preferential weighting for that content. There is also an additional bonus for country communities through the application of a further 2.5 per cent to 5 per cent preferential discount for firms based in regional areas that are registered with the Department of Industry and Investment. This will benefit manufacturers located outside metropolitan areas and support regional businesses.
Further, where procurement is estimated to be valued at $4 million or more the agency must include a requirement for tenderers to provide a small and medium enterprise participation plan that will have an evaluation weighting of at least 6 per cent. It is important to note that in implementing the Local Jobs First Plan the Government has ensured that it continues to honour its commitments under the nation's free trade agreements. The Government is ensuring that New South Wales businesses have every opportunity to get our business. This highlights its strong commitment to supporting local jobs and boosting economic activity across the State.
REGIONAL COST OF LIVING PRESSURES
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Given the Government's numerous increases to cost of living pressures on those living in the Bathurst, Oberon and Lithgow areas, including increased electricity, gas and vehicle registration charges, and now town water and property purchase 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22651
charges, what will the Treasurer do to help alleviate the impact of these increased costs on regional families in New South Wales? Will the Treasurer commit to ensuring that his Government adequately addresses these issues in the upcoming State budget?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the honourable member for his interest in the State budget. It is an important issue that I am happy to talk about. Obviously, the purpose of the State budget is to plot the future of the State. I can recall around the time of last year's budget there was considerable pontificating from the Opposition and from the shadow Treasurer that we were heading for the rocks, the State was heading into recession and we were going to bring the State to an end. Of course, we were also going to lose our triple-A credit rating. Since that date we have seen a massive recovery in the national economy because of the team effort of both the State and Federal governments. We have seen an improvement in economic growth. We have seen massive investment in infrastructure by the State Government—$65.5 billion over four years. We have seen massive investment by the Commonwealth Government through the stimulus packages, all contributing to the State's economy. The national Treasury estimation is that there would be about 2.1 per cent less economic growth had we not had the stimulus packages of the State and Commonwealth governments. That is what the situation was previously. This budget will be about the future of New South Wales. We will outline a number of initiatives that will demonstrate where we are going to go.
[Interruption.]
I am not going to give any hints of what will be in the budget. The member asked about the budget and he will find out in June what is in the budget. What we do know from the shadow Treasurer's performance last night on 2UE, as he sits on the barbed wire fence, is that on the one hand he will attack an increase in the ad valorem charge and, on the other hand, he refuses to rule it out.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: My question clearly related to the costs on regional families in New South Wales. I did not mention the shadow Treasurer at all. The question is for the Treasurer.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Treasurer's answer should continue to be relevant.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I can understand the member's embarrassment in not wanting to talk about the shadow Treasurer, who has had a bad week. We have maintained the credit rating of the State at triple-A. We have improved the economic growth of the State. We have created well over 165,000 jobs through our infrastructure investment. We have invested record amounts into construction over four years— $65.5 billion—and we will continue to deliver for the people of New South Wales. The next budget I bring down will do exactly that.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I suggest that if members have further questions, they place them on notice.
WINDSOR COURTHOUSE PUBLIC TELEPHONES
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Yesterday, the Hon. David Clarke asked me a question without notice in relation to the exact date on which a second phone line was installed at Windsor courthouse. At significant expense my officers have investigated this important issue. No doubt, members will appreciate it has been quite difficult to establish the precise date on which the second phone line was installed at Windsor courthouse, as I am led to believe this was a momentous occasion that occurred many years ago. In future we should record these dates, perhaps cut a birthday cake or have some other acknowledgement in light of the significance of the occasion. However, I can inform the House that the second phone line, which, as I said, was installed many years ago, has been previously reserved for outbound calls. Recently an overflow system has been installed at Windsor courthouse, and that enables two public lines of the same number to be utilised. When the main inquiry line is engaged phone calls are transferred to the second line. This has been implemented to ensure that inquiries at Windsor Court are dealt with as quickly as possible. I trust this information satisfies the member's curiosity.
SPORTING GOODS AND CHILD LABOUR
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: Yesterday, Dr John Kaye asked me, as Minister for Commerce, a question without notice, which I took in part on notice. I now provide a further answer. The Department of Services, Technology and Administration has informed me that it has made inquiries with the three suppliers 22652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
under contract to supply soccer balls. All three suppliers have confirmed in writing that no child labour is involved in the manufacture of their products. I am advised that the standard conditions in State Contracts Control Board contracts were updated in May 2009 to strengthen clauses prohibiting the use of child labour. New section 12.5.2 states:
The Contractor must ensure that the deliverables have not been produced using the "worst forms of child labour" as defined in the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999.
I am further advised that the Department of Education and Training advises all schools to purchase from the State Contracts Control Board contract.
[The President left the chair at 1.06 p.m. The House resumed at 2.40 p.m.]
LOUD SHIRT DAY
The PRESIDENT: Earlier during questions I noted that only Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile had participated in Loud Shirt Day. Due to the camouflage nature of the shirts being worn by the Hon. Robert Brown and the Hon. Roy Smith I had overlooked them. I apologise and correct the record.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 256 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to censure of the Treasurer, be called on forthwith.
Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox agreed to:
That Private Members' Business item No. 256 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
TREASURER, AND SPECIAL MINISTER OF STATE
Motion of Censure
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.44 p.m.]: I speak in support of the censure motion of the Treasurer moved by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox. I start by congratulating the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox on the clear way in which he gave the facts—no semantics, no theatre, no playing to the audience. He put the allegation clearly, reflecting how seriously the Opposition views this matter. These questions need to be answered by the Treasurer. Members should compare the contribution of the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox with the theatrics of the Treasurer in his contribution.
A censure motion, short of a vote of no confidence, is arguably one of the most serious motions that can be put in regard to any member. It is important for members to consider this motion in that light and to take every opportunity to clarify any uncertainty that exists. The motion is clearly about the behaviour, conduct and answers that the Treasurer has given to this House of review where members have sought information, as they are entitled to in reviewing decisions that governments make. The Treasurer's contribution was five minutes of all-out attack on the shadow Treasurer, Michael Baird, from the other place, which we know contravenes the standing orders of this House, and then 15 minutes of explaining the bid process in relation to the sale of NSW Lotteries.
It is apparent that at no stage did the Treasurer actually read the censure motion and see that the motion is predicated on the comments he made on 21 April in this House, those comments being, "No complaint has been made by any of the unsuccessful bidders about the Lotteries sale process". Today we get further information. We hear about formal complaint processes as opposed to non-formal. We hear about the varying types of bids that take place in terms of those that comply and those that do not comply. It is interesting to note that the Government is more than happy to sit down, examine and indeed award such an important contract 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22653
based on a non-complying bid—a bid that is outside the rules set by this Parliament—but when it comes to the complaint process the Government simply ignores any complaint that is made, in writing or otherwise, unless it is in a particular form.
The Government will consider matters in relation to the bid that do not necessarily conform and will award such a bid on a non-conforming application, however, if someone wants to complain, they have to follow a very strict and significant regime. The Treasurer knows that his office received correspondence—because it is clearly spelt out in the matters that he tabled—but at no stage did he suggest that he took steps to seek information from the complainant in those letters to clarify what continues to be a very significant public matter of concern relating to the bid process. When it comes to the bid the rules do not necessarily apply but when it comes a complaint about the process afterwards, because the formal guidelines were not followed, it therefore does not constitute a complaint and the Treasurer has the ability to disregard anything that is said.
On 21 April the Treasurer told this House, "No complaint has been made". He did not say no formal complaint—no informal complaint, no complaint of any sort. He just said, "No complaint has been made". The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox is quite right in seeking from the Treasurer—he has continued to seek this with other members of the House—some certainty, some clarity, in relation to those comments. But at every opportunity that the Treasurer has had in this House he has shied away from giving any additional information to the House.
Earlier today the Treasurer tabled a couple of letters. One particular letter caught my eye: the one on which the Treasurer based his allegation that there was no formal complaint per se. It is important for members to have a look at that document tabled by the Treasurer earlier today. If one studies the document one will see an address—an address that uses GroupWise and appears to also include an address relating to Governor Macquarie Tower. I was concerned about this address on the document, which is titled "Andrew Clennell". So I printed an email in my office just a short time ago to see if a similar address appears as a footer on email documents printed in the Parliament. Apart from the specifics, email documents printed in the Parliament show a GroupWise address—which I do not intend to place on the record; there is no need to do so.
However, I draw members' attention to the document tabled by the Treasurer to which I have referred. The document indicates an address, on a GroupWise system, that appears to be Governor Macquarie Tower. It also indicates that the document was received at that address on 23 April 2010. Over the last few weeks and days the Treasurer has been at pains to talk about noticing Twitter pages from Mike Baird, about noticing media comments, and about noticing comments that have been put in the public domain by members on this side of the Chamber—and, I suspect, other members of the House—expressing concerns about probity. Yet it would appear that the Government had in its hands this letter, with 23 April showing as the received date, which could well have clarified for the House at a much earlier stage the matters that are now the subject of this censure motion.
I strongly suggest to this House that the Treasurer needs to come into the Chamber to explain to the House exactly when this letter came into the hands of the Government. In my view the Government has knowingly withheld this information, not only from the Parliament but from the public domain, in relation to when the Treasurer himself says he became aware that no formal complaint had been made. The Treasurer may well have cut and pasted at the top of the document—as we see from the document, information has certainly been cut off the letter—but there is an address at the foot of the document that also shows the date 23 April 2010, which would indicate strongly that the Government came into possession of this letter much earlier in this debate and therefore it has potentially withheld this information from the Parliament and therefore from the public domain.
It simply exemplifies that the Government has been playing politics with a billion-dollar issue, as the Treasurer continues to refer to it. If the public is to have confidence in the Government transparency should be utmost in this process. If this address and the date are correct and the Government has knowingly withheld this information from 23 April, having only tabled the document in the Parliament on 13 May, there are serious questions about the conduct of the Treasurer in relation to this withholding of information.
I believe the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox is quite right to move this censure motion in relation to the Treasurer. The first part of the motion refers to the Treasurer's statement that no complaint was made. The second part of the motion refers to the Treasurer's failure to make statements about how the complaint was addressed and his failure to provide information about it. The third part of the motion asks the House to note with concern the Government's lack of accountability to the people of New South Wales. If the document was received on 23 April I would like to think that the Government can provide a clear answer on that, and I hope it will do so. Then we will have some certainty in regard to that. 22654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
The first part of the motion states that the Treasurer said that no complaint had been made. At no stage did the Treasurer indicate with clear distinction what the Government considers constitutes a formal complaint. He made reference to "formal complaint", but at no stage did he clarify that for the House. He was playing with the House when he did that. The Treasurer has not complied with the second part of the motion, and he has not complied with the third part of it. The final part of the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox's motion refers to the Treasurer's lack of preparedness to provide all the relevant information to the House. Given that the information has been requested time and again, and given that the Treasurer knows that this matter, having been raised in the media, would be raised in the House, he would have had ample opportunity on Tuesday this week to make a ministerial statement, or to even use a Dorothy Dixer in question time to clarify the issue. But, no, the Treasurer has continued to play with the issue—indeed, he has continued to play with the issue right up until today, when he finally released the document.
I challenge the Government to provide us with the date on which it came into possession of this document. There may well be a clear answer. But given that the document appears to have a GroupWise receipt date that could well fall within the purview of this place or indeed Governor Macquarie Tower, the Government needs to clarify the issue. This is about community confidence. We are talking about a $1 billion project.
Earlier in this debate it was suggested that the Opposition does not understand the basic rules of bidding. I would have thought it was appropriate that the Government observe at least some basic rules in terms of probity, and that once the Government becomes aware that complaints have been made, if those complaints do not comply, it takes steps to get to the bottom of those complaints and sort them out. It should not simply ignore them, or pretend that the matters complained about never took place. Instead, the Government simply says, "I'm sorry, your complaint didn't comply." It does not go into the facts or investigate it. The complaint goes into the wastepaper bin or the shredder. However, it appears that that has not occurred in relation to this issue.
I believe the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox has been quite fair in this debate. He has not gone to the extent of talking about votes of no confidence; he has simply put the case that on a number of occasions the Opposition has sought information from the Treasurer to bring this matter to a head. On every occasion the Treasurer has sought not to answer our questions, knowing all the while that there are processes within the Government's control that could have allowed him to answer our questions, but he elected not to do so. Rather, he elected to play politics with the issue. It is incredibly disappointing that the Treasurer has spent so much of his time talking about Mike Baird and about the bidding process rather than talking about matters that I believe are far more significant, to clarify the issue once and for all so public confidence can be returned.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Citizenship, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.57 p.m.]: This motion has nothing to do with what is in the best interests of the State; it has everything to do with what is in the Opposition's political agenda. The Opposition's sole pitch for government is to hysterically claim, time and again, that every move, every action, and every decision the Government takes is simply wrong. It is a very simple strategy; I will give Opposition members that. Indeed, it is a very consistent strategy, one might say, to say that everything is wrong. But if we look at the multitude of different positions the Opposition has taken over this specific issue over the past year only one simple, binding thread emerges: the Opposition's absolute determination to paint this sale as a failure, to do what it can to frustrate it, and to talk down the future of NSW Lotteries and, with it, the future of the State. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox recited some history. Perhaps I should also recite a bit of history to relay some of the interesting aspects of the way this matter has proceeded. When the legislation first came before the Parliament the Opposition opposed the proposal to sell NSW Lotteries—even though, of course, it had been the Opposition's policy at the last election.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence when he made his contribution and I expect the same courtesy to be extended to the Leader of the Government.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The shadow Minister in the other House had this to say about the matter:
The Opposition does not oppose the legislation on philosophical grounds or matters of principle … The sale of NSW Lotteries was a Coalition policy in the lead-up to the 2007 election.
Then he went on to say:
In 2006, in a very different credit and economic environment worldwide, NSW Lotteries was conservatively estimated to be valued in the order of $800 million … NSW Lotteries is now worth between $500 million and $600 million … Clearly, now is not the best time to offer this product in the marketplace.
13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22655
That was a very clear statement by the Opposition in its opposition to the legislation when it first came before the Parliament. "Now is not the right time" was said previously in relation to other attempts to privatise assets. I reiterate the comments by the shadow Minister in 2009:
NSW Lotteries is now worth between $500 million and $600 million … Clearly, now is not the best time to offer this product in the marketplace.
The shadow Treasurer in the other House followed and repeated those statements. He said:
The last thing we want is a fire sale. Before the last election the price of this transaction was costed at around $600 million. Varying prices are available from brokers in the market through to the Government's own spokesperson. Let us wait and determine whether we are likely to get the best possible value. We will have only one shot at this transaction. I have seen no reserve price in the budget papers. It should be clearly understood by the Government that it should not sell any asset when it decides to do so without establishing a maximum and a minimum sale price. Any transaction should not go ahead if a minimum price cannot be achieved.
That is what the shadow Treasurer in the other House said at the time the legislation was introduced. What happened subsequent to that? The newsagents were running a campaign, and the business sector was questioning the so-called liberal credentials of the Opposition and its genuine commitment to taking a decision that was in the best financial interests of the State. Not to be outdone, the shadow Minister for Finance in this House came to the fore and had this to say in relation to the transaction:
… prior to the 2007 election the New South Wales Coalition announced that it would privatise State lotteries, with expected proceeds at that time of more than $800 million. That figure is likely to be somewhat less, particularly after the global financial crisis.
That was in tune with the consistent Opposition thread: It is all wrong. The timing is wrong. We are not going to get enough money out of it. Talk this sale down. The campaign started and eventually the Opposition was forced to change its tune. As everyone knows, the sale proceeded—it is not a secret—but for the Opposition it did not go to script because, as members would be aware, the Government managed to get a net $850 million for the sale. This was considerably more than the shadow spokesmen in the other House were arguing was the sale price and the reason they were not prepared, initially at least, to allow the sale to proceed. The figure that was derived through the efforts that were undertaken by the Treasurer, on behalf the Government, exceeded market expectations and completely destroyed the Opposition's clumsily planned political strategy. Indeed, it was recognised as that by independent commentators. I quote from an article in the Financial Times of 3 March 2010, which said:
Tatts shares fell 7 per cent …on concerns that the group may have paid too much for the business.
The Australian also published an article on 3 March 2010, which said:
The bumper price surprised market observers who had been anticipating a winning bid of $600 to $650 million.
I do not know who the market observers were—perhaps Mike Baird, the shadow Minister in the other House— who kept sprouting that figure around. The Sydney Morning Herald, that great chronicle of record—
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: One of your favourites.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: One of my favourites, yes. On 3 March 2010 the Sydney Morning Herald—it actually had something nice to say—said:
The Government had initially hinted at a price range of $500 to $600 million …
That was actually the Opposition—
… the $850 million is in another league.
In other words, well done to the Government! That is as much praise as you can get from the Sydney Morning Herald these days. So, with its political strategy and its economic credibility completely in tatters, what did the Opposition do? Did it finally smarten up, sit down and come up with a decent idea on policy for improving the bottom line of the State? Of course not! It went right back into the attack mode for which it has been notorious. As I said, the consistent Opposition theme: Wrong, wrong, wrong. Everything is wrong. You get a good price and you are still wrong. You want to sell something and you are still wrong.
What was the next stage of this cleverly crafted political strategy that the Opposition took? Apparently the easiest track was to cling onto the coat-tails of a disgruntled and unsuccessful overseas backed commercial 22656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
organisation and to criticise the Government for getting such a good deal. Members will recall that the way these particular matters came to light was not through a complaint to the probity auditor, it was not from an application to the court to prevent the sale from proceeding; it was being laundered through newspaper articles. You would think that anyone who was going to bid for a project of this size, who had a legitimate grievance — with millions of dollars at stake, a lengthy period in running a lottery system, a significant impact on the future posterity of the company, knowing the impact that would have on the share price of the company concerned— would know how to ventilate that grievance through the proper process. And if they did not know, you would think they would have been able to find out. On 1 November 2009 a bid process letter was provided by Goldman Sachs JBWere—this is the probity order—and this is what they said to all the people who were bidding:
Any probity concerns you may have about the process must be submitted (in appropriate detail) to the probity adviser in writing by e-mail, with a copy provided at the same time to Goldman Sachs JBWere.
In addition to that, the need to direct complaints to the probity adviser was reflected in a further letter dated 11 March 2010 from the lawyers representing the Government, Gilbert and Tobin, to the lawyers Baker and McKenzie, representing one of the bidders, which read:
Apart from probity questions which should be directed to the probity adviser, as the process in relation to NSW Lotteries has now ended, we are instructed to request that you direct any further correspondence on behalf of your client in relation to this matter to us.
Furthermore, an email from Goldman Sachs JBWere stated that as the transaction process had been completed "further questions should be addressed to the probity adviser". So not once but three times these people were told the proper process to lodge a complaint, and to this very day there has not been one. These are not some amateurs. These are pretty sophisticated organisations bidding for major public assets with significant impacts on the potential share prices of their own companies, and they were told of the process to be followed if they had a legitimate grievance. The only process that appears to have been taken is a process that has resulted in a series of spurious claims being made through a series of avenues other than that mentioned in those particular letters.
Let me go through the nature of the particular strategy that was embarked upon. The Opposition and media reports would suggest that the author of the complaint was a corporation by the name of GTECH. Members will have heard that name as it has been used in various newspaper articles and will have been using various materials ascribed to it. This company was not in fact making a bid itself. It would, however, have derived significant financial benefit had the unsuccessful bidder, Premier Lotteries, been successful. It would have benefited because GTECH is a technology provider and has in place a long-term exclusive contract to provide facility and management services to Premier Lotteries through its Asian network.
GTECH had a significant commercial interest in the tender being awarded to Premier Lottery. As I said, GTECH was not a partner in the bid. However, it had an exclusive arrangement to provide facilities and management services to Premier Lottery, the unsuccessful bidder. Therefore, if Premier Lottery's bid had been successful, GTECH would have derived significant financial benefits.
Before anyone ran around supporting the interests of this corporation, one would have thought it would be important to investigate the corporation's form. I will speak about that in a moment. The Opposition seems to have allowed itself to be used as the ventriloquist's dummy of this overseas-backed commercial organisation without asking a few basic questions. For example, if GTECH or its partners had a genuine grievance, why did they not choose to have these matters ventilated through the appropriate probity channels, in accordance with the advice they were given on numerous occasions? Why go to the newspapers and not to the courts? Another interesting question relates to the form of this company, which, as I said earlier, anyone would be able to find out by making a few Google inquiries about the company's track record.
I will outline to the House some background about GTECH. On 27 September 2007, according to Dow Jones Newswires, a Greek court rejected an application for injunctive relief from none other than GTECH Corporation, which had reportedly lost a bid to provide technology services to a gaming monopoly, OPAP S.A. According to the Poland Business News service on 28 April 2008, GTECH had organised and then cancelled a press conference after the Polish Ministry of the Treasury refused a contract for GTECH to provide the nation's lottery services because of irregularities in its bid. According to the Associated Press newswire on 2 March 2000, a New Hampshire Superior Court judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction sought by none other than, wait for it, GTECH, which had sued when it lost its contract with the State's sweepstakes. I could recite other instances where the company has employed these strategies. Opposition members can look it up for 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22657
themselves. Here we have a most transparent process that enables any potential party to the transaction who wants to put in a complaint to be able to do so. Instead, GTECH-inspired claims are laundered through the newspapers and are taken up by Opposition desperadoes in an attempt to discredit the Government.
The first claim they made was that the successful tender was not the highest bid. That claim evaporated within about 12 hours. Then there was a claim that somehow the successful bid was contrary to the legislation. A flurry of legal advice circulated around the place and then people made claims and counterclaims. Press conferences were conducted and the Opposition was salivating at the prospect of the legislation having to be brought back before Parliament for amendment, which it said it would reject. Do members remember the Opposition's great sense of disappointment when it found out that that would not be necessary? At every opportunity the Opposition has politicised the issue, rather than be constructive about this sale and acknowledge that this transaction was conducted appropriately. The Government said it was happy to have the matter investigated by the Auditor-General. All relevant documents were given to the Auditor-General and the matter was the subject of a report. That still did not stop the Opposition trying to hijack the whole debate and obscure the issues by raising these claims, even though it knew that there were proper channels to investigate issues relating to this transaction, including the Auditor-General and the probity auditor. This issue was best described by the Australian columnist Imre Salusinszky. All members know Imre; he is very well respected. This is what he had to say about this matter on 24 October 2009:
… Tatts did, in fact, lodge the highest bid; that the matter of unclaimed prizes is one of legal interpretation; and that the outcome was good for taxpayers and for the future of the lotteries business.
What the Coalition has done on the way through is sully the reputation of one potential business partner, Goldman Sachs JBWere, while making a certain enemy of the future operator of the state's lottery.
This is what happens when the key element in your pitch for government is that the present incumbent does everything—repeat, everything—wrong.
I could not have put the issue better myself. This whole debate has been characterised by an attempt by the Opposition to outdo itself at every turn. It has talked down the sale price; it has said it is not the right time. When it was pressured into supporting the legislation and all of its expectations were found to be completely wrong, it then put forward claims on behalf of a business partner of an unsuccessful bidder. As I said, those claims, which were laundered through the newspaper, were wrong. Then the Opposition tried to cast aspersions on the Treasurer about a process that enabled unsuccessful parties to have any grievances appropriately addressed. Notwithstanding the fact that the company had many opportunities to prosecute its case through the proper channels, it declined to do so. This motion is a joke, and the Opposition, which has prostituted these arguments in the House, is also a joke.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.16 p.m.]: I contribute to this debate as a crossbench member. I am not a main player, like a member of the Government or the Opposition. I put on record my observations about the arguments in this debate and, in particular, the Treasurer's comments reported in Hansard on 21 April 2010. I can understand the frustration of Coalition members about what they believe to be unsatisfactory answers by the Treasurer to their questions on the NSW Lotteries sale. They have moved this censure motion because they consider that the Treasurer deliberately misled the House when he said there had been no complaints. As reported in Hansard on 21 April 2010, the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox asked a general question about the Lotteries sale and, in particular, referred to the amount of money that was paid for the unclaimed prize revenue. His question did not refer to complaints or concerns. The Treasurer, inferring criticism in the question, I believe, replied in detail:
Let me make a point about probity. No complaint has been made by any of the unsuccessful bidders about the Lotteries sale process.
That was his first statement—that there was no complaint. He went on:
After the transaction not one of the unsuccessful bidders put in a complaint through the processes that are available to them.
He repeated:
Not one of them complained to the probity officers about the transaction.
The Opposition's motion is based on the proposition that the Treasurer misled the House in that answer. Having read the answer and the correspondence, I believe that he gave a correct answer. Those statements are all factually correct. The next question is whether a complaint is the same as an expression of concern. And it is 22658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
upon that that, in all probability, the Opposition has built its case. On 13 May a Mr Shatter from RSM Bird Cameron, probity adviser—that is, after the censure motion was moved on 12 May, so obviously the Government was seeking confirmation of the reply that the Treasurer gave—wrote:
RSM Bird Cameron in its capacity as a Probity Adviser to the above transaction, has not received any complaints in accordance with the defined process as set out in the "NSW Lotteries Transaction - Request for Binding Offers" document, dated 1 November 2009.
That confirms what the Treasurer said. The Treasurer referred to a second document, which is an email from Andrew Clennell of the Sydney Morning Herald to Baker and McKenzie seeking clarification of whether there had been any complaint. The email stated:
Hi Michael, Andrew Clennell from the Sydney Morning Herald here. Can you confirm that Baker McKenzie regarded the letter it sent to Gilbert and Tobin concerning NSW Lotteries on March 17 as a formal complaint?
That is the first appearance of the word "formal". The Treasurer did not use that word, but for some reason Andrew Clennell used it in his email. Michael Kunstler, a partner of Baker and McKenzie, replied:
We cannot comment on correspondence between our client and government without our client's instructions except that I can confirm that no formal complaint was made including pursuant to the letter referred to below.
He used the same words that Andrew Clennell used: "formal complaint". The original email sent by Baker and McKenzie to Bryan Pointin, partner of Gilbert and Tobin Lawyers, Park Street, Street, was not a complaint. Copies of the email were sent to six people who were involved in bids for the Lotteries—the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and others. A copy was sent to Richard D. Timbs, Deputy Secretary, Commercial Management, NSW Treasury. I will not read the email in its entirety because I believe members have seen the contents. It begins "Dear Bryan" and has the heading, "Concerns concerning offer based on retention of unclaimed prizes". It outlines the procedure that occurred and how the successful offer from Tattersalls included retention of the unclaimed prize money.
Nowhere in any shape or form are the words "formal complaint" used in that email from Baker and McKenzie. The email simply refers to "concerns". I do not know whether the Treasurer has said that he ever saw that email of 17 March. I do not know whether copies of emails sent to a lot of people in Treasury are always sent to the Treasurer—I suppose it depends how Treasury is administered. But one would think if it were a controversial or potentially controversial matter, the Treasurer would receive a copy of the correspondence. Nevertheless, the email refers only to "concerns", and that means that the Treasurer can technically argue that he did not receive a complaint, even if he did see the email. It comes down to whether it was a formal complaint, a complaint or an expression of concern. The answer the Treasurer gave in Hansard on 21 April is fully supported by the documents. Therefore, there is no basis for the censure motion. The Treasurer can be censured for not cooperating or for not answering questions, but I do not believe there is a basis to argue that he deliberately misled the House on that day.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.25 p.m.]: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile indicated that there might not be an argument that the Treasurer deliberately misled House. Be that as it may, the Treasurer certainly misled the House. I make an expression of concern about Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's interpretation of this matter. Of course, according his interpretation, that would not be making a complaint. Come on! This is risky, silly semantics. This contemptuous and arrogant Treasurer has misled the House. He was given a chance to purge his contempt of the House and he totally rejected it.
Not only are we disappointed on a daily basis with the behaviour of this Treasurer with his contempt for the rules—and I will talk about that in a moment—but also today we witnessed the Leader of the Government, the Attorney General of this State, totally off the elements of this matter in his contribution to a censure motion on the Treasurer. The Attorney sought to trash the integrity of a company that may have been the losing bidder in this process. This issue is not about winners and it is not about losers, it is about the facts that are before the House. The Attorney General is eloquent and he is good at what he does, but what he did today was dead wrong. He is a man of integrity, and I suspect he winced at the attitude he took in demeaning a company that, because of parliamentary privilege, has no chance of reply. I am not sure that the Treasurer had the same concerns when he deliberately tried to trash the character of the Opposition Treasury spokesman, Mike Baird.
It is not about whether Mike Baird was twittering, it is not about what Mike Baird said, it is about what happened in this House. The record shows that we the Coalition supported the legislation, and the Leader of the 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22659
Government was accurate when he said that the Opposition had to be dragged screaming into supporting the legislation. Members will recall that the Opposition had real concerns for newsagents and the mum and dad businesses that the Treasurer wanted to sacrifice at any cost. We held out and stopped his privatisation proposal until certain safeguards were put in place.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: So did we.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes, so did Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, and I acknowledge that. We would not have been able to hold out without your support. But these are the facts; this is part of the history of what took place. We put in place detailed legislation on the sale process and what should happen, and a number of bidders adhered to it. However, we found out today that, in the Treasurer's own words, there were two sets of rules: first, the legislation that the Parliament passed containing detail, process and probity and, second, another set of instructions along the lines of, as the Treasurer said, "Take your best shot! Go wild!" That is what the Treasurer said in this House earlier today. They were the instructions given to someone. We had something that was worth "x" dollars and the bidding was reasonably similar, yet one organisation played by a different set of rules; one organisation was able to do something that the other organisations could not do.
The genesis of the question asked by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox in this House was concern about that matter when it became public. Many people were concerned about the fact that there was a probability that only one of the organisations had the opportunity to submit a bid based on the unclaimed prize money. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox asked:
My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, who we are pleased to see back in the Chamber. When he stated at his press conference that proceeds of the sale of NSW Lotteries were beyond market expectation, was he aware that that was because unclaimed prizes were sold without competition despite it being contrary to his own legislation? Will he explain to the House how he decided that the $150 million paid for the lotteries unclaimed prize revenue was sufficient when a prominent a market analyst suggested it was worth $200 million? Given that legal advice from a partner in a leading Sydney law firm stated in relation to the Minister's lotteries legislation that "the Minister can't override a mandatory requirement in the Act to pay unclaimed prizes into the Consolidated Fund", will he now amend the legislation that he put in place to sell the lotteries?
I do not think that was an inappropriate question given the situation. It certainly was not inappropriate given the concern in the community that this cowboy, that bloke over there—
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Point of order—
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: —said, "Take your best shot"—
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Duncan Gay will resume his seat. I remind him that he is already on one call to order.
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: I have been listening intently to the debate.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You were not here.
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: I was listening to it in my office. I have listened to the contributions of the Leader of the Opposition, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Attorney General, and they were all quite respectful and interesting—
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order on the point of order, Madam President.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Catherine Cusack will resume her seat. The Treasurer will come to the nub of the point of order.
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: If the Hon. Duncan Gay feels the need to refer to other members in this House, then he should address them correctly. He should not use nicknames such as "cowboy", because that is inappropriate. I would have thought that a member of his standing—
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I will rule on the point of order. The Treasurer is correct; it is not appropriate for a member to refer to other members by anything other than their proper name or title. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will bear my ruling in mind as he proceeds. 22660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Do I get a chance to respond to the point of order?
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have ruled on the point of order.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I withdraw the statement that the Treasurer is a cowboy. However, he was behaving like a cowboy when he told bidders to "Take your best shot! Go and get wild!" despite the fact that, after careful consideration, this House passed legislation to ensure probity and proper process to stop people like this cowboy of a Treasurer doing this sort of thing. Deutsche Bank's Global Market Research Paper of 12 March 2010 states:
While much has been made of the price paid for the 40 yr NSW Lotteries licence (A$850m…) and the premium to both the next confidence in doubling the size of the business by 2014 and the use of the unclaimed prizes to reinvest in the business.
Under the heading "Use of unclaimed prizes" it further states:
We believe the ability to use unclaimed prizes... has been underestimate by the market. There are few constraints on these funds apart from reinvesting in the business in order to enhance the player experience eg seeding of jackpots and expenditure on promotions, products development, distribution, and player communication. This is likely to have the effect of drying top-line growth and replacing some expenditure that would have taken place, particularly the substitution of marketing expenditure.
would reduce the multiples.
Deutsche Bank is saying that this State missed out on a bonus of at least $50 million. Even worse than that was the concern that there were two groups of bidders: one that had to follow the rules that the Parliament approved and another that was able to take its best shot and go wild. That is what prompted the question. We simply asked whether a complaint had been made. The answer in the first instance was that there was no complaint.
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: That is right and it is still the case.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Treasurer knows that there has been a complaint. No matter how he tries to vilify the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox and members of the other place, the simple fact is that there has been a complaint. The Opposition gave the Treasurer an opportunity to discharge his culpability—
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: We gave him five opportunities.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes, we gave him five opportunities. We did not hammer him in the first instance in the way that he would have done in our position.
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: I'm still waiting for the hammering.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Madam President, you ruled when the Leader of the Government was speaking that he should heard in silence. Is there one set of rules for some in this House and another set of rules for others?
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is one set of rules and I ask all members to cease interjecting. A censure motion is an important motion and members with the call should be heard in silence.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate that. The Treasurer has chosen to trivialise the House and not to answer questions. He has also chosen to indulge in personal vilification. Today he has chosen to treat this motion as a joke. He made jokes about the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party to one of the most serious motions that can be moved in this House. It is not the most serious motion; that title belongs to a motion of no confidence. The Coalition chose not to move a motion of no confidence in the Treasurer, despite the fact that many members urged us to do so.
We believe that in this situation a member who is a man of honour would accept that he acted inappropriately. He would discharge his contempt for the House by accepting that he misled the House. This is not about winners and losers. It is not about the sale price. The question is simply whether the Minister misled the House about whether there was a complaint. Members who choose to interpret what happened as an expression of concern, rather than complaint, would trivialise the traditions of this House and fail in their duty to support the values that have been observed in this place during the 22 years I have been here. A member who 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22661
uses that kind of interpretation to salve his or her conscience before choosing to vote inappropriately on this issue would fail the duty of responsibility expected of every member. Clearly, there has been a misleading of the House, and it has been done by the Treasurer.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.40 p.m.]: I was not going to enter into this debate today. Most members in this House would be aware of the Shooters Party's position on censure motions. Those who have been here any time probably will recall my predecessor's attitude towards the two censure motions that the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox mentioned earlier. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox has presented a very fair and detailed argument today. In return, I think the Treasurer has put documentation on the table that at least gives him the benefit of the doubt.
I find it strange that members in this place take the high moral ground and talk about other members using hyperbole and breaking the argument down to semantics. This whole argument is about semantics, is it not? Did he say, did he not say? We have gone to documentation to prove yes he did or no he did not, and we have taken the best part of a private members' day to do it. I am not trivialising it; censure motions are important matters. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox did a fine job of trying to argue his case but I do not think the case has been proved.
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [3.42 p.m.]: This motion is nothing short of astounding. Members of the Opposition have postured in this place that they supported this transaction and have then used every opportunity to imply that they wish to prevent the proceeds being passed on to the people of New South Wales. They have used every opportunity in this Chamber to talk it down. Anyone in business in New South Wales would be a bit worried. People should be on notice that the New South Wales Liberal Party, based on its performance today, does not understand how business works and that it is anti-business. Members opposite have no credibility on this issue whatsoever. If anyone wants proof, all they have to do is look at the statements they have made on the Lotteries sale over time. This is what Peter Debnam said on 11 December 2007:
There is no need for the public sector to own New South Wales Lotteries and I will use these funds to begin the urgent task of drought proofing New South Wales
The member for Manly, Michael Baird, was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 April 2009 as saying that the Coalition still believed in selling off New South Wales Lotteries. He was reported again on 17 June 2009 as follows:
The sale of New South Wales Lotteries has been put forward as policy by the Liberal-Nationals Coalition and it is no surprise that we will continue to support that policy.
He is backed up by Patricia Forsythe from the Sydney Chamber of Commerce, who said the sale was a 'significant economic reform'. On 18 August last year, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, George Souris said:
The Opposition has always supported in principle the sale of New South Wales Lotteries
On the next day, 19 August, on the Ray Hadley show, Barry O'Farrell said:
We haven't changed our position on it. We went to the last election saying it should and could be sold, providing you looked after the small businesses, that is the newsagents, whose livelihood depends upon it.
We have no in-principal objection to the sale of Lotteries.
On 9 September 2009, in the other place, Mike Baird stated:
We have always argued that this was a good policy. There are often claims from the other side about policy not emanating from this side of the House. This is a policy that we have run with for a considerable period and it was in place before the lead-up to the last election.
We continued to advocate it and we are pleased that the Government has undertaken the process. We understand that New South Wales Lotteries is a competitive business and that there is a huge amount of investment and energy required.
It makes sense to transfer this business to experts and to use the income that we receive for other purposes—perhaps the infrastructure that we have heard the Treasurer talk about.
Let us look at the facts. The sale of NSW Lotteries Corporation to the Tatts Group represented the highest and best return to taxpayers from a bidding process that met rigorous probity requirements. The probity advisers, 22662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
RSM Bird Cameron, have provided an unqualified opinion on the fairness, value for money, accountability, transparency, consistency, confidentiality and security of the bid process. Their report is available on the NSW Treasury website for all to see. I refer to the letter dated 26 March 2010 from RSM Bird Cameron to the chair of the steering committee for the NSW Lotteries project, which stated:
We are satisfied that the NSW Lotteries Request for Binding Offer process complied with the Probity Plan, the Probity Principles contained therein and the Selection Plan.
The letter continues with:
We are therefore able to report to you that we are satisfied as to the Probity of the process for the general Probity requirements from the 30th October 2009 to 26th of February 2010 for the New South Wales Lotteries Request for Binding Offer Process.
We also welcome the review by the Auditor General, as is usual practice for a transaction like this. In return for operating NSW Lotteries exclusively for 40 years, Tatts will pay the Government $850 million, a price significantly exceeding market expectation. When coupled with surplus cash and assets payable to the Government, the total proceeds of the transaction are around $1.01 billion. This is an outstanding outcome for taxpayers. General duty from the sale of NSW lottery tickets will continue to be paid into public coffers—worth some $330 million last financial year. Importantly, the Government will continue to have regulatory oversight for public lotteries in New South Wales and this ensures important community protections.
But the Opposition refuses to accept the advice of the independent probity officer, and its constant attacks on the transaction are just another example of its reckless talking down of the New South Wales economy. Let us just look at the smear the Opposition has attempted to put on unclaimed prizes—and its backdown on whether legislation was required. The reality is that the sale of NSW Lotteries to the Tatts Group will not result in any significant change to the management of unclaimed prizes. Unclaimed prizes will be used for the promotion and growth of the lotteries business for the benefit of players. This will benefit the State through higher Government duty. The use of unclaimed prizes will continue to be regulated by the Minister for the benefit of players under the Public Lotteries Act 1996 and relevant regulations.
Expert legal advice provided to NSW Treasury and the Government is that no legislation needs to be changed. In the face of all this, Mike Baird had to flip-flop embarrassingly on his argument about legislation. After arguing adamantly in public, as we have heard from other members in the Chamber, that legislation was required, he said in a press release on 1 April 2010:
The State Labor Government has contravened the spirit of the law … which may mean the legislation needs to come back to parliament …
Given that this press release was put out on 1 April, perhaps it was meant to be some kind of an April fool's joke because we may need to come back to Parliament. It is about the spirit of the law; it is no longer about legislation being required, as was mentioned in broad statement about legislative needs. One day the Opposition is adamant and the next day it backs off to try to save face. The reality is that the Opposition has nothing. Let us see this motion for what it is—a slap in the face to business, a slap in the face to the concept of due process and fairness, and worst of all, a slap in the face to the people of New South Wales.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [3.50 p.m.], in reply: At the outset, I thank all members who have participated in this very serious debate, the censure of the Treasurer. In particular, I acknowledge the fine contributions of my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Duncan Gay. I note that the Treasurer's defence of this censure motion appears to turn primarily on whether the letter of 17 March, sent by the unsuccessful bidders to the probity auditor, a senior Treasury official and the Government's advisers on the Lotteries sale, was or was not a formal complaint. The Treasurer contends that it is not a formal complaint and therefore cannot be recognised as a criticism of the sales process. We simply do not accept this.
Indeed, the Treasurer went on to attack the shadow Treasurer at length rather than deal with the substantive motion and left that to the Leader of the Government, the Hon. John Hatzistergos. The Treasurer accused the Opposition of not understanding the bid process. He also confirmed that the highest conforming bid and non-conforming bid came from Tatts. In relation to the bid process he made it very clear, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, that it is really a case of informing bidders to take their best shot, to go wild and do whatever they want regardless of the parameters of the sales process.
In relation to sales processes of this nature, I make it clear that I have some experience with serving on government sales task forces. I have spent considerable time involved in the sales process in the sale and 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22663
privatisation of airports by the Commonwealth Government and also the Telstra sale. I make it very clear to the House that it is quite extraordinary to contend, as the Treasurer has, that anybody would suggest to any prospective bidder that they simply go wild, put their best bid on the table and hang the rules. The stark reality in these matters is that bidders will not put a bid on the table until there is certainty with the regulatory framework surrounding the sale. We have seen this particularly with the Government's proposed electricity privatisation. Without certainty on key regulatory aspects, such as emissions trading schemes, the price of carbon or the likely regulatory framework going forward, bidders will not involve themselves seriously in a sale process.
In this case the Parliament had passed legislation to facilitate the sale that specifically said that the unclaimed prizes pool would not be included in the sale but would go into consolidated revenue. Any bidder who enters a process where legislation sets out how they should bid and what the asset is that they are bidding for would not, in any commercial environment I have been familiar with, suddenly decide to contravene that legislation in putting in a non-conforming bid. We have it under direct authority from one bidding consortium that the tender rules made it clear what the regulatory framework for the sale was, and that regulatory framework, in part, was controlled by the legislation that had been passed by this House.
There can be no doubt that section 27A of the Public Lotteries Act made it clear that the unclaimed prize pool would go to consolidated revenue. It was not open to bidders to bid as part of the sales process. Nonetheless, the Treasurer saw fit to debunk that commercial reality and contend that the process was there to enable a bunch of cowboys to ride through as they saw fit. I note in particular that that extraordinary comment is at odds with the evidence put here today. I note in particular the documents the Treasurer saw fit to table in the House today, despite having five separate occasions to bring this information to the attention of the House prior to today, and that these documents in themselves are incomplete. I note the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition in this regard, his forensic examination of the documents and the email addresses appearing thereon, which are inconclusive as to the source and the timing of the documents being in the hands of the Government.
I note the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition for the Treasurer to come into this place or to send somebody on his behalf to clarify exactly the nature of this document and exactly when the Government was in possession of this information. It appears, on the face of it, that the Government was in possession from 23 April 010, yet the Government has seen fit not to table the documents until today. I note in particular that the first series of questions on the NSW Lotteries sale were put to the Treasurer on 21 April 2010, which probably accounts for this email trail being provided on 23 April 2010. However, subsequent to that time a further two opportunities were given to the Treasurer to submit these documents to the House to clarify exactly what has happened in relation to this process.
Sadly, the Treasurer has decided to play politics with this process, to undermine public confidence in the sales process of NSW Lotteries, and his failure to actually provide this documentation to the House shows the contempt with which he holds this place and his failure to understand the conventions of ministerial accountability and responsibility, so important to the facilitation of this place. I note in particular the contribution from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, who appeared to me to be almost an additional Government speaker on this matter. He focused particularly on the technical issues of whether the complaint letter of 17 March was indeed a concern, a complaint or a formal complaint. It really was a case of semantics overtaking reason. Technically the distinctions that were made are not of any import.
The reality is that whatever hurdles or smokescreens the Treasurer has put out on the technical use of language invoking the probity auditor to report, cleansing him of any wrongdoing, do not go to the heart of how the Treasurer has behaved in relation to the opportunities that the Opposition has given him to put on the record his response to the serious concerns raised by the Opposition. On no less than five occasions we have put to the Treasurer questions in question time to elucidate exactly what has happened with this transaction and every single time the Treasurer has failed to properly inform the House of what has happened in such an important transaction.
I note, in particular, that in those comments the Treasurer failed to submit the documents that were tabled today. I put to the House that it is possible to mislead by omission as well as commission. I think the Treasurer is guilty on all fronts in this case. Indeed, the Treasurer is duty-bound by the conventions of this place to provide all relevant answers to a question. This is explicitly stipulated under Standing Order 65 (5). The Treasurer could have provided the correspondence had he seen fit to table it in the House on any of those five 22664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
previous occasions. This confirms the Treasurer's contempt for not only this side of the House, as he articulated in his contribution to the debate, but also the longstanding conventions and standards of ministerial accountability under the Westminster system.
Indeed, as I said earlier today, this censure motion goes to the heart of our Westminster system and to the dignity of this House. Members of this place and the wider public must have confidence that Ministers of the Crown will be honest in answering questions in this place, and when they are not, that they will be held accountable. This recognises the undeniable fact that ministerial responsibility and accountability is, indeed, at the core of the Westminster system of government.
Accordingly, I again call on members of the House to support this censure motion and send a clear message to the Treasurer that his conduct in misleading this House by, amongst other things, not answering questions put to him on five separate occasions over the past month not only is unacceptable from a Minister of the Crown but will not be tolerated by this House.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 19
Mr Ajaka Mr Gay Mrs Pavey Mr Clarke Ms Hale Mr Pearce Mr Cohen Dr Kaye Ms Rhiannon Ms Cusack Mr Khan Ms Ficarra Mr Mason-Cox Tellers, Mr Gallacher Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Ms Parker Mr Harwin
Noes, 20
Mr Brown Reverend Nile Mr Smith Mr Catanzariti Mr Obeid Mr Veitch Mr Della Bosca Mr Primrose Mr West Ms Griffin Mr Robertson Ms Westwood Mr Hatzistergos Ms Robertson Tellers, Mr Macdonald Mr Roozendaal Mr Donnelly Mr Moselmane Ms Sharpe Ms Voltz
Pair
Mr Lynn Mr Kelly
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 250 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers regarding China Shenhua Energy, be called on forthwith.
Order of Business
Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:
That Private Members' Business item No. 250 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22665
GUNNEDAH BASIN COAL EXPLORATION
Production of Documents: Order
Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.10 p.m.]: I move:
That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Primary Industries, the Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources or the Department of Industry and Investment:
(a) all documents, created since January 2005, that relate or refer to discussions, or any other form of communication, between the Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, the Honourable Ian Macdonald, MLC, and any representatives of the coal mining company China Shenhua Energy about the company’s plans to explore for coal in the Gunnedah Basin or to invest in, build or operate a new coal-fired power plant in New South Wales, and
(b) any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.
This debate is about releasing documents that would give the public an understanding of what is really happening. These documents should be released because what has happened over recent years in this regard appears to be extremely shadowy and the Parliament has an opportunity today to open this up to public scrutiny. In summary, we have a foreign company that wants to explore for coal and to set up coal-fired power plants, we have a Minister who has made frequent visits to the country of origin of that company, we have a Minister who has told the public that this project is only about exploration, that there is a rigorous process in place and we do not know whether there will be a coalmine, we have a company prepared to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to set up rail infrastructure to transport the coal from the area to a port, and meanwhile the company is buying properties in the area where the mine would be, but apparently it is only at the exploration stage. What is really going on here?
Let me fill in the story as to why these documents should be released. At each step of the way the public have been kept in the dark and today we have the opportunity to do the right thing by the community of New South Wales. We will begin with the company. China Shenhua is one of about 30 subsidiaries of its parent company, the Chinese state-owned Shenhua group. The Hon. Ian Macdonald is the relevant Minister and at the time when much of the original deal was done with China Shenhua for these hundreds of millions of dollars that were paid just for coal exploration he was both Minister for Primary Industries and the Minister for Mineral Resources. The land we are talking about is rich farming land in the Liverpool Plains area. I urge all members who have not visited this area to do so. When you visit the area you can really understand why these farmers are fighting so passionately about their land, why they have initiated the court cases, why they travel back and forth to Canberra and Macquarie Street, why they are bussed down for protests, and why they held that blockade for so long. In many cases this land has been in their families for generations, and they also know it is a food bowl for the future. These farmers are deeply committed to looking after this area.
We have dealt with the company, the Minister and the land, so what is the proposal? Apparently all it is at the moment is to explore for coal in the Watermark area of the Liverpool Plains. If this area were developed into a full-scale mine—the position of the Greens on this is on the record—it would rip the heart out of the Liverpool Plains, an area of fertile land with so many aquifers that regularly feed the area that over recent decades there has rarely been a drought. I come now to the deal. These papers should be released because we get only a glimmer every now and again of what is going on in this regard.
The rumours started in July 2008 that negotiations were going on with Chinese companies, possibly for $600 million, for the rights to explore for coal. When the deal was firmed up with China Shenhua to explore for coal in the Watermark region we heard it was actually $300 million. That was seen as quite extraordinary. That amount of money had never been paid before. All of a sudden the Minister announced this deal with great fanfare. I am interested to hear his version of these events because many people want to know: Why so much money? Was so much money really given just to explore for coal? Was that the only understanding that China Shenhua had? When we get to August 2008 we find out that $175 million of the $300 million is earmarked for transport infrastructure—rail lines—to transport the coal from Watermark to the Port of Newcastle. Apparently, China Shenhua is willing to put in this money for rail infrastructure when it does not even know it has a mine project.
This is supposed to be at the exploration stage! How many times have we heard the Minister use his favourite word "rigorous" and that we will have a rigorous process? That word is used to suggest that there will be a tough process to assess whether the mine should go ahead. Maybe it is a tough process, but until the 22666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
documents are revealed how can we tell? At the same time Minister Macdonald is taking trips to China. This is where the Minister says he has nothing to hide and he has no problems—comments he has frequently made over the years. Now is his opportunity to allow the documents to be released so the community knows what has gone on. I understand that since 2005 he has made five work-related trips to China: one in 2005, one in 2007 and three times between January 2008 and July 2009.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I am getting a taste for Peking duck.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge that interjection and I acknowledge the laughter from the Minister.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: You are overly serious at times.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, I am not overly serious. You are so secretive, Minister. It is just good for the public when they read this—and so many people do—to get a sense of what goes on in this place. This is the Minister's opportunity to come clean about what meetings he has held with China Shenhua. Were there discussions about the $300 million? What does it mean when a company states it will put that amount of money on the table just to explore for coal? Is that all the deal was? Was there anything in return? If the Minister has nothing to hide, he should not have a problem about releasing this information.
I refer to another factor that has been occurring in recent years. This project is at the exploration stage. According to the Minister, China Shenhua understands that at present it can only explore for coal. No guarantee has been given that a coalmine will be allowed in the area. However, China Shenhua is buying up farm properties. It has been reported that in a number of cases it has paid prices up to 300 per cent above the current land values. Why would a company buy land in an area where it hopes to mine for coal but, according to the Minister and his staff, has not been given a guarantee that the project will go ahead? Why is the company buying land? Why is the company giving money to the Government? Why is the company investing money in rail infrastructure? The public has a right to have answers to these questions. Understandably, many people believe that China Shenhua is confident that approval will be granted for its mining venture, given the activities of the company in the Liverpool Plains. This issue is back in the news. In early May Mr Wang Jinli, senior vice president of China Shenhua, made a statement in Beijing. However, confusion surrounded his statement. The issue was first reported in the Australian Financial Review on 3 May 2010, quoting the senior vice president as saying:
Shenhua's development will not have a big impact on the environment because the location of the mine is on high country and away from the river system. In future there will be some mining under the river but this will be deep enough and engineered not to impact on the river.
Following a huge outcry of concern from locals because this was contrary to all expectations, two days later, in a media release from Shenhua Watermark Coal Pty Ltd, Mr Wang said:
What I did say was that Shenhua will mine in the Ridge country so as to not impact the River.
Mr Clayton, the local China Shenhua representative, said in the media release:
Shenhua Watermark will NOT be mining under the black soil.
I have put those remarks on the record to give their version of events. However, I dispute that the company has clearly stated its position. It asserted that confusion arose as a result of a breakdown in translation. The Australian Financial Review again reported on this issue on 6 May 2010. The newspaper had another translator review Mr Wang's comments. The article states:
Mr Wang said his comments related to possible future long-wall mining, though the company's current exploration relates to open cut mining.
That is a significant comment. Until now we have been told that China Shenhua's operations are open-cut mining. It is now opening up about future longwall mining. The article goes on:
The translation was a Shenhua translation that did say that Shenhua might mine under the river.
The Australian Financial Review had Mr Wang's comments analysed by another interpreter. She interpreted Mr Wang as saying that there might be some mining "under the water level" not "under the river".
Mr Clayton said it was possible the company could mine beneath the water level adjacent to the aquifer but "it won't be directly underneath the aquifer". 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22667
There is much confusion. To summarise, Mr Wang Jinli makes a statement in Beijing, about which there is great outcry and concern, and Shenhua Watermark attempts to correct the statement in a media release. The second translation does not lessen the confusion. The confusion is compounded by Mr Clayton—who is an Australian representative of China Shenhua, so translation is not a factor—when he refers to mining beneath the water and near the aquifer. We are not getting a clear picture. This further underlines the need for the documents to be released. The people of New South Wales, particularly the locals of the Liverpool Plains area, must be informed about this project. At present there is minimal transparency in relation to this project.
There is minimal transparency in relation to the exploration deal. Why has the company paid millions of dollars for rail infrastructure when, apparently, it has not received approval for the mine project, certainly not official approval? There is no transparency about the coalmine project. Evidence suggests that the company is very confident that it has the project wrapped up. The company has put in hundred of millions of dollars and has bought up properties. On that score, there is no transparency. There is no transparency about the talks between China Shenhua and the Minister. For those reasons alone this motion should be passed. The motion does not criticise the Minister. It calls for the production of documents under Standing Order 52 to release papers for scrutiny. I urge all members of the House, particularly those from the Opposition and the crossbenches, to support the motion. The Minister has often said in relation to this project that he has nothing to hide. He has said there are no problems with it. I also urge the Minister to support the motion. It would be a significant step in informing the public about this project and it would help build public confidence in the process, which at times has been shown to be lacking.
I refer to a couple of other reasons why this material should be released. Members would be aware in recent months of media coverage about issues associated with coalmining and coal-fired power stations. I refer particularly to health, climate change and food security issues. The job of the Parliament is to consider the needs of New South Wales and strike a balance to best serve the people and the environment. We are looking not only at short-term measures but to the future. That requires us to consider climate change and the coal industry, including coal-fired power plants and coalmines. That is another reason for openness. We have to weigh up the issues so that we can decide whether this is a responsible plan. The end game is that this company wants to develop a large open-cut coalmine. There must be transparency in the process in the early stages so that we, the legislators, the local people who bear the brunt of these changes and the people of New South Wales are well informed.
I highlight the health implications of open-cut coalmines. I do not need to go into that in detail. I am sure members are aware of the publicity last week about the high levels of asthma in the Hunter, where many open-cut coalmines operate. I also highlight the very important issue of food security. The Liverpool Plains is a food bowl that will continue to be fertile for thousands of years and provide food for many generations. Should this land be sacrificed for a coalmine that lasts 20 or 30 years? I know that members have different opinions on this issue. I am calling for the release of these documents so that we can be better informed when we weigh up the issues about the future of this area. I urge members to support the motion before the House. I again thank members for allowing the motion to be debated.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast (4.29 p.m.): The Government opposes this motion. I will address some of the statements made by Ms Lee Rhiannon in her contribution. Her last statement was that we do not want people mining under the Liverpool Plains. How many times do I have to remind the member that the Watermark licence does not impact on the Liverpool Plains; it is in the ranges area? Last year BHP Billiton surrendered, as part of its exploration lease, the right to mine under the Liverpool Plains, and its exploration activity is concentrated in the ranges as well.
The New South Wales Government first invited expressions of interest for exploration in the Watermark area in October 2007, and expressions of interest closed in February 2008. In August 2008 the New South Wales Government announced that it would grant an exploration licence for the Watermark coal exploration area near Gunnedah for a period of five years. The State Government has the highest levels of scrutiny in the expressions of interest process. I granted the exploration licence to China Shenhua Energy Company on the recommendation of an expert assessment panel, which included an independent probity auditor. That is why an assessment panel made the recommendation after thoroughly reviewing all the expressions of interest and following the normal protocols.
Former New South Wales Nationals leader Ian Armstrong chairs a community consultative committee to involve the community in the ongoing process, and there is full transparency in that process. They have many, 22668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
many meetings and they discuss every issue one could imagine in relation to that area. Indeed, a lot of information goes public from those meetings. The exploration phase is being carried out under strict conditions in accordance with the Mining Act 1992.
The entire enterprise, if successful after government assessments, could be worth more than $670 million to the people of New South Wales. The Watermark area is located approximately 35 kilometres south-east of Gunnedah in the Gunnedah coalfield. The actual mine site is expected to be a much smaller proportion of the exploration licence. That fact is often confused in public debate. Exploration licence areas are generally much larger than the actual mine sites. The exploration licence is for an area of approximately 190 square kilometres, which is expected to contain shallow coal resources of domestic and export quality thermal coal. The Government is answerable for ensuring that all of this State's natural resources are utilised to the maximum benefit of the people of New South Wales. These are State assets and the coal is State coal. It is not privately owned coal; it is State coal that is held on behalf of the people of New South Wales.
China Shenhua Energy Company is the leading integrated coal-based energy company in the world. Its main businesses include production and marketing of coal, power generation, railway transportation and port operation. The company operates six underground mines in the more than 10 million tonnes per annum category and a number of large open-cut mines in China. These mines utilise state-of-the-art mining techniques and equipment. China Shenhua possesses world-leading technologies in mining and power generation, including implementing recycling technologies and a sound safety record. It places safety and environmental protection as its number one priority.
There is no mining proposal and there is no development application before the Government. If the exploration led to a mining proposal, which subsequently passed the New South Wales Government's rigorous and stringent major projects development consent process, then there would be substantial benefits to New South Wales at State, regional and local levels. This includes the creation of more than 1,200 new direct and indirect jobs in New South Wales during Watermark's production phase, with more than 400 direct jobs in the local region; investment in mine development of about $500 million—this amount excludes mining equipment and rail line upgrades—and a commitment to significant investment of $175 million in the development of expanded coal-loading infrastructure at the Port of Newcastle, and any associated infrastructure. We must remember that this money has not been paid; it will be paid dependent upon the granting of a development application, if that subsequently occurs.
Other benefits to New South Wales will be the creation of about 300 direct jobs during construction and more than 400 direct jobs in the local region during the production phase over a mine life in excess of 40 years—an incredible amount of economic development and opportunity for the region—and a commitment to participating in funding options studies for necessary rail infrastructure upgrades in the Gunnedah basin. Upgrades in the Gunnedah basin will service all the industries in that region, not just the mining sector. It would assist and greatly aid the production of food and delivery of that food into the Newcastle port.
Another benefit will be a significant financial commitment over the five-year exploration licence period of $1 million per annum up to a maximum of five years to a regional community trust. The trust will be available for local educational programs, medical programs, indigenous programs and environmental programs. It will generate funding for infrastructure and services such as hospitals, schools and roads. I am advised, and I will make this very clear, that the exploration licence does not include any reference to a power station. In general terms, Shenhua has expressed over the years an interest in power generation if the reform process was sent to public tender. But what is not factual is the assertion that this Government has a secret deal with China Shenhua Energy to invest in, build or operate a new coal-fired power plant in New South Wales. That is not correct and it is mischievous nonsense on the part of the Greens. There have been no negotiations or secret deals with Shenhua in relation to these matters.
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Didn't the Fin Review bring it up?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No. I will deal with that in a second. I have made some notes based on what Ms Lee Rhiannon has said and I intend to deal with some of them. There have been no negotiations or secret deals with Shenhua in relation to these matters. I think you will find that it was the member who made such assertions, not the Australian Financial Review. The Greens' assertion that New South Wales Government Ministers should keep the people of New South Wales informed on proposed major mining and industry developments is precisely what we are doing. Any proposals for any power station anywhere in New South Wales would need to follow due process, that is, a development application would need to be lodged with the Department of Planning. 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22669
The facts are simple: No such application has been lodged, no deals have been made and nothing has been agreed to. This has not been a shadowy process. In fact, when it was announced, there was a very public release of the terms of the arrangement and that was made clear to the public. Yes, it is a foreign company. We have a large number of companies within the coal sector in Australia, and indeed other sectors, that are either foreign owned or have substantial foreign ownership. It is a furphy to concentrate upon China for some reason.
In relation to visits to China, I do not resile from the fact that I have been to a number of Asian countries over five or six years. I have been not only to China but also to Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and India. I do not resile from that at all, in spite of any nonsense that occurs in the media. We have an obligation to engage our neighbours and keep in close contact with them. Yes, I have made presentations to a series of companies in Asia about opportunities in New South Wales. That is my job, not only in this sector but in other sectors, from agriculture to fishing—all the areas of my portfolios. I make it clear that they have not paid a cent for railway tracks in New South Wales. The railway tracks part of the $175 million is provisional. Eventually, if there is a development application approved and a mining licence granted then that contribution would come into play.
As I said, the public have not been kept in the dark. We have to be very careful when we start making those sorts of slanders about a company that has sought to invest in our country and in imports from this country's considerable assets. Ms Lee Rhiannon spoke about rich farmland. I think the member is getting somewhat confused. In fact, I assisted in negotiating with BHP Billiton and allowed it to make it clear that it would not be proceeding with that part of its licence that included the Liverpool Plains. That was signed legally.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: What about the water study?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The water study is out for tender at the moment.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: Are you providing funds for it?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: According to the records, we have already supplied about $600,000.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: They need more than that.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Hon. Melinda Pavey should wait a second; there is much more to come. She should not jump in. We have been servicing all the relevant water processes. If we were not serious we would not have established the original committee chaired by Pam Allan or the ministerial oversight committee chaired by Mal Peters. All of that has required extensive work and this Government has been funding that work, no-one else. Members of the Opposition should be very careful. That is a clear commitment of money and resources. Ms Lee Rhiannon has been a little nicer in this place than she has been in the media. Finally she had the decency to read the article in the Australian Financial Review that clearly indicates that the vice president's words were translated incorrectly.
[Interruption]
They are technical issues and they have to be dealt with in the development application. There are water levels all over this State.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times. Ms Lee Rhiannon will have the opportunity to respond at the appropriate time.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: What about the money for the water study?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The water study will be going ahead. The Hon. Trevor Khan should not worry himself.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! I call the Hon. Trevor Khan to order for the first time.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Government has been dealing with this matter in a very open and transparent way. There are no deals with Shenhua. It must go through the full process required of any company that wants to undertake development in this State. 22670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
The Hon. Trevor Khan: What about the water study?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is obvious that the Hon. Trevor Khan wants to leave the Chamber early.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! I call the Hon. Trevor Khan to order for the second time. The member should not test me.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: As the Hon. Trevor Khan knows, this has been a very open process. Shenhua has been prepared to enter into an expression of interest process that involved a number of bidders. It was at the height of the commodities boom, coal was a very desirable commodity and companies were prepared to make significant investments. And they still are, given that the global financial crisis is receding. I make it very clear that there are no deals. We are only at the exploratory stage. This motion is not only frivolous, misleading and mischievous, it is also a great waste of time and process, and if it is passed, the time of many fine public servants who are trying to get on with the job will also be wasted. The Government opposes the motion.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.44 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Opposition on this motion. About a week ago I was approached by the spokesperson of the Caroona Action Group, Mr Duddy, who asked whether the Opposition was willing to support an order for documents under Standing Order 52 relating to the article referred to by the Minister and others and the claims that there were discussions between Shenhua and the Government to build a coal-fired power station.
There were two clear points of view in the public domain: the Minister's view that there had been no negotiations and the view that there had been negotiations. I thought it was appropriate to source the papers to test whether the Minister had been fair dinkum about this matter. If he had been fair dinkum and had not been giving us spin—as he sometimes can—there would be no papers dealing with negotiations. However, if he had misled the people of this State there would be papers produced that would indicate that. As far as I was concerned it was a discrete and proper request. I indicated to Mr Duddy that I would take the proposal to the Coalition leadership group and obtain approval to go forward, and I did that. I told him that I had to contact the people involved before proceeding with the proposal. I have not spoken with the affected people, but my understanding is that the Coalition supports part of this motion.
I did not realise that this motion was about to be debated. If I had, I would have prepared an amendment to remove the inappropriate words referring to the coal area. Of course, I could move to adjourn this debate until the next sitting day that private members' business takes precedence so that the Opposition can present a detailed contribution. However, I am seeking an indication from members as to whether moving an amendment now is the appropriate way to proceed. I am certainly willing to amend the motion on the run. However, if there be an indication of little or no support for an amendment, it may be appropriate to seek to adjourn the debate so that we can have proper negotiations. We could delete from the motion reference to material that was not part of the understanding we were looking for and concentrate on the specific allegation and concern across New South Wales that a private deal was arrived at between the Government and Shenhua. I know that is a concern for the Minister as I am sure it is for the company, but it is no less a concern for the people who live in the area. In order to clarify the situation that in my view is the appropriate thing to do. Accordingly, I move:
That the question be amended by deleting the words "to explore for coal in Gunnedah Basin or" in paragraph (a).
The relevant part of the motion would therefore be as follows:
… all documents, created since January 2005, that relate to all refer to discussions, or any other form of communication, between the Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, the Honourable Ian Macdonald MLC, and any representatives of the coal mining company China Shenhua Energy about the company's plans to invest in, build or operate a new coal-fired power plant in New South Wales …
It will then be discrete with regard to the question that was asked of me and the comment made by the Minister that he certainly has not had such discussions. The call for papers would, so far as the Minister is concerned, clear up the matter. If that is not the case, so be it.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [4.50 p.m.]: The motion of Ms Lee Rhiannon is a fishing expedition. The Minister has flatly denied there had been any discussions in relation to investment in power stations with China Shenhua Energy. I do not see the point of an amendment that seeks to wait another week— 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22671
The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is not what my amendment does. My amendment will delete most of the fishing expedition.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Thank you; I stand corrected. There will therefore be a more accurate representation of what papers are required for that assessment. We will reserve our judgement on this matter until we hear Ms Lee Rhiannon's reply. We are not inclined to support this sort of trolling, and that is what it is, when we are talking about companies that may or may not in the future wish to invest millions, if not billions, of dollars in this country. There are ramifications. This may not affect just China Shenhua Energy. There may be a whole host of other companies the Government is finessing to get them to invest in this country. It may not necessarily be in the best interests of the people of New South Wales if documents detailing confidential discussions or indications of whether a company does or does not want to do things are spread all over the place. We are not sure yet how we will vote on this.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [4.52 p.m.]: I indicate to all members of the House that this matter has received extensive publicity in the media in the Tamworth and Gunnedah regions. The reason for the notoriety seems to arise primarily because of statements made by representatives of the company and what precisely was said by the representatives of the company and the interpreters. To that extent, the issue has arisen because of comments made either directly or vicariously by the company, and it is appropriate within the limited scope that those issues are resolved.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.53 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members who participated in the debate. The Minister's comments were interesting and informative up to a certain point. In many ways they were informative because of what he failed to say. The Minister tells us that there are no mining proposals before the Government and no secret deals, but I suggest that his opposition to the release of these documents highlights a continuing refusal to come clean with regard to discussions. Clearly there would be discussions about the future, post the exploration stage. Time and again we have seen coal exploration in New South Wales as the first stage of full-scale mining.
The Shooters Party representative, Mr Robert Brown, made comments about a fishing expedition. The wording of the motion has been devised very carefully. The motion is certainly not a fishing expedition, and that argument has been weakened further by the amendment. This is not about looking at documents relating to the exploration for coal in the Gunnedah basin; it is about investing in, building and operating new coal-fired power plants. That is what the documents are linked to. The motion is very specific. I urge the Shooters Party to think carefully about that.
I remind them that often they say they are friends of the farmers. Indeed, almost a year ago in this place when we were debating the Greens bill to protect prime agricultural land from mining Mr Brown, I think it was, said that although the members of the Shooters Party supported the bill they could not vote for it because it was a Greens bill. I recall that famous "Junkyard Dogs" headline on the front page of the Land. It was certainly interesting the way the Land interpreted the matter because of the vote. I suggest to Mr Brown that this is his opportunity to correct the record, if that is what he wants to do. It is not stating a position on the issue; it is just saying, "Open up debate so that the locals and the people of New South Wales have an opportunity to understand how this process is working." I commend the motion to the House.
Question—That the amendment of the Hon. Duncan Gay be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 19
Mr Ajaka Mr Gay Mrs Pavey Mr Clarke Ms Hale Mr Pearce Mr Cohen Dr Kaye Ms Rhiannon Ms Cusack Mr Khan Ms Ficarra Mr Mason-Cox Tellers, Mr Gallacher Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Ms Parker Mr Harwin 22672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
Noes, 20
Mr Brown Reverend Nile Mr Smith Mr Catanzariti Mr Obeid Mr Veitch Ms Griffin Mr Primrose Mr West Mr Hatzistergos Mr Robertson Ms Westwood Mr Kelly Ms Robertson Tellers, Mr Macdonald Mr Roozendaal Mr Donnelly Mr Moselmane Ms Sharpe Ms Voltz
Pair
Mr Lynn Mr Della Bosca
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendment of the Hon. Duncan Gay negatived.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
Division called for and Standing Order 114 (4) applied.
The House divided.
Ayes, 5
Mr Cohen Reverend Dr Moyes Ms Rhiannon
Tellers, Ms Hale Dr Kaye
Noes, 33
Mr Ajaka Mr Khan Mr Roozendaal Mr Brown Mr Macdonald Ms Sharpe Mr Catanzariti Mr Mason-Cox Mr Smith Mr Clarke Mr Moselmane Mr Veitch Mr Colless Reverend Nile Ms Voltz Ms Ficarra Mr Obeid Mr West Mr Gallacher Ms Parker Ms Westwood Miss Gardiner Mrs Pavey Mr Gay Mr Pearce Ms Griffin Mr Primrose Tellers, Mr Hatzistergos Mr Robertson Mr Donnelly Mr Kelly Ms Robertson Mr Harwin
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House if desired.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:
That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 18 May 2010 at 2.30 p.m.
13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22673
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Planning, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for Lands) [5.08 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
LITERACY AND NUMERACY
Dr JOHN KAYE [5.08 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I pay tribute to the commitment, courage and integrity of the public sector teaching profession in New South Wales, as demonstrated by their principled stand against damaging league tables and misleading school comparisons based on year 3, 5, 7 and 9 National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN] tests. Despite the eloquent concerns expressed for the schools that serve communities and the future of education, Federal Minister Julia Gillard and her State and Territory colleagues were able to bully the Australian Education Union into lifting their bans on the NAPLAN tests. After months of ignoring the teachers union the Federal Minister gave away almost nothing in her negotiations. Despite the courageous efforts of public sector teachers to protect students from league tables, school average NAPLAN scores based on the 2010 tests will still appear on her My School website. Unless there is a dramatic change in direction, New South Wales will be subjected to league tables when this year's results are published.
The Federal Minister's promise of a working party to advise the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA] is little more than window-dressing. The Minister can as easily ignore the advice from the working party as she has ignored the flood of warnings from professional educators about simplistic comparisons. The ink had barely dried on her signature before Julia Gillard made it clear to the media that there would be no backing down from her obsession with publishing average test scores. Regardless of the working party's recommendations, the Minister is determined that the core problem that has teachers up in arms will remain unaddressed.
Without replacing average scores with more meaningful information about the spread of school performance, league tables and other misleading and dangerous comparisons will continue to be produced. It does not matter what other material is published on the site; media outlets will still be able to harvest the average results and use them to construct league tables. Publishing graphs of the spread of outcomes within each school, instead of the average figures, would make it very difficult to produce league tables. Importantly, it would also provide much richer information for parents and the community.
Even Peter Hill, the head of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, warned when he first started the job that it is essential to present information in such a way that it is very difficult for people to misuse. In an interview with the public school parents body the Australian Council of State School Organisations Dr Hill said:
Can people misuse data? Yes, they can. I think always you have to ensure that you present information in such a way that it is very difficult for them to do that. The way in which you present the data has to be impeccable: You have to give the caveats surrounding your data, and you have to ensure that what you're presenting is balanced, and doesn't lead to a distorted view.
His ACARA website is a long way from the "impeccable" presentation he advocated and Julia Gillard has guaranteed it will not move any c1oser. Throughout the dispute the New South Wales Department of Education and Training behaved appallingly, leaving a long-term scar in its relationship with teachers and principals. The decision to seize test papers from schools that intended to implement the ban represents an unprecedented breach of faith between schools and the department that is supposed to support them. This will take years to heal. Not since the days of former Greiner Government Minister Terry Metherell has there been such an attack on teacher professionalism and the right of principals to run their schools.
It is a disgrace that the Minister failed to rein in her Director General, Michael Coutts-Trotter, and the Deputy Director General for Schools, Trevor Fletcher. Their zeal for doing Julia Gillard's dirty work was not only unprofessional; it was downright dangerous, leaving the tests at risk of being deeply compromised. It is now time to heal the wounds that their behaviour created and to move forward. That can only be done by listening to teachers' concerns about the MySchool website and the impacts it will have on education, schools and students.
Throughout the dispute the Australian Education Union has placed on the public record its willingness to negotiate. Its compromise offer was sensible and would have allowed the MySchool website to continue to 22674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
publish school results. In fact, it would have enhanced the quality and information content in the results by presenting the spread of outcomes, rather than simplistic and misleading averages. And it would have stopped the formation of league tables and simplistic comparisons. The Greens say to both the State and Federal Ministers: It is not too late to pull back from the brink of the educational disaster that is entirely of your own making. It is not too late to work with teachers, parents, principals and the community to offer a better standard of accountability without the damage that will be done by league tables. All it requires is a bit of openness and honesty on the part of the State and Federal Ministers, and for them to work with teachers and principals to pull back from this disaster.
PRENATAL TESTING AND GENDER SELECTION
The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [5.13 p.m.]: In February this year the United Nations Development Programme published a report titled "Power, Voice and Rights—A Turning Point for Gender Equality in Asia and the Pacific". On page 34, under the title "Where The Region Stands: A Snapshot—Major Indicators of Gender Gaps", I had to stop and read and then re-read what was being reported. I quote:
More boys than girls are born in Asia as a whole than in any other region of the world. And the divide is increasing over time. East Asia has the highest male-to-female sex ratio at birth—119 boys for every 100 girls. This exceeded the world average of 107 boys for every 100 girls during the 2000-2005 period. The high sex ratio indicates a strong preference for male children and the deliberate use of certain means to achieve it—a form of gender inequality that begins even before birth.
…
Close to 100 million women in Asia are estimated to be "missing", having died because of discriminatory treatment in access to health and nutrition or through pure neglect—or because they were never born in the first place. China and India each has about 42.6 million missing women. The numbers seem to be increasing in absolute terms.
Looking at the colourful graphs on the page, I struggled to comprehend the magnitude of the "crimes against humanity" that I was surely looking at. Moreover, I found it unbelievable that the document reported this in a matter-of-fact way without passing any judgement let alone words of condemnation. The 6 to 12 March 2010 edition of The Economist magazine, with the cover title "Gendercide—What Happened to 100 million baby girls", featured, in addition to its lead article, two further pieces on the issue.
With ultrasound scans now available at a relatively cheap cost, the rate at which unborn girls are being aborted in our region is almost beyond comprehension. To be honest, I genuinely struggle to find appropriate words to describe the situation; it is beyond a nightmare. If this is not evil, what is? If the number 100 million is not tragic enough, as The Economist notes, this is a conservative figure. How much above 100 million, we do not really know. Moreover, as the magazine observes, this is not an issue that is somehow Asian-centric. Quoting directly from The Economist: "… the selective destruction of baby girls is global …".
Despite this appalling tragedy, the massive destruction of human life is only part of the picture. In China alone, it is predicted that within 10 years the country faces the prospect of having the equivalent of the whole young male population of America, or almost twice that of Europe's three largest countries, with little prospect of marriage and, as the magazine observes, "untethered to a home of their own and without the stake in society that marriage and children provide". How this matter is to fully play out, we will have to wait and see.
In case we somehow think that we, as a first world country, are somehow immune from participating in actions and procedures that can best be described as atrocities, we should pause and reflect. I draw honourable members' attention to an article by Dr Deirdre Therese Little in the May 2010 edition of Quadrant titled "The Return of Eugenics in Australia". As honourable members may be aware, Dr Therese Little contributed a very thought-provoking piece in the January-February 2009 edition of the same magazine, titled "Prenatal Diagnosis—Benefit or Betrayal?''
The two articles deserve careful study and consideration. I will not seek to summarise all the material covered in the pieces, for time does not permit me to do so. The key issue that the author challenges us to consider is: Where is prenatal testing, including both current and future techniques, taking us as a society? The author considers in some detail the impact of the institutionalisation of prenatal testing with respect to Trisomy 18 and 21, commonly known as Down syndrome, and neural tube defects. The author invites readers to look at the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists College Statement C-Obs 4 that deals with these matters.
The tragedy that the author reveals is that the prenatal testing procedure, by its very nature, is leading to the termination of many, many perfectly healthy foetuses. Moreover, and correctly in my view, the author 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22675
challenges the callousness and cruelty of the "Brave New World" mindset that the only life worth living is that which meets some arbitrarily acceptable standard, whatever that means. Human life, in all its forms, is precious and must be respected. If we do not respect all life, ultimately we do not respect our own.
FLYING FOXES CROP DAMAGE
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.18 p.m.]: I raise the plight of fruit growers in the Orange area who are facing huge losses as a result of thousands of flying foxes descending on their crops. The bats have caused a huge amount of damage and farmers are quite rightly extremely concerned, even more so because of the lack of action from the New South Wales Labor Government. Farmers' properties are receiving significant damage to the tune of millions of dollars and believe there are no reasonable legal options for them to protect their crop. In addition to stripping fruit from trees, the bats are also damaging next season's buds and foliage. I am not talking about small-scale damage: these farmers are losing as much as 20 kilos per tree. When that is added up across several hectares the impact is devastating.
Local Orange orchardist and New South Wales Farmers Association Horticulture Committee Chairman Peter Darley is one of many farmers who have been extremely hard hit. Peter has already experienced around $140,000 in lost production and is extremely concerned as to how much this will increase given the lack of action from the New South Wales Labor Government. The farmers are also concerned about animal health, and quite rightly so. The grey-headed flying foxes can carry various diseases, including the Hendra virus, which obviously adds another dimension to the concerns.
For over 10 weeks now, orchardists in the Orange area have been desperately trying to get the message through to the Government that the situation is dire and that they urgently need assistance. Unfortunately, so far their concerns have gone unanswered. I am told both the Minister for Primary Industries and the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment have been personally invited to visit the region to inspect the damage firsthand, but both have declined the offer. I note that Minister Macdonald lives approximately three kilometres from the home of Peter Darley, one of the affected orchardists, who has invited the Minister visit his property to see the damage firsthand, but to no avail.
I find it absolutely startling that this Government has completely turned a blind eye to the extent that the Orange City Council has been forced to pledge $10,000 to fund a strike force with the task of convincing New South Wales Labor to take the problem more seriously. How much damage will have to take place before this Government acts? The mayor of Orange, and former Labor candidate, John Davis, has stated this week that it was up to the State Government to fund measures to encourage the bats to permanently relocate. I quote Mr Davis:
What's worrying me is that this could all become a talk fest.
People have got to get off their backsides and go and stand on the steps of Parliament and say what are you going to do to help us.
If this was any other animal (the Government) would have fixed this by now.
Minister Whan and Minister Sartor should have acted from the very beginning and not continued to ignore a situation that is having a drastic impact on many orchardists. Local farmers simply cannot afford to be continually wearing these huge financial losses. A motion will be put to both the Orange and Cabonne councils next week that if the flying foxes remain in Orange after the first week of June, we must look at a legal way of culling them or removing them from the area. In addition, the Orange and Cabonne councils will again be writing to Minister Sartor to invite him to the area; this time hoping the Minister takes up the offer.
Before causing a problem in the Central West, the flying foxes caused damage to orchards in the Sydney Basin where orchardists are seeking financial grants to cover their losses. Peter Darley said he has tried time and time again to get an answer from both Minister Whan and Minister Sartor in relation to the possibility of getting grants of $20,000 per hectare for affected orchardists in the Sydney Basin to help with netting. While New South Wales Labor continues to stall, affected orchardists are still waiting in anticipation. We are going to desperate measures to protect these so-called endangered bats, but who is protecting the endangered farmers? Mr Sartor made a public statement in the Land that he was happy to meet with New South Wales farmers on his return from paternity leave after Easter. Easter was six weeks ago and Minister Sartor has refused to follow up on his commitment. I want to stress how important it is for this Government to provide some assistance to these farmers in this desperate situation. [Time expired.] 22676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
CULTURAL RESTRICTION OF WOMEN
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [5.23 p.m.]: I have found within this Chamber a tendency to profess outrage about this or that incident as being indicative of the wider world. No less so, there is also a tendency to feigned outrage about cultural incidents regarding certain ethnic groups or religions. As legislators it is our inherent role not to destroy or undermine democracy on the grounds of defending it, and not to isolate culturally diverse groups so they become introspective and Australia becomes a land of us versus them. That can only lead to conflict. It is easy to allow a sense of insecurity or fear to allow legislators to overreact in their actions. Recently there has been much debate about the wearing of the burqa by women. Those of us who grew up in multicultural societies may have the lessons of experience to guide us. During the 1970s in Birrong, where I grew up, there were generally three waves of immigrants: Latin American, Chilean and Argentinean; Vietnamese; and Palestinian and Lebanese.
The Hon. Michael Veitch: You would not have been old enough in the 1970s—perhaps the 1980s?
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I started school in 1969. At that time much hysteria was bandied about in the popular press regarding the rise of the Vietnamese gangs and their domination of the Australian criminal scene. Today little is heard about that from the media. That was part of a continuous pattern of initial concerns being expressed about each new group of immigrants. Many of the girls I went to school with of Palestinian or Lebanese background did not swim or play sport, as it was not part of their culture. However, if you go down to Birrong, Auburn or any of the local pools on any day in summer you will see girls from these cultures swimming or making up the numbers in the local soccer teams. Over the years the dress codes have relaxed and the long undershirts have come off. As we liberated ourselves under our democratic liberal system, so did the women of each new wave of immigrants.
Often at the heart of the debate are women who have come from war-torn countries such as Afghanistan and the Sudan. In both countries, which have played host to Osama Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda movement, strict adherence to a dress code is necessary for survival. Just as some within our society may feel insecure, so do those who come from nations of intense warfare or a lack of law and order. It is very difficult for them to see past what they know. Over time exposure to a liberal democratic people will reassure those women who currently wear the burqa with a sense of their own entitlement and liberty. Their daughters, as ours have done in the past, will break down their culture to suit the Australian way of life. Already I see the grown daughters of women who wear the burqa not adopting this style of dress. The question then arises, should we, as feminists, also then become legislators in regards to this matter? I think not.
I note the comments by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile that "equality of women is one of the key values in our secular society". I welcome Fred Nile to the feminist debate, but if equality of women is one of our key values then perhaps we should start with the disproportionate amount of unpaid household duties undertaken by Australian women in our homogenous society. This disproportion is contributing to the inability of women to break through the glass ceiling and achieve true pay equity in this country. If Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile plans to bring forward a bill to achieve equality for women in Australia, then I have a long list of items I am happy for him to consider. Perhaps he might also like to pop into one of the UNIFEM meetings about the Gender and Development and How I can Make a Difference conferences.
In the Sydney Morning Herald today Elizabeth Farrelly noted that the Koran is silent on the burqa. Yes, it is. The burqa far predates the Koran, and the roots of the wearing of the veil lie in Christianity. Even today, women going before the Pope are required to wear a mantilla over their head. If you go to parts of Italy, Greece, and amongst orthodox Christian communities about the Middle East, you will note that many older women still wear a scarf. Indeed, the Roman African Christian Tertullian, writing in The Veiling of Virgins around 200 AD, praised the modesty of those "pagan women of Arabia" who "not only cover their head, but their whole face preferring to enjoy half the light with one eye". It is also conjectured that such pre-Islamic Middle Eastern face veils may have originated as a sort of sand mask in windy conditions. This would be worn by men and women, and is still common today.
Elizabeth Farrelly also commented that the Burqa is an affront to feminism. Yes, it is—just like a whole lot of things that come out of third world nations and places of war. According to the United Nations, in recent conflicts over 70 per cent of casualties have been civilians, with most of these being women and children. With all of the knowledge of the impact of conflict on women, women are still sidelined in participating in formal peace talks and post-conflict reconstruction. In 10 of the major peace processes in the past decade only 13 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22677
6 per cent of negotiators and fewer than 3 per cent of signatories were women. Without women being included in these negotiations women's voices are lost. I am sure Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile will join me in ensuring that women are included within peace negotiations to guarantee the stability of peace.
SRI LANKAN CONFLICT
Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.28 p.m.]: I make reference to the one-year anniversary marking the end of Sri Lanka's civil war, particularly with reference to the recent decision of the Federal Government to suspend the processing of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. Given reports coming out of Sri Lanka of why Tamil people are continuing to flee their country and seek asylum, it seems essential for us to respond to the needs of the Tamil people and not turn our backs to their cries.
In May 2009 the Sri Lankan government claimed victory after 26 years of civil war. It has been reported that around 380,000 were subsequently incarcerated in internment camps with extremely poor sanitation and water facilities. Among the reported conditions to date there have been allegations of starvation, rape, prostitution, torture, disappearances and extra-judicial killings. The former UN representative in Colombo, Australian Gordon Weiss, has stated that up to 40,000 Tamil civilians were killed from January to May 2009. Despite repeated promises by the government of Sri Lanka to release all displaced persons from the camps by November 2009, on 11 March 2010 the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre released a report indicating 93,000 Tamil civilians remained in these camps. A Human Rights Watch report released in January 2010 states that the Government continues to hold more than 11,000 Tamils thought to be former Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam [LTTE] combatants, including over 500 children, in so-called rehabilitation centres.
No independent screening or monitoring has taken place in any of these camps. There are also concerning reports from Sri Lanka that the members of the media, Opposition party members and aid workers continue to be harassed and sometimes killed. Earlier this month Reporters Without Borders put Sri Lanka and Defence Secretary, Gotabya Rajapakse, on its list of top 40 predators of press freedom. On top of individual persecution, there are escalating fears of ethnic colonisation amongst the predominantly Hindu Tamil population. During the civil war numerous sites in the north were flattened by bombs dropped by Government forces. It is reported that new Buddhist shrines and permanent garrisons are being constructed on these sites.
I have been told that many Tamils in Australia have family members and friends that were killed during the conflict in 2009 or who remain interned in detention camps. Almost every Tamil in Australia knows someone that has been subjected to beatings, set alight, murdered, or has disappeared. Their trauma and suffering at what has happened to their family and friends is still very fresh and painful for the Tamils in Australia. They are disheartened that the Australian Government, particularly compared to the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the European Union, has been relatively silent in condemning the Sri Lankan Government. In a statement on 17 March 2010 Stephen Smit urged the Government of Sri Lanka, which itself has been accused of war crimes, to conduct and investigate its own injustices. In contrast, Human Rights Watch and the European Union advocated for an independent organisation to conduct the investigation.
While the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and France marked their discontent with Sri Lanka by abstaining from an International Monetary Fund vote in July 2009, Australia, again going against the actions of the international community, voted in favour of the organisation's decision to give $US2.6 billion to the country. Human Rights Watch criticised the decision that conditions to respect and improve the rights of the displaced Tamils were not imposed on Sri Lanka as part of the loan agreement. In November Britain abstained from voting during the second tranche on the basis that human rights norms needed to be addressed. Nearly a month before the Australian Government announced that it would be halting the processing of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, the United States of America's State Department released a damning report detailing the numerous human rights violations during and after the war. It stated unequivocally that Tamils in Sri Lanka are still victims to extra-judicial killings and disappearances and subject to systematic discrimination. Most recently, 20 Australian trade unions and affiliated organisation leaders wrote to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and all members of Parliament expressing "concern at the growing stance of indifference towards and demonstration of asylum seekers from both sides of Australian politics". The letter stated:
… we want to avoid a repeat of the politics of fear that overcame Australia in the period of 2001 to 2004—a period that brought shame upon Australia internationally, and divided the nation.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade travel advisory has acknowledged these threats, urging Australian citizens to reconsider travel to Sri Lanka and Afghanistan due to the dangerous security situation. This is in contrast to the Federal Government's claim that both countries are safe for persecuted Tamil and Afghan 22678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 May 2010
refugees to return to. Given the continued reports emerging from Sri Lanka, it is strange that the Federal Government has suspended processing asylum seekers from this country. I would hope that the Government had solid reasoning behind its decision, but none have been forthcoming. In the face of fear mongering and dog whistling by Labor and the Coalition, the Greens have and will continue to campaign strongly to support the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. [Time expired.]
CESSNOCK PLANNING
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.33 p.m.]: I want to refer to issues in relation to Cessnock City Council, following on from a question I asked the Minister for Planning during question time today. When the Minister was pressed as to why the Department of Planning was considering removing planning powers from Cessnock City Council, all members, including Government members, would have been surprised by the two examples given by the Minister. The most amazing example was a plan to erect a metal kookaburra in Kurri Kurri and the difficulties that transpired about reaching agreement as to its location. The Minister also referred to instances relating to a real estate agent. Given the debate earlier today, I am intrigued as to whether the real estate agent made a formal complaint. Perhaps it was just a passing comment. In a letter to Cessnock City Council dated 7 May 2010, the Hon. Tony Kelly referred to the local government area of Cessnock as an area of significance in the Lower Hunter Strategy, with an expected 19,700 new dwellings to be provided in the release areas by 2031. The Hon. Tony Kelly, in his own hand, writes:
I remain concerned that the actions taken by council to date have not addressed the issues of concern that have been repeatedly identified by the department, particularly those related to the various draft local environmental plans for release areas and the city-wide Cessnock draft comprehensive LEP.
He is talking about more than 19,500 new homes. It is not until we look at these new home release areas that it all starts to become quite confusing as to why the Government has taken the position it has in relation to Cessnock. Bellbird North, outside of Cessnock, has 3,500 lots, and Kitchener, outside of Cessnock but within the local government area, has 1,000 lots. Those 4,500 lots currently are held up within the Department of Planning and have been there for over 12 months. The Vintage balance land and the Golden Bear development have been held up in the Department of Planning for over 12 months. Those who keep an eye on issues in the Hunter are familiar with the Huntley development. Those 25,000 proposed new dwellings in the area also are tied up within the Department of Planning. Sanctuary Village, which has a minium of 1,000 dwellings into the future, again is tied up with the Department of Planning.
When pressed today, the Minister referred to a kookaburra. Cessnock City Council is seeking certainty from the Minister and the Government about the allegations. The Mayor of Cessnock City Council, Councillor Davey, has written to the Minister for Planning seeking answers and asking for leniency to allow the council time to receive the Government's allegations of a breach of their responsibilities in relation to land release areas and to prepare a response. The council received a letter from the Minister late on a Friday afternoon. It was not until this week that the council has had an opportunity to work out what the Minister was referring to and discuss its response. Nearly a week has passed. The council has been given only 21 days to reply. The council is asking the Government and the Minister to provide procedural fairness and put the exact allegations—not hint, as the Government did today, "They know what it is—wink, wink; nod, nod", as if it is a secret boys' club.
The Government should put the allegations in writing to the councillors, many of whom are newly elected councillors from the last local government elections. The Minister, in his letter, talks about many years of relationship over planning issues in Cessnock. He should properly inform the current councillors. He should do the right thing and work with the council, rather than threaten the council and not give the council the full story about what it allegedly has done wrong. It is crucial for fair play. It does not seem that the Government is prepared to consider fair play. It is only interested in kookaburras.
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.38 p.m. until Tuesday 18 May 2010 at 2.30 p.m.
______