ADJOURNMENT ...... 1628 BALLINA KOALA PLAN ...... 1571 BLUE MOUNTAINS BUSHFIRES ...... 1628 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE ...... 1548, 1548, 1561, 1619 CANNABIS USE FOR MEDICINAL PURPOSES ...... 1582 CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AND OPERATION PROTEA ...... 1632 COAL SEAM GAS ...... 1579, 1582 COFFS HARBOUR SLIPWAY ...... 1578 CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (PARLIAMENTARY PRESIDING OFFICERS) BILL 2014 ...... 1619 CONTAINER DEPOSIT SCHEME ...... 1582 DENHAM COURT ROAD UPGRADE ...... 1581 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PROPERTY RENTS ...... 1574 DISABILITY VOTER SUPPORT SERVICES ...... 1578 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS ...... 1561 DRAFT ILLAWARRA REGIONAL GROWTH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN ...... 1581 EDUCATION AMENDMENT (NOT-FOR-PROFIT NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOL FUNDING) BILL 2014 ...... 1583 EDUCATION REFORMS ...... 1630 ELECTION FUNDING, EXPENDITURE AND DISCLOSURES AMENDMENT BILL 2014 ...... 1545 ENABLENSW ...... 1582 GRAFFITI REMOVAL DAY 2014 ...... 1577 GRAIN RAIL LINES ...... 1580 HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014 ...... 1583 HOUSING SUPPLY ...... 1574 INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION ...... 1545 INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSION ...... 1545 JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON LOOSE FILL ASBESTOS INSULATION ...... 1545 LAKE ILLAWARRA ESTUARY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ...... 1573 LOCAL BUSINESSES ...... 1578 LOCAL GOVERNMENT FIT FOR THE FUTURE ...... 1579 MACQUARIE STEM CELLS ...... 1583, 1583 MID WESTERN HIGHWAY ...... 1571 MOTOR ACCIDENTS SCHEME ...... 1631 MULTICULTURAL NSW LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014 ...... 1600 NEWCASTLE RAIL LINE ...... 1572 NORTHERN BEACHES HOSPITAL AND MAITLAND HOSPITAL ...... 1575 NSW RURAL FIRE SERVICE 10/50 VEGETATION CLEARING CODE ...... 1573 PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEES ...... 1548 PENRITH PANTHERS AWARDS NIGHT 2014 ...... 1547 PETITIONS ...... 1600 PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014 ...... 1551 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 1571 RURAL FIRES AMENDMENT BILL 2014 ...... 1619, 1621 SCHOOLS ...... 1572 SENIORS CHRISTMAS CONCERTS ...... 1572 SOUTHERN TABLELANDS TRAIN TIMETABLE ...... 1582 SPECIAL RELIGIOUS EDUCATION ...... 1629 STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES ...... 1619 STATE ECONOMY ...... 1575 STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS) BILL 20141548 TAFE NORTHERN BEACHES ...... 1577 TEACHER ACCREDITATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014 ...... 1561 TRANS-TASMAN MEN'S AND MIXED NETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP ...... 1546 TRIBUTE TO MS MARGARET DUTTON, AO ...... 1546 VIP GAMING MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT ...... 1545, 1547 WAKOOL INDIGENOUS CORPORATION ...... 1582 WATER NSW BILL 2014 ...... 1583 WESTCONNEX M5 EXTENSION ...... 1580 WILD DOG AND FOX CONTROL ...... 1576 WORKCOVER NSW AND MR HILTON GRUGEON ...... 1583
1545
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Wednesday 22 October 2014
______
The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.
The President read the Prayers.
ELECTION FUNDING, EXPENDITURE AND DISCLOSURES AMENDMENT BILL 2014
Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendments.
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Report
The President tabled, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 and the Annual Report (Departments) Act 1985, the annual report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption for the year ended 30 June 2014, and authorised to be made public this day.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.
INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSION
Report
The President tabled, pursuant to the Government Information (Information Commissioner) Act 2009, the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 and the Annual Reports (Departments) Act 1985, the annual report of the Information and Privacy Commission, including the report of the Information Commissioner and the report of the Privacy Commissioner, for the year ended 30 June 2014, and authorised to be made public this day.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.
Pursuant to sessional orders Formal Business Notices of Motions proceeded with.
VIP GAMING MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
Production of Documents: Tabling of Report of Independent Legal Arbiter
Motion by Dr JOHN KAYE agreed to:
(1) That the report of the independent legal arbiter, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, dated 21 October 2014, on the disputed claim of privilege on the VIP Gaming Management Agreement, be laid on the table by the Clerk.
(2) That, on tabling, the report is authorised to be published.
JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON LOOSE FILL ASBESTOS INSULATION
Membership
Motion by Dr JOHN KAYE agreed to:
That Dr Kaye be discharged from the Joint Select Committee on Loose Fill Asbestos Insulation and Mr Shoebridge be appointed as a member of the committee.
Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it of the resolution.
1546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
TRANS-TASMAN MEN'S AND MIXED NETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP
Motion by the Hon. MARIE FICARRA agreed to:
(1) That this House notes:
(a) the Trans-Tasman Men's and Mixed Netball Championship was held between 14 to 18 October 2014 at the Anne Clark Netball Centre;
(b) the official opening was held on 15 October 2014 with dignitaries including:
(i) the Hon. Marie Ficarra, MLC;
(ii) Mr Grant Crocker, President, Australian Men's and Mixed Netball Association;
(iii) Mr Peter Miller, Secretary and Tour Manager, New Zealand Men's and Mixed Netball Association;
(iv) Ms Kelli Douglas, Director, Australian Men's and Mixed Netball Association;
(v) Councillor Vincent De Luca, OAM, Hon. Secretary and Umpires' Co-ordinator, Australian Men's and Mixed Netball Association;
(vi) Mrs Neita Matthew, OAM, Patron and Life Member of Netball NSW;
(vii) Mrs Wendy Archer, AM, President Netball NSW;
(viii) Mrs Carolyn Campbell, CEO Netball NSW;
(ix) Mrs Maureen Stephenson, OAM, Director of Umpiring Australian Men's and Mixed Netball Association;
(x) Mrs Juleen Maxfield, Umpire's Allocator Trans-Tasman Championship; and
(xi) Mr Darren Kelly, President NSW Men and Mixed Netball Association, the English Netball Team.
(c) that in the Open Men's Division, Australia won all three test series with the team consisting of: Coach: David Mills, Manager: Tracey Bloffwitch, Valance Horne [Co Captain], Junior Levi [Co Captain], Steven Philpot, Caleb Meredith, Merrow Clough, Roger Quayle, Aidan Kelly, Daniel Cooke, Col Gray and Simon Lam;
(d) in the Open Mixed Division, New Zealand won the Division winning two tests with the team consisting of: Coach: Michelle Hansen-Vaeau, Manager: Wills Nepia, Junior Manapori [Co-captain], Maru Delamere [Co-captain], Brianna Dinley, Natalie Jones, Pili Apulu-Keys, Anna O'Dell, Zoë-Emma Harris, James Brown, Stefan Mateariki, Aroha Crombie and Jessica Milicich;
(e) in the Men's 23 and Under Division, Australia won all three test series with the team consisting of: Coach: Heath Brown, Manager: Tristah Thompson, Captain: Adam Slattery, Vice-Captain: James Robertson, Deepak Patu, Tim Malmo, Mathew Atkins, Cameron Allum, Jerome Gillbard, Christopher Newman, Brodie Roberts and Riley Richardson;
(f) in the Men's 19 and Under Division, Australian won all three test series with the team consisting of: Coach: Matthew Blomeley, Manager: Karen Wild, Captain: Cameron Martin, Vice-Captain: David Fromberg, William Mahoney, Jake Dambrauskas, Alastair Punshon, Hiki de Freitas, Jackson Mynott, Nathan Begley, Jayden Cowling, Shane Topping;
(g) umpires at the Championships were Clare McCabe, Joel Owen, Darne Rawiri, Elle Bonasia, Chris Hall, Amy Winchcombe, Raewyn Vile and Kylie Pearce;
(h) the Officials Bench at the Championships consisted of Beverley Dew OAM, Brian Cooper, Raelene Turner, Debbie Phillips and Sue Barnett; and
(i) the service of Mr George Best and Jody Viktorin who assisted with the administration of the championship.
(2) That this House acknowledges and commends all winners, officials and participants at the 2014 Trans-Tasman Men's and Mixed Netball Championship.
TRIBUTE TO MS MARGARET DUTTON, AO
Motion by the Hon. MARIE FICARRA agreed to:
(1) That this House notes:
(a) the life of Margaret Eve Dutton, Strathfield's first female mayor;
(b) the sad passing of Ms Dutton on 14 October 2014;
22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1547
(c) that Ms Dutton was born in Strathfield in 1928 and from the age of seven she attended Meriden School as a boarding student;
(d) that Ms Dutton taught at the TAFE School of Art and Design for 25 years;
(e) that Ms Dutton became the head of the Randwick TAFE Design Department in 1978 and held the position until her retirement in 1986;
(f) that Ms Dutton served as an alderman on Strathfield Council from 1987 to 2000;
(g) that Ms Dutton was first elected Mayor of Strathfield in 1991, and held the mayoralty from 1991 to 1992 and 1995 to 1996;
(h) that Ms Dutton was the first female to hold the mayoralty in the 112 year history of Strathfield Council; and
(i) that Ms Dutton was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia on 11 June 2007.
(2) That this House acknowledges the contribution of Margaret Eve Dutton to:
(a) Strathfield Council through her work as Mayor and alderman;
(b) TAFE NSW as a teacher and department head;
(c) The Exodus Foundation as a volunteer teacher;
(d) the Rotary Club of Strathfield as Assistant Treasurer, Attendance Recorder and fundraiser since 1999; and
(e) Meals on Wheels as a volunteer since 2000.
PENRITH PANTHERS AWARDS NIGHT 2014
Motion by the Hon. MARIE FICARRA agreed to:
(1) That this House notes:
(a) that the Penrith Panthers Awards Night was held on 15 September 2014;
(b) the contribution of the Penrith Panthers to the National Rugby League [NRL]; and
(c) the contribution of all Penrith Panthers players to the 2014 NRL Season.
(2) That this House acknowledges and commends the recipients of the following awards:
(a) Panther's Education Award:
(i) Junior: David Cowhan; and
(ii) Senior: Nathan Smith.
(b) Panthers NYC Player of the Year: Brendan Attwood;
(c) NSW Cup Player of the Year: Ryan Simpkins;
(d) Panthers Clubman of the Year: Jamie Soward;
(e) Panthers Courage and Determination Award: Adam Docker;
(f) Panthers Members' Player of the Year: Jamie Soward;
(g) Panthers Rookie of the Year: Bryce Cartwright and Dallin Watene Zeleniak;
(h) Panthers Merv Cartwright NRL Player of the Year: Matthew Moylan; and
(i) Panthers Welfare and Education Award: David Cowhan.
VIP GAMING MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
Production of Documents: Tabling of Report of Independent Legal Arbiter
The Clerk tabled, pursuant to the resolution this day, the report of the independent legal arbiter, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, dated 21 October 2014, on the disputed claim of privilege on the VIP Gaming Management Agreement. 1548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Routine of Business
[During the giving of notices of motions]
Dr John Kaye: Point of order: I do not know under what standing order my point of order falls, but there must be some way to stop Ms Jan Barham.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. Ms Jan Barham may continue.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Postponement of Business
Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by Mr David Shoebridge and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEES
Membership
Motion by the Hon. DUNCAN GAY agreed to:
(1) That Mr Blair be discharged from the Committee on Children and Young People and Mrs Mitchell be appointed as a member of the committee.
(2) That Mr Blair be discharged from the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption and Mr Khan be appointed as a member of the committee.
Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it of the resolution.
STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS) BILL 2014
Second Reading
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Minister for Fair Trading) [11.17 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Electronic Transactions) Bill 2014 is part of the Government's ongoing program of maintaining legislation that governs taxes administered by the Office of State Revenue. This is the third bill on State taxes to be dealt with in the current session of Parliament. It addresses upcoming changes in market practice as electronic conveyancing becomes a reality. I seek leave to have the remainder of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
Property Exchange Australia Limited [PEXA] was formed in 2010 to fulfil a Council of Australian Governments [COAG] initiative to deliver a national electronic conveyancing solution to the property industry.
A national electronic system for the preparation, settlement and lodgement for registration of land transactions is anticipated to commence in New South Wales in the last quarter of this year.
PEXA will connect all participants in the conveyancing process including banks, lawyers, conveyancers, land titles offices and revenue offices. This will streamline the current paper based process.
The Office of State Revenue has been preparing for this for some time, and is well placed to integrate with PEXA.
Stamp duty assessments will not be done directly from PEXA. OSR systems will interact with PEXA to verify a transaction's details and ensure the payment of the stamp duty.
PEXA transactions will not be able to progress without a successful OSR confirmation.
PEXA transactions will be settled electronically with electronic stamp duty payments eliminating both cheques and red tape for Government and industry.
22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1549
To move from paper to an electronic transaction environment, a number of changes are required to the Duties Act and the Taxation Administration Act.
All jurisdictions are making changes to their Acts to accommodate electronic conveyancing. The changes being made are based on changes made to Western Australian legislation.
These proposals have been the subject of consultation with the Law Society of New South Wales.
In relation to the Duties Act, this bill makes it clear that electronic instruments that are prepared and signed in PEXA are to be regarded as written instruments for duties purposes. These will be consistent with existing paper instruments.
This bill will allow for the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue to approve procedures for the payment of duty and the stamping of electronic registry instruments.
To ensure that PEXA participants are aware of these payment procedures, this bill provides for them to be published on OSR's website.
To ensure compliance with the Duties legislation, the OSR system will verify that both the transaction data held in the PEXA system and the amount of duty to be paid at settlement do indeed match.
The bill therefore permits the disclosure of information to PEXA allowing the verification to take place.
The "stamp" on documents has long been recognised as an indicator that the stamp duty has been paid and that the document is available for use.
In the electronic environment, the "stamp" will be the unique transaction identifier produced by the OSR system which is unique to the transaction. The bill therefore recognises this development by including the identifier as a "stamp".
Regarding the changes to Tax Administration, most stamp duty is paid by agents on behalf of taxpayers who are approved to self-assess the documents and pay the duty by way of return.
The provisions in the Taxation Administration Act have been revised to more clearly outline the scope of these arrangements.
Under these special return arrangements, the agent is approved to pay the duty on behalf of their client.
This bill provides for offences for not complying with self-assessment procedures. The current offences can apply to both the agent and the taxpayer.
The bill removes the taxpayer offence as in most cases the process will be outside the taxpayer's control.
However, the liability to pay the stamp duty will remain with the taxpayer.
The changes which are coming into place through PEXA will also provide administrative efficiencies. Currently, the agent has to apply to OSR to self-assess stamp duty.
To allow the OSR to take full advantage of the new environment, the proposed amendments will allow the Chief Commissioner to require a person to self-assess the stamp duty themselves, without applying to OSR.
The bill also includes a provision to allow the Chief Commissioner to require a person to pay tax by electronic means. This change is simply streamlining the tax paying process and will help save time across the board.
In summary, the amendments to the Duties Act and Taxation Administration Act aim to accommodate the incoming electronic conveyancing system and provide real benefits to the conveyancing industry.
I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [11.18 a.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Electronic Transactions) Bill 2014. The bill amends the Duties Act and the Taxation Administration Act as part of an ongoing series of measures in all jurisdictions to enable the assessment and payment of tax by electronic means. The amendments are largely consequential following the enactment of the Electronic Conveyancing (Adoption of National Law) Act 2012. The bill is part of the ongoing process in all jurisdictions to implement a Council of Australian Governments [COAG] decision that led to the formation of Property Exchange Australia [PEXA] in 2010 to deliver a national electronic system for the preparation, settlement and lodgement for registration of land transactions. The system is expected to become operational later this year.
Specifically, this bill amends payment procedures in the Duties Act and the Taxation Administration Act to enable the move from paper to electronic transactions. Overall, the development of electronic conveyancing will lead to substantial amounts of money being retained in bank accounts before the appropriate time for transactions to take place. I am interested in examining and monitoring the potential windfall incomes from interest that banks will earn on these funds in future years, but that is a matter for another time. The 1550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
Opposition has received no objections in relation to this legislation. The Minister, in his second reading speech, mentioned that the Law Society had been consulted, and it has confirmed to me that it raises no objections to the bill. Accordingly, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.
Dr JOHN KAYE [11.20 a.m.]: On behalf of The Greens it gives me great pleasure to address the State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Electronic Transactions) Bill 2014. As the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox and the Hon. Peter Primrose have said, this legislation is part of a transition towards facilitating electronic transactions with respect to property conveyancing and other matters. It is part of Property Exchange Australia Ltd, making electronic conveyancing a reality. There are good reasons for supporting electronic conveyancing. Apart from reducing costs and being convenient for individuals and people who are involved in the conveyancing of land, electronic conveyancing has a far lower carbon footprint because it does not use large volumes of paper, which creates carbon emissions.
The Deputy Government Whip will be enthusiastic about this legislation because it reduces the carbon footprint of commerce in general but of land transactions in particular, therefore reducing the greenhouse effects caused by those commercial activities. I am sure the Government Whip and the Deputy Government Whip, who are senior members of the Government, are extreme supporters of this legislation because their finely tuned antennae are focused closely on climate change and climate science. I have no doubt that they have been encouraging the Minister for Finance and Services, Dominic Perrottet, and his representative in this House, the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, to push ahead with this legislation as rapidly as possible so that commerce makes an important contribution to reducing the nation's carbon footprint, thereby reducing this nation's contribution to carbon dioxide emissions. I would like to hear from the Minister about their representations and the overwhelming support he has received from them.
This legislation takes us a step closer to implementing the Electronic Conveyancing National Law (NSW), known as the national law, which was passed in 2012 in this House with universal acclaim from all parties. It contains a number of largely consequential amendments that take us closer to the vision that was outlined by the Council of Australian Governments at a meeting in 2008 for a national system of electronic conveyancing. Although electronic conveyancing has been used in New South Wales since 2012, its use is not widespread because the uptake has been slow. I hope that this legislation, by making important changes, will make it clear that an electronic instrument lodged under the national law is regarded as a written instrument for the purposes of the Duties Act 1997 and will provide for the circumstances in which an instrument is taken to be executed. While I suspect that is already the understanding, this legislation makes it clear.
It will create greater confidence amongst land conveyancers that they will have their electronic documents treated the same way as if they had been written instruments. It provides for special arrangements for the assessment and payment of duty in respect of instruments that are electronic replacements for printed documents. It is a step towards a more modern and efficient economy, creating greater convenience for people purchasing and selling land. It is a step towards an economy that is reducing its use of paper, particularly unsustainable paper that has come from native forestry activities, therefore reducing the greenhouse emissions from commerce in general. The Greens support this legislation as a sensible, modernising measure and as a carbon reduction measure. We commend the Government for introducing environmentally sensible legislation.
The Hon. PAUL GREEN [11.25 a.m.]: Once again, Dr John Kaye is having a shot at Shoalhaven industries. The Shoalhaven Paper Mill employs many people. Fortunately for Dr Kaye, the paper mill deals with specialty and security papers so it will not be affected by this legislation. We want to keep jobs in the Shoalhaven, and I thank the Nippon Paper Group. The Japanese firm has done a great job securing jobs in the Shoalhaven and thus generating more business.
Although I mention the Shoalhaven Paper Mill and the need for regional jobs, the State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Electronic Transactions) Bill 2014 does not affect that industry directly. The object of the bill is to amend the Duties Act 1997 and the Taxation Administration Act 1996 to make further provision for the assessment and payment of tax by electronic means. The amendments are largely consequential on the enactment and implementation of the Electronic Conveyancing National Law (NSW), known as the national law. These amendments will make it clear that electronic instruments lodged under the national law are regarded as written instruments for the purposes of the Duties Act 1997 and provide for the circumstances in which such an instrument is taken to be executed.
It provides for special arrangements for the assessment and payment of duty in respect of those instruments, and also to permit the disclosure of information by tax officers in connection with the assessment 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1551
and payment of duty in respect of dutiable transactions and mortgages that are affected, or partially affected, electronically under the national law. The amendments also allow for banks and other parties to a transaction in respect of which a liability for tax arises to be approved to pay tax under a special arrangement. They also simplify the enforcement provisions relating to the special arrangements. Further, they provide for the registration of persons approved to pay tax under the special arrangements. They also permit the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue, known as the chief commissioner, to direct an approval holder to pay tax in accordance with a special arrangement. The Chief Commissioner is permitted to direct the payment of tax by electronic means and, finally, the amendments provide for phasing-out of the use of impressed stamps.
This bill is the result of the ongoing work of the former Minister for Finance and Services, the Hon. Greg Pearce, who had a lot to do with electronic conveyancing. In fact, in my first year in this place I organised a meeting at which the former Minister gave stakeholders an incredible hearing. I have no doubt that their wishes had a ripple effect in this bill. I congratulate Terry Allen and Alan West on being instrumental in lobbying to get these initial plans underway. I also congratulate the Government on continuing the journey. The Christian Democratic Party commends the bill to the House.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Minister for Fair Trading) [11.31 a.m.], in reply: I thank members for their unanimous support for this important legislation. I acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of the former Minister for Finance and Services, the Hon. Greg Pearce. He was responsible for starting this reform package and it is great to see it continuing.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Matthew, are you still standing on his shoulders?
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: Absolutely. The new Government is committed to having best practice revenue laws. The State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Electronic Transactions) Bill 2014 amends the Duties Act and the Taxation Administration Act in recognition of the new national scheme known as Property Exchange Australia, or PEXA, where the need for a paper transfer to register the ownership of land is removed. I note that all Australian States and Territories will soon have similar legislation. New South Wales is once again leading the way, as it leads the way on so many issues in Australia. These amendments are necessary to ensure that the Office of State Revenue can administer stamp duty in this electronic environment. The bill provides for the stamp to be a unique transaction identifier number, which will be used for the Office of State Revenue to electronically verify that the correct amount of stamp duty has been assessed and will be paid out of settlement funds. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.
Third Reading
Motion by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.
PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014
Second Reading
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Minister for Fair Trading) [11.33 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Members will recall that last year, this Parliament passed the Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Illegal Waste Disposal) Bill 2013. That bill was one of a series of reforms made by this Government to strengthen environmental regulation since it assumed office in April 2011. I am now pleased to 1552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
introduce the Protection of the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, which is the next part of this Government's reform agenda. This bill will strengthen environmental penalties across environmental legislation, provide the Environment Protection Authority with additional powers to more effectively protect the environment in a timely and cost-effective manner, and enhance ecologically sustainable development. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
Increased Penalties—New South Wales already has some of the highest penalties that can be imposed by a court for environmental offences. And we have recently increased penalty notice amounts by up to ten-fold for the most serious environmental offences. The first penalty notices for a corporation and an individual under this new regime were recently issued.
In this current bill, we will be increasing a number of maximum penalties in the Contaminated Land Management Act to align with penalties for similar offences in other environmental legislation, particularly the Protection of the Environment Operations Act—or the POEO Act. The high penalties under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act reflect the seriousness with which this Government views environmental offences.
The application of similar penalty amounts under the Contaminated Land Management Act will apply in particular where a person or corporation who is responsible for the contamination does not comply with a direction specified in an EPA management order.
This bill clarifies that where someone has missed a deadline set by a notice under the Contaminated Land Management Act then they are still obliged to comply with the notice, and undertake any works specified to address environmental issues. The daily penalty that the Act applies for each day that the notice is not complied with, still applies after the deadline.
These new provisions align with equivalent provisions in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act and will assist in the effective enforcement of obligations imposed under the Contaminated Land Management Act.
And consistent with the recent penalty notice increases for offences under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, this bill provides a power to increase penalty notice amounts for repeat offenders in the Contaminated Land Management Act and the Radiation Control Act. If a person is a repeat offender then that can be taken as proof that the penalty notice amount imposed for the first offence was not an effective deterrent.
These increased penalty amounts are intended to:
be proportionate to the seriousness, harm and nature of an offence;
provide an effective deterrent to committing environmental offences and reoffending;
reflect community expectations regarding the financial penalties that apply to environmental offences; and
be comparable for similar offences across environmental legislation.
Alternative sentencing options—The Protection of the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 will provide a range of additional alternative sentencing options to increase the ability of the courts to impose a fit-for-purpose penalty. The bill will provide for alternative sentencing options in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and Radiation Control Act 1990, including the use of:
o monetary benefit orders,
o restorative justice processes,
o publication orders,
o orders to provide financial assurance,
o enforceable undertakings,
o remedy or restraint of breaches; and
o orders to attend a training course.
Restorative justice processes will bring together both an environmental offender and the affected community and individuals to agree on the steps the offender should take to repair the harm as much as possible, and to understand the impacts of their actions. Restorative justice allows the court to require offenders to undertake actions that are not restricted to restoring or benefiting the environment but instead will directly benefit those impacted by the offence.
Monetary benefits orders allow for the recovery of any monetary benefits that the offender gained as a consequence of the offence, this includes the money saved by the offender in avoiding or delaying the purchase of equipment it should have purchased to prevent the pollution.
By aligning these sentencing options across the various Acts this bill will assist in achieving consistency which will contribute to building public confidence and integrity in the administration of justice for environmental offences.
22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1553
It will result also in a more cost-effective response to environmental crime and better outcomes for impacted communities and the environment.
Timely and cost-effective enforcement—The bill also makes further incremental reforms to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act and the Contaminated Sites Land Management Act and the Radiation Control Act to facilitate timely and cost-effective enforcement by the EPA across a number of areas.
One reform will permit the EPA to require a financial assurance to secure funding for the carrying out of actions under a management order for contaminated land.
Another will improve the ability of the EPA to revoke or suspend an environment protection licence where this is warranted. A decision to revoke or suspend a licence is only taken in the most serious of cases, such as when a company goes into liquidation, or shows continual disregard for their environmental obligations. When a licensee will not or cannot comply with the conditions of its environment protection licence, or a prevention or clean-up notice, then the EPA needs the power to respond quickly to prevent further environmental damage.
This bill will:
remove the requirement for the EPA to issue a licensee with a notice of intent to revoke or suspend a licence; and
ensure that the revocation or suspension of a licence will have effect during any merit appeal proceedings against that action.
This is important because the requirement to issue a notice of intent to revoke a licence means the actual revocation is delayed and the licence holder can continue to operate between the date of the notice and the date of the revocation. This was the case in the recent Chester Hill landfill smoulder where the licensee continued to receive waste at the facility while the EPA was attempting to manage the fire and prevent further impact on the immediate neighbourhood.
A further change will include the owner of the land on which a licensed activity is undertaken to be listed as a person who may be issued with a clean-up notice. This will provide one more avenue to recover the costs of a clean-up in the event of the polluter's insolvency, which would otherwise be funded by the New South Wales Government out of the Environmental Trust.
This power will only be exercised in accordance with the EPA's Compliance and Enforcement Policy and will not be used against landowners who are innocent victims of illegal dumping.
And further to the measures adopted in last year's illegal waste amendments, a new provision will enable the EPA to require specified waste transporters to be fitted with an approved global positioning system device. This will enable the EPA to require waste operators who it reasonably suspects are disposing of waste improperly to have a global positioning system device fitted to their trucks. This overt surveillance will be successful if it results in those operators using legal waste disposal facilities. But it will also make it easier to detect illegal activity.
The final amendment addressing enforcement will require that environmental incidents involving material harm must be reported even though odour may be the only indication that an incident has taken place. Several cases have recently occurred where odour is the only clue that a serious environmental incident has occurred. A requirement to notify the EPA of the presence of an odour which causes acute impacts to humans will help protect workers, the community and the environment.
Miscellaneous amendments—There are also a few miscellaneous amendments in the bill. These amendments are not significant of themselves but will assist in the work of the EPA.
One amendment is to remove an obsolete process in regard to affixing labels to defective vehicles.
The next change is to clarify what is meant by failure to comply with a management order under the Contaminated Lands Management Act.
And the third and final amendment in the bill clarifies and restores a legislative requirement to prevent or minimise fugitive air emissions from industry, especially dust from coalmines and quarries, which as members would be aware, is a matter of considerable concern to communities in the Hunter Valley. A recent court decision has had the effect of removing this requirement.
Amendment to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act—This bill will also provide a speedy response to facilitate implementation of recommendation 10 of the New South Wales Auditor-General's report "Performance Audit Managing Contaminated Sites". The report recommends that the EPA should "gain a better understanding of its costs and develop procedures that support the recovery of costs and begin recovering the costs of managing certain sites".
This bill amends the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 to provide for certain fees and charges under the legislation administered by the EPA to be paid into the Environment Protection Authority Fund rather than into consolidated revenue.
This includes fees payable under the contaminated land, radiation control, pesticide licensing and the control of environmentally hazardous chemicals and dangerous goods legislation.
These changes will align this EPA legislation with existing arrangements for revenue retention in respect of regulatory fees and charges under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act.
Conclusion—This bill is the latest in a series of incremental reforms to give the Environment Protection Authority back its bite. It will strengthen and align environmental penalties and alternative sentencing options and provides important legislative support for timely and cost-effective enforcement by the EPA. It also provides for a swift response to the Auditor-General's report.
I commend the bill to the House.
1554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [11.34 a.m.]: I speak in debate on the Protection of the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 and state at the outset that the Opposition will support the bill. The bill is principally concerned with increasing penalties under the Contaminated Land Management Act in order to bring them into line with penalties for other environmental offences under other legislation. Last year this Parliament passed the Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Illegal Waste Disposal) Bill 2013. That bill contained increased penalties for illegal waste dumping. Today we are dealing with similar increases in penalties for offences under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997. What we are doing today is logical—namely, we are ensuring that the reforms enacted by the Parliament last year on a bipartisan basis are added to with corresponding increases to the penalties that apply under the Contaminated Land Management Act.
In my brief contribution I will deal with the question of contaminated land. The Carr Labor Government introduced the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, which was groundbreaking legislation in this area. At that time there were no reliable statistics on the extent of contaminated land across New South Wales. Some estimates suggest that New South Wales had approximately 60,000 contaminated sites, with 7,000 requiring remediation potentially at a cost of $2 billion. There was no statutory requirement to report the existence or ownership of a contaminated site until the 1997 Act came into effect. Prior to the 1997 legislation the NSW Environment Protection Authority was administering contaminated sites under the Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act 1985 and the Unhealthy Building Land Act 1990. Those pieces of legislation were limited in their scope and effectiveness.
At the time the NSW Environment Protection Authority said it was officially aware that only one-fifth of the total number of contaminated sites had been remediated—a major limitation to the legislative framework. Local councils were supervising site remediations with limited input, and at times no input, from Environment Protection Authority experts. In 1992 the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council developed guidelines for both the management and financial liability of contaminated sites. Those comprehensive guidelines provided the policy framework that informed the Carr Government's contaminated Land Management Bill 1997.
It is of course of paramount importance that we act where we can to prevent future site contamination. But once land is contaminated management strategies need to ensure that remediation protects all segments of the environment, including biological and physical factors. The potential impacts of the polluted soils, groundwater, surface water and air on the environment need to be considered. The Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council guidelines note that other countries apply strict criteria to the rehabilitation of soils to protect groundwater as it is an important source of domestic water. While Australia does not use a huge amount of groundwater for domestic purposes, the protection of our groundwater resources is still vital.
The Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 has as a fundamental goal of contaminated site clean-up that it should render a site acceptable and safe for the long-term continuation of its existing use and maximise to the extent practicable the potential future uses of the site. Wherever human health is at risk or the off-site environment is at risk, a contaminated site should be cleaned up to the extent necessary in order to minimise such risks in both the short and long term. Contaminated land occurs where hazardous substances are at concentrations above background levels and assessment indicates this poses or is likely to pose an immediate or long-term hazard to human health or the environment.
Contamination is usually the result of previous land use and may be associated with, among other things, airports, chemical manufacture, industrial plants, dry-cleaning establishments, service stations and horticulture. Materials which can cause contamination include metals, inorganic compounds such as cyanide, organic chemicals, oils and tars, toxic, explosive and asphyxiant gases, combustible substances, putrescible material and hazardous waste.
The Hon. Rick Colless: I do not think the member knows what the words mean.
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: I always rely on the Hon. Rick Colless for advice on these matters. He is the foremost dirt merchant in the Parliament of New South Wales.
The Hon. Greg Pearce: He cannot be ranked ahead of the Hon. Walt Secord.
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: That was the reference to combustible substances. Contaminated land often involves chemicals that persist for extremely long periods and so there are repercussions for intergenerational 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1555
equity. I submit that these welcome reforms brought forward by the current Minister for the Environment should be seen as the most recent reforms in a history of regulatory and legislative improvement when it comes to our contaminated lands. There is a logic to this bill when viewed in that light. The State has not always dealt with this significant problem well. I think the big historic breakthrough was the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.
The problem of contaminated service station sites is a massive problem for our State. On the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] website is a list of contaminated sites where the contamination comes from former service stations. It is a very long and growing list. As the shadow environment Minister I have resisted the temptation to simply shriek that the Government should devote an unlimited amount of money to dealing with that contamination. The truth is that every government, no matter from which side of politics it is formed, is grappling, in the context of limited resources, with a very large problem of contaminated land courtesy of service stations. These are serious policy questions. What we are doing today is increasing penalties in what I think is a sensible and measured way and which runs in parallel to the increases in penalties for other environmental offences passed by this Parliament with bipartisan support last year. As such, the Opposition welcomes this legislation and will vote for it.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.44 a.m.]: I join Government and Opposition members in supporting the Protection of the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. In particular I congratulate the Minister for the Environment, Rob Stokes. As the previous speaker in this debate indicated, regulation of waste, contamination and dangerous substances is very much an evolutionary process and this bill is by no means the end of that progression. There is a long history that did not start in 1997; it started in 1988 when the Greiner Government was elected and Tim Moore, a visionary Minister for the Environment, replaced the old—
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: He had good staff too, so I hear.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: He had excellent staff. He replaced the former State Pollution Control Commission with the Environment Protection Authority [EPA]. He had the support of everybody when he did this. He allowed and empowered the EPA, for the first time, to prosecute government agencies. That was a huge breakthrough not because of the prosecutions but because it completely altered the culture in organisations like the State Rail Authority, which had some of the most contaminated sites in the State. It drove a complete cultural change within government towards the management of its own contaminated sites.
Another big factor has been the emergence of the asbestos issue, which has been a recent development. In a sense, our understanding of waste, what is contaminated and how it needs to be handled has really transformed over the past two decades; and so our regulation and our toughening approach has had to constantly deal with new knowledge and information. For many of us there has been a sense of horror as to just what the scale of this problem is. The asbestos issue is simply enormous. For example, we have all heard about the orphaned waste in old mines that have been closed that is leaking into waterways. We have sites all over the State where there were poor practices, which reflected the knowledge available at the time. Sydney Harbour continues to be an issue. Will we ever clean up all the contamination of the waterfront around Sydney Harbour? Issues are constantly emerging there. I think improvements to legislation are something that in a bipartisan way everyone has been following.
The other issue that I want to comment on is the pricing of waste. It was an initiative of Labor, and a good one, to start pricing waste so that, and in order to drive recycling, waste would become a valuable resource. There was also the introduction of a user-pays system for the disposal of waste. One issue I think all sides of politics need to grapple with however is that pricing contaminated waste like asbestos so highly, and adding to that the cost of managing it under the new regulations, has created a huge incentive for illegal activity—
The Hon. Luke Foley: For waste crime.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Yes, for waste crime, as the Leader of the Opposition puts it. In my experience many businesses are trying to dispose of the waste lawfully. But there are small contractors who own a tip truck who have one contract to supply landfill to one party and another contract to dispose of contaminated waste from a second party. Instead of disposing of the contaminated waste, for which they have accepted money to pay for its lawful disposal, it gets put into the fill on another site. This is to the detriment of both parties. 1556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
The Hon. Luke Foley: Reputable businesses are getting hurt by the rogues.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I acknowledge that interjection by the Leader of the Opposition. I think this legislation will improve the nimbleness and ability of the EPA particularly to respond to those cases. I am concerned by the many allegations that organised crime has moved into the waste industry because of the potentially massive returns on disposing of a truckload of illegal waste. Therefore, our regulatory agencies need the teeth to deal with these crimes which are described as crimes against the environment but which are really crimes against public health.
The courts have been looking at a landfill in Western Sydney where housing has been constructed. It turns out that the fill is full of illegally dumped asbestos, which is a big public health issue. When someone dumps a truckload of asbestos in the middle of a street outside a school and childcare centre, which is a real example, it is a serious crime against public health. It is appropriate to have more nimble regulation that responds to the increasing financial incentive to commit these crimes. I congratulate the Minister on the improvements contained in this bill. I urge all sides of politics to think about ways that we can reduce the financial incentive for illegal dumping. We can keep legislating harder but we will never catch up and finally resolve the problem until we take away the sugar.
The Hon. PAUL GREEN [11.50 a.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I speak in debate on the Protection of the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. On 12 August 2014 the Hon. Rob Stokes, Minister for the Environment, introduced this bill in the Legislative Assembly. It follows a steady pattern of strengthening the powers of the NSW Environment Protection Agency [EPA] and its ability to apply penalties. In 2012 the Government re-established the EPA as a statutory authority with an independent board. As part of this change it required that pollution incidents involving material harm be notified immediately, increased the penalties for failing to comply with these requirements and required industry to publish pollution monitoring data. This increased accountability was a win for the environment.
Members will recall that last year this Parliament passed the Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Illegal Waste Disposal) Bill 2013 with the help of the Christian Democratic Party to hammer down on illegal waste dumpers and to break the business model of illegal waste activities. I will speak more about that shortly. This bill follows on from those changes and increases penalties and powers. The bill will introduce stronger and more consistent penalties for offences under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act to deter contamination and radiation offences. The key changes include increased penalties in the Contaminated Land Management Act for corporations responsible for contamination that fail to comply with an EPA direction. I understand the current maximum penalty is $137,500 and this bill proposes to lift the maximum to $1 million.
The EPA will not be required to issue licensees with notice of intention to revoke or suspend a licence. I understand that such notices delayed the ability of the EPA to take action against licensees where there were risks to the community or the environment. This provision in the bill will allow for faster response times by the EPA. The bill also increases the ability of the EPA to prevent and respond to pollution incidents. For example, there will now be a duty to report odour incidents that cause or have the potential to cause material harm to the environment. Importantly, the New South Wales EPA can now also mandate that waste material transporters fit all their vehicles with a GPS tracking system. I concur with comments by the Minister for the Environment in the other place that this bill:
... will strengthen and align environmental penalties, enhance enforcement provisions, enable timely and cost-effective enforcement by the EPA and support the ecologically sustainable development of our State. New South Wales already has some of the highest maximum court-imposed penalties in Australia for environmental offences.
While we are on the topic of illegal rubbish dumping, we should be aware of factors that contribute to illegal dumping. I note comments by Dubbo City Council, which has warned that illegal rubbish dumping at Dubbo could rise if the section 88 waste levy is rolled out to regional areas by State authorities. The Christian Democratic Party well and truly understands that waste generators are likely to avoid the higher tipping fees that would accompany the levy's introduction by making unauthorised disposals.
The Christian Democratic Party is also very much aware and considerate of the recommendations of a manager who wrote a recent report to Dubbo City Council advising it to oppose the expansion of the section 88 waste levy, which councillors say would be a $430,000 cost shift by the State Government. The Christian Democratic Party understands that this levy is a charge on landfill owners in the most populous areas of New 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1557
South Wales for every tonne of waste received and it is designed to encourage recycling and other resource-recovery options. The Christian Democratic Party notes with concern an article by Faye Wheeler published in the Daily Liberal on 7 July 2014 in which she reported:
Current levels of illegal dumping were "manageable" but would "markedly increase" if the city was subject to the levy, civil infrastructure and solid waste manager Steve Clayton said in the report.
He said a rise in the practice was evident in other areas where the levy applied.
The council would have increased costs trying to deal with the illegal dumping, he said.
The manager said although the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) proposed to tackle the problem by providing councils with access to funding programs targeting illegal dumping he had some doubt on the wisdom of the action.
"State funding programs are never guaranteed to be ongoing and regardless of the funding issues, this has the potential to consume considerable time and resources in identifying, reporting, cleaning up and prosecuting offenders, an expense on councils which could be more productively applied in pursuing their own resource-recovery initiatives, " Mr Clayton said in his report to the most recent meeting of the works and services committee.
The council's three rural household waste transfer stations at Eumungerie, Ballimore and Toongi were currently unfenced and unsupervised and would under a levy system be targeted as "no cost" disposal sites, he said.
"To avoid this impact, council would be faced with the costs of securing these sites and supervising them during restricted hours of operation," he said.
"Council may also have to consider replacing the rural resident access charge ... with a user-pay tipping charge."
The council will provide a submission to the NSW EPA that expresses a preference for no expansion of the levy.
I was mayor of the Shoalhaven when the Labor Government introduced the section 88 levy to deal with dumping issues and to encourage recycling and reuse of materials. It is sad that the section 88 waste levy has strayed far from its original purpose. It is my understanding that much of the money it generates goes into general revenue and is used for other purposes. That is disappointing.
At one point in time Shoalhaven City Council ratepayers contributed about $12 million to the State Government through the levy and were only given back approximately $2 million to deal with other contaminated waste sites. Imagine what the Shoalhaven could have done with $12 million to implement effective resource recovery and establish recycling and reuse centres. I am sure that was the initial intent of the levy. It is sad that the money that was collected from Shoalhaven ratepayers was squandered elsewhere.
The situation is getting worse every day. I recently took some rubbish to a landfill and was shocked by the increased access fee. It was a discouragement. For the first time I had to ask myself whether I wanted to pay the price, which was more than a few hundred dollars, to dispose of a trailer load of rubbish. I always try to do the right thing, but I must admit that I questioned paying that cost. I am starting to think that section 88, which began as a great initiative, may be causing people who cannot sustain a large financial hit to dump their waste in landfill to turn around and take their rubbish elsewhere.
My house is not far from the local major landfill at Nowra. Sadly, we see more and more people dumping waste in national parks and there is concern that the waste contains asbestos and other contaminants. All types of waste is dumped including mattresses because some time ago they hit up a $25 fee for disposing of mattresses at a landfill, and it probably costs more now. Consequently, mattresses are just being strewn across national park fire tracks because people are not willing to pay the fee. A balance must be struck.
I go further in my remarks about the section 88 levy to discuss the departure from its original purpose. The charge was imposed on road fill for roads that would be used to construct roads beyond the weighbridge associated with the landfill access point. The Government was even charging people for that, and I just do not understand that type of logic. The current Government is using the levy for a constructive purpose, even though with only a slight percentage of the waste levy revenue, but it is a no-brainer. How can the Government charge for road base materials that are being taken into the landfill simply because the load has been over the weighbridge? It is just crazy.
The landfill needs to be accessible for people to recycle reusable materials. After all, who cops the backwash? It is not members of this House or necessarily corporations, but the ratepayers. They are paying above and beyond their rates for waste transfer services, yet they are paying for road materials that they bring in for recycling as road base that attract a fee—simply because they pass over a weighbridge. That is the type of 1558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
initiative we want: We want people and organisations to crush concrete, recycle it and make it into road base instead of destroying our environment. I think that was the goal, yet we charge people and penalise them for recycling.
The second part of the section 88 levy to which I wish to draw attention is a matter that many councils are very passionate about. We also charge people for covering the dumped materials with fill. If people bring that and it is recycled, they again have to pay for it at the weighbridge and later apply from rebates. The rebates are not easy to obtain. The rebates are paid slowly and from what I understand people are lucky if they obtain them. The section 88 waste levy is quickly becoming a deterrent for people to do the right thing. It is not doing very much for our national parks. In fact, I think it is actually increasing the number of people who illegally dump waste.
The regional illegal dumping [RID] squad, which to some extent is funded by the section 88 waste levy, tried to find the people who had done the wrong thing based on evidence of waste they dumped in national parks to recoup costs of enforcement and prosecute wrongdoers. But at the end of the day, if we are serious about our environment, protecting our environment and being good stewards of our national parks we must address the section 88 waste levy and give a fair go to local councils by enabling them to use that money. The section 88 waste levy funds should be hypothecated. People have no problem with the waste levy being collected, but let us give councils a fair go by having the funds revert to the local area so that recycling and reusing initiatives can be strengthened and materials can be reused and recycled in a fair dinkum manner that will save our environment, our national parks and State forests from subsequently becoming landfills.
From the time I became a member of this House I always have been passionate about the section 88 waste levy. I will not let go until the waste levy is used for its correct purposes, which means that none of it goes to general revenue but instead is returned to local councils to strengthen their recycling and reuse strategies to reduce landfills and minimise waste that is being dumped in our national parks and State forests. I note comments made by the Leader of the Opposition about land contamination at old fuel station sites. The Government should expedite action being taken to decontaminate soils that have been contaminated by benzene. Fuel storage stations do not have underground boundaries and contamination moves through gutters and watercourses into our water tables. When that type of contamination moves from the storage site, it adversely affects adjacent residents and development sites. In my view it is important for the Government to expedite action to decontaminate those sites.
The final issue I wish to address is asbestos. I call on the Government to do more work on training. At one of our places, we have a little hut. I asked three different very experienced people to tell me whether some of the building material was asbestos and each had a different opinion. What does asbestos look like? Experts should be able to respond definitively when people ask them, "Is this material asbestos?" The Government may need to accelerate the process of having staff educated to identify and know exactly what is and what is not asbestos. When people take asbestos to a landfill to offload it, guess what? It is likely that the person at the landfill will be guessing as well about whether it is or is not asbestos-laden fibro. A lot of work needs to be done. I suggest hypothecation of the section 88 waste levy so that waste recycling and environmental protection initiatives can be implemented right throughout New South Wales through local government, which does such a great job of managing and protecting local environments.
Recently I attended a tourism forum on the far South Coast at which it was obvious that most overseas visitors come to Australia because of our pristine environment. If we want to continue to have a pristine environment, that is a major reason why we must ensure that instead of overcharging by government through section 88 waste levies, we work in partnership to ensure that waste is not being dumped in national parks and State forests. People travel from all over the world to enjoy our national parks and State forests, so the last thing we want is to have dirty national parks, not to mention contaminated national parks.
In commending this bill to the House, I make the point that much more work needs to be done. I hope that the new Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Rob Stokes, will come to the table to negotiate a reduction in the section 88 waste levy across New South Wales, particularly for councils adversely affected by it, or at least find a way to hypothecate the levy and give councils a fair return on the revenue collected from that levy so that they can capitalise on a protected environment. I commend the bill to the House.
Dr MEHREEN FARUQI [12.06 p.m.]: On frequent behalf of The Greens I participate in debate on the Protection of the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, which represents one of the very few environmental positives to come out of this Government. The bill seeks to amend the Contaminated Land 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1559
Management Act 1997, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the Radiation Control Act 1990 and other consequential amendments. This bill has some significant increases in maximum penalties and financial assurances—in some cases, a doubling of fines for some offences under the Contaminated Land Management Act. There are other specific positive aspects, particularly expanding restorative justice orders and undertakings in court, expanding the types of fees and penalties paid, allowing mandatory global position system [GPS] tracking of waste to transportation under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, and removing pre-notification requirements before suspending or revoking a pollution licence.
I appreciate that this legislation is being introduced at a time when the environment has never been under greater attack both federally and in this State. I therefore thank and congratulate the Minister, Rob Stokes, on enacting some positive changes on the environmental front. The Greens will support the bill. While the bill represents a positive move, it is somewhat typical that this is a symptomatic rather than a systematic response to environmental offences. I remind members about the recent Auditor-General's report on the management of contaminated land in New South Wales. The Auditor-General noted:
When sites are reported to the EPA, there is no systematic process for prioritising their assessment and there is currently a backlog of almost 800 sites awaiting assessment.
There is a range of sites that the EPA could have declared as significantly contaminated and decided not to. Even though the EPA has documented reasons for these decisions, they are not supported by clear principles and could result in inconsistencies and poor regulation.
There is no point in increasing penalties if there is no capacity in the regulator to enforce them. I therefore urge the Government to not just increase penalties and powers but also increase resources to the regulator so that it can do its job of enforcement. My office constantly is contacted by people from all over the State with concerns about the Government's lack of ability to pursue polluters, especially large polluters. According to analysis conducted by the Environmental Defenders Office, under the Liberal-Nationals Government the combined prosecutions completed by the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] and the Office of Environment and Heritage [OEH], which was previously the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water [DECCW], have fallen to 2009 levels.
At the same time, the total value of fines and penalties in 2013 were at their lowest level since 2008. The average fine is approximately $5,288.90 per completed prosecution. According to the EPA's regulatory impact statement for the proposed Contaminated Land Management Regulation 2013, there have been no penalty notices issued under the Contaminated Land Management Act. There is concern among stakeholders that the EPA and the OEH are under-resourced to do the important job of protecting the environment, protecting the people of New South Wales from risk, and meeting community expectations.
I also wish to speak about the Government's intention to amend the regulations to increase penalty notice amounts for the 10 most serious environmental offences to $15,000. Whilst this is an improvement on the current situation, I believe it is still woefully inadequate. In 2014 the Environment Protection Authority fined Santos $1,500 for water pollution from coal seam gas activities at its Pilliga site. The fine related to uranium and other contamination of groundwater resources caused by a leak in a holding pond. The use of a penalty notice, the consequent insignificant size of the fine and the muted public notice of the enforcement action have further disenfranchised community members concerned about licence breaches associated with that project.
Under this proposed model, Santos' fine would have increased to only $15,000. Santos made about $516 million after tax last year, so $15,000 would still be 0.0003 per cent of its profit—for risking water contamination in an aquifer, the impacts of which could be felt for hundreds if not thousands of years. This gives a new meaning to the term drop in the ocean. If the Government wants to be serious about holding companies and individuals accountable for serious breaches of their environmental licences, there needs to be a much bigger increase in the penalties associated with this. A $15,000 fine is not a disincentive for the worst environmental polluters. Fines and penalties should have the purpose of deterring polluters from further environmental offences, not enabling them to keep polluting and paying affordable fines.
Also, increased fines and increased compliance powers work only if they are enforced. Environmental regulatory agencies need sufficient staff and budgets to implement programs, monitor compliance and enforce breaches. Otherwise, New South Wales laws cannot be efficiently or effectively implemented. Research suggests that regulatory agencies can close implementation gaps by investing in timely training in law enforcement to be able to better detect, investigate and gather evidence, especially when new and more severe penalties raise the stakes. Regulatory agencies should have clear enforcement guidelines so that officers have an unambiguous understanding of the level of offences and the enforcement options. 1560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
This issue was highlighted in the Auditor-General's report on the management of contaminated land in New South Wales. The report stated that the Environment Protection Authority's internal procedures do not sufficiently guide staff on how to escalate regulatory activities when a collaborative approach is not working. For example, there is no guidance within the authority's internal procedures on when a voluntary management proposal should be elevated to a management order, or when a penalty notice should be issued if an owner or polluter is not complying.
Regulatory resources must keep pace with industry expansion, to avoid increased risks to communities and the environment. In 2013 the resourcing issue was highlighted in the survey of Environment Protection Authority stakeholders which said, "Across all groups, the EPA was seen as stretched in terms of resourcing at least in certain areas." Significantly, 49 per cent disagreed that the EPA has enough staff, while only 17 per cent agreed. In addition, regulatory penalties and enforcement policies should be part of a suite of policy instruments that prevent environmental harm in the first place. I urge the Government to consider and implement pollution prevention approaches that have an emphasis on cleaner technologies and industrial ecology, which are approaches to reduce and prevent pollution at source. Preventing pollution in the first place should be the priority.
I have consulted widely on this piece of legislation, including with the Nature Conservation Council and the Environmental Defenders Office, and I thank them for their expert advice, as always. The Greens will be supporting this bill, but we urge the Government to go further in not only increasing penalties for breaches of environmental licences, but also in making sure that regulatory agencies, such as the Environment Protection Authority, have the mandate, capacity, funding, capability and training so that they can fulfil their objectives to reduce the risks to human health, to prevent the degradation of the environment, and to proactively work towards enhancing our environment.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Minister for Fair Trading) [12.14 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the Protection of the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. It is great, once again, to have unanimous support for this important change to environmental legislation. I note that since coming to office this Government has embarked on a program of reforms designed to bring environmental law into the twenty-first century and to reinvigorate the Environment Protection Authority as a strong independent regulator with a full range of tools at its disposal. We have taken a steady, incremental approach to these reforms. This is appropriate to allow both the community and industry to have a say about any new proposals and time to adjust to new changes, whilst at the same time recognising a pressing need to reassess many of the regulatory structures and penalties put in place in the 1990s.
It is pleasing that the big-ticket items are already in place. They include re-establishing the Environment Protection Authority as an independent regulator, and stronger laws to better manage environmental incidents, such as the release of a hazardous chemical by Orica in Newcastle, by ensuring that pollution incidents involving material harm must be notified immediately. I served on the committee that inquired into the leak at the Orica facility. It was a very serious matter. The changes that that brought about I think will be long-lasting. Another big-ticket item is providing the public with access to the results of monitoring required to be undertaken under a licence condition, and more monitoring requirements resulting in more information for the public, and that is how it should be. Further items are new laws to combat illegal dumping that has been blighting the landscape, and a new risk-based approach to licensing industry that provides another incentive for industry to improve its environmental performance.
The bill is the next step in the reform process. None of the reforms in this bill is on its own a big reform, but together they work to improve the effectiveness of the Environment Protection Authority's enforcement powers as well as improving the range of sentencing options available to the court. The Government has continued to focus on making sure that environmental offences have real financial consequences. Any offender faces a potential three-part financial hit. First, there is a new focus on wiping out the economic advantage gained by the offender in not complying, through monetary benefit orders. Second, we make sure that a court is armed with powers to require an offender to right the wrongs inflicted on the community and the environment, through restorative justice orders. Thirdly, it is not enough to put things back where they should be—offenders should have to bear a penalty to deter them from trying it on again, and for this reason we have made sure that we have strong maximum penalties available to the courts. I note the comments of The Greens in that regard. However, the reality is that one could never ever bring in enough penalties to satisfy The Greens.
This Government continues to look for opportunities to improve and fine-tune the enforcement capacity of our independent environmental regulator, and this bill contains measures across a number of areas to better 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1561
support the Environment Protection Authority in this role. I congratulate the former Minister, the Hon. Robyn Parker, on her important work in this area, particularly in relation to the Orica issues. I note that that work was done in quite difficult circumstances, of which the Leader of the Opposition would be well aware. Indeed, Robyn Parker has left a legacy that she can be proud of. I also congratulate her successor, the Hon. Rob Stokes, for continuing the reforms in this critical area. I know we can expect from him very big things in environmental reform over time. I very much look forward to the introduction of those reforms in due course. I strongly commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.
Third Reading
Motion by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The PRESIDENT: I welcome to the public gallery a delegation from the Ninth Seoul Metropolitan Council, led by Choi Wung Shik, chairperson of the council steering committee, visiting as part of the Sister State relationship between the Seoul Government and the New South Wales Government. Ladies and gentlemen, you are all very welcome. We hope you enjoy your visit to Sydney and indeed your visit to Parliament House today. The Korean Consul General has joined the delegation. He too is welcome to the New South Wales Parliament.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Postponement of Business
Government Business Order of the Day No. 3 postponed by the Hon. Catherine Cusack and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.
TEACHER ACCREDITATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014
Second Reading
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.21 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Teacher Accreditation Amendment Bill 2014 makes a range of significant improvements to the process for accrediting teachers and introduces required changes to implement the Government's Great Teaching, Inspired Learning blueprint for action reforms. I seek leave to have the remainder of the second reading speech incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
This bill makes a range of significant improvements to the process of accrediting teachers, and introduces changes required to implement the Government's Great Teaching, Inspired Learning Blueprint for Action reforms.
I am delighted by the Minister's announcement this bill ensures the entire NSW education profession from early childhood to secondary education are planned to be accredited by the end of 2017.
1562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
Much like the compulsory accreditation for practising lawyers, accountants, dieticians, architects, building surveyors and psychologists, the NSW education profession has moved to mandatory accreditation of all school teachers in New South Wales.
By way of background, last year I introduced the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards Bill 2013. That bill operationalised the amalgamation of the Board of Studies NSW and the NSW Institute of Teachers.
By way of quick explanation, the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards Act 2013 was renamed the Institute of Teachers Act 2004 to become the Teacher Accreditation Act 2004.
This was in recognition of the functions that remained in the Act in relation to teacher accreditation, as distinct from the functions of the responsible entity, the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards NSW.
This bill before the House today complements that earlier one and deals with three types of amendments.
First, the bill enables the policies announced in March 2013 as part of the Great Teaching, Inspired Learning a blueprint for action reforms, such as ensuring that all teachers are professionally accredited.
Second, it deals with the outcomes from a consultation process by the former NSW Institute of Teachers.
The Institute issued a Discussion Paper in early 2012, engaged in stakeholder consultation, and published a Consultation Report.
This process gave rise to several changes that arose due to the maturation of the accreditation scheme, and others that are common-sense practical improvements suggested by stakeholders.
Third, the bill supports national developments to which New South Wales has subscribed—namely, the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.
I turn now to the specific provisions of the bill.
Firstly, we will look at the further provisions in relation to accreditation of teachers.
Schedule 1—Amendment of Teacher Accreditation Act 2004 No 65—outlines each amendment to that Act.
Items [1] and [2] of schedule 1 are changes to part 1—Preliminary of the Act and add definitions of a range of educational settings and roles including early childhood education centres, non-school based teachers and school counsellors.
In addition there are a number of housekeeping changes to existing definitions, in particular, the "rules of the Board".
The Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards Act provides that the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards can make rules in relation to its functions under the Teacher Accreditation Act.
These rules must be consistent with the Teacher Accreditation Act and provide greater clarity around teacher accreditation policies and procedures. Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards' rules require the approval of the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards and then the Minister.
The rule making process is open and transparent and subject to broad consultation with key stakeholders. Where rules relate to the accreditation of teachers, the proposed rules will first be considered by the Quality Teaching Council, then the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards and then the Minister.
With the addition of an elected early childhood teacher as a member of the Quality Teaching Council under this bill, 11 of the 22 members of the Quality Teaching Council will be accredited teachers elected by the profession.
Item [3] expands on the definition of "teach" to include all school teachers who began teaching prior to 2004 and have not had a break from teaching since then and additionally to include those teachers working in early childhood education centres.
The most significant change contained in this bill is the requirement that all teachers who teach in a school or an early childhood setting become accredited.
Currently, only teachers who commenced teaching on or after 1 October 2004 or take a break from teaching for five or more years are required to be accredited.
New South Wales is the only Australian jurisdiction that does not require accreditation of all teachers.
Up until now only teachers working in schools could be accredited. This bill will allow teachers to be accredited whether they work in a school or an early childhood centre.
Consultation conducted by the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards with the early childhood sector has revealed widespread support for this change.
The significance of this addition is that it will, for the first time, require the accreditation of teachers working in early childhood settings and bring about one of the major commitments made in the Great Teaching, Inspired Learning Blueprint for Action.
The board will work closely with the Australian Quality Education and Care Quality Authority to ensure that teachers working in early childhood centres have appropriate qualifications and that they maintain their accreditation against professional teaching standards, just as accredited teachers working in schools currently do.
22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1563
This will provide greater employment mobility for teachers who are qualified to work in both schools and early childhood centres.
Items [4] to [7] of the bill amend Act to allow the board to approve Teacher Accreditation Authorities for early childhood centres and for the board to become the Teacher Accreditation Authority for teachers not working in a school or an early childhood centre.
Items [8], [9] and [10] of schedule 1 clarify the board's function to provide advice to the Minister in relation to the approval of teacher preparation degrees and professional learning providers as well as to add a new function: to monitor, evaluate and report on the quality of initial and continuing teacher education courses and programs approved by the Minister under the professional teaching standards.
Items [11] and [12] of the bill provide amendments that will ensure that the Quality Teaching Council includes appropriate representation from the early childhood sector.
Part 3—Roll of teachers of the Teacher Accreditation Act 2004 is amended by items [13] and [14].
This part deals with the role of teachers who are eligible to vote in the election of the teachers who sit on the Quality Teaching Council.
The main change is that a teacher is not to be on the roll if their accreditation ceases, is suspended or revoked.
Items [15] to [18] of schedule 1 change the language of the levels of teacher accreditation so that they are consistent with the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.
Items [19] to [28] amend part 4 of the Act to allow for the functional changes required to enable the accreditation of teachers working in early childhood settings.
Items [29] to [37] clarify provisions for cancellation of accreditation, and other changes will provide a legislative basis to support teacher's accreditation including:
Allowing teachers to place their accreditation on hold, for example, while taking a period of maternity leave
Granting extensions of time to meet full accreditation requirements in some circumstances, and
Permitting teachers to be reaccredited should their previous accreditation cease.
Item [38] clarifies conditions relating to the payment of the annual accreditation fee.
The insertion of a Section 25A sets out the requirement that a teacher holds a Working With Children Check clearance before being first accredited.
The requirement for the Working With Children Check clearances to be included in the application for accreditation will bring New South Wales into line with all other jurisdictions.
Currently employers make accreditation decisions and are responsible for ensuring that teachers have current working with children check clearances.
In 2011 all Education Ministers reached agreement to implement Nationally Consistent Teacher Registration. The agreement requires that all accredited teachers have a current Working With Children Check clearance to maintain accreditation.
This change will enhance interstate teacher mobility, as currently only Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory automatically recognise the accreditation status of New South Wales teachers.
The relevant bodies in other jurisdictions prefer the Working With Children Check clearance to be included in the accreditation decision rather than at the point of employment.
The bill also clarifies procedures appeal procedures for initial teacher education and professional development providers in the event that their programs are not recommended for approval by the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards.
There are amendments to section 28 to ensure that all teachers must be accredited if they teach in a school or early childhood setting.
In relation to teachers working in schools, the requirement to be accredited will now apply to those who take classes, or teach individual students, as well as those who have active oversight of and responsibility for the delivery of the curriculum in a school and the assessment of students.
Specifically, school principals and other senior staff who have active oversight of these functions but who do not necessarily engage in actual classroom teaching will be required to be accredited as members of the teaching profession.
This is in line with the legislative delineation of the teaching profession across the nation. In relation to teachers working in early childhood settings the requirement to be accredited will apply to qualified teachers who deliver educational programs based on an approved learning framework and those teachers who have oversight and responsibility for that delivery.
The aspects of this item that relate to the pre-2004 teaching workforce and early childhood teachers will be proclaimed to commence later than the rest of this bill. This will enable further consultation with stakeholders about implementation and transitional arrangements.
1564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
There are also amendments to the Act so that the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards will be the only Teacher Accreditation Authority with the capacity to grant provisional and conditional accreditation.
In line with the above provision the board will only accredit a teacher if they have a current Working With Children Check clearance. The Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards has the expertise to assess qualifications for the purpose of accreditation, especially overseas qualifications.
I am advised that consensus has been reached on this matter, and in fact school employers want the board to undertake this role.
Additionally the bill will make the accreditation the responsibility of the individual teacher, and not the responsibility of their employer. This will ensure that schools can ensure that they are employing accredited staff.
The bill provides for greater clarity in relation to voluntary accreditation. The voluntary accreditation provisions will apply to suitably qualified teachers who are not required to be accredited by the mandatory accreditation sections of the Act.
For example, this will allow teachers who are not working in schools or early childhood centres to remain accredited members of the teaching profession.
There are a number of qualified pre-2004 teachers currently working in non-school based educational roles, such as consultants in the Department of Education and Communities [DEC] or a Catholic Education Office, who have in the past, worked in a school or are on secondment from a teaching position.
These teachers may choose to be accredited so that they have the option to return to a school teaching position at some future time.
Schedule 2 of the bill sets out amendments to the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards Act, which include teachers working in early childhood centres within the objectives and functions of the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards.
There are, of course, parts of the bill that relate to matters of a minor or technical nature and I will not dwell on them here.
Taken together with the creation of the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards, the reforms in this bill strengthen the perception and the reality of a profession committed to a strong accreditation regime and a profession with the goal to enhance and improve the standing and standards of teaching in our schools.
The consensus of agreement on these changes among all key stakeholders is testimony to the commitment by the profession to achieve that goal.
I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE [12.22 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I speak on the Teacher Accreditation Amendment Bill 2014 and state at the outset that the Opposition supports it. The object of this bill is to amend the Teacher Accreditation Act 2004 as follows:
(a) to require all persons who teach in schools to be accredited under the principal Act (at present only new school teachers or persons who started or returned to teaching in schools after the principal Act commenced are required to be accredited),
(b) to require persons who teach in early childhood education centres to be accredited under the principal Act,
(c) to make it an offence for a person to teach in a school or early childhood education centre unless the person is accredited (at present, in the case of schools, only the person's employer commits an offence if the person is not accredited),
(d) to provide for the voluntary accreditation of certain qualified persons who do not teach but who are employed in areas related to teaching or education,
(e) to enable the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards (the Board) to accredit teachers at a provisional or conditional level and to also provisionally re-accredit persons whose accreditation has ceased or been revoked,
(f) to enable the Board, on application by a person who is accredited, to place the person's accreditation on hold during an extended period of absence from teaching,
(g) to provide that a person cannot be accredited as a teacher unless the person holds a Working With Children Check clearance,
(h) to make a number of other amendments of an administrative, minor or consequential nature.
This bill brings New South Wales into line with other Australian jurisdictions. However, we note that some of the bill's more technical arrangements will be stalled through the proclamation process so that further consultation can be held with stakeholders. The Opposition believes that is a reasonable position as the transitional arrangements proceed. The bill introduces a new mandatory requirement that all new and existing accredited teachers have a Working With Children Check. The Opposition notes that the Government aims to have all school and early childhood teachers accredited by the end of July 2017. 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1565
The bill includes a new feature requiring the accreditation of all teachers in early childhood centres, which the sector has called for over quite a long time. We believe this move is in the right direction. However, as I stated, the Opposition understands that stakeholders have raised many issues regarding the transition arrangements. We believe that the Government is committed to working with those stakeholders through a transition process and that the bill will not be proclaimed until that has happened. The Opposition supports that approach. I will not take up any more time of the House, given the furious agreement with this bill.
The Hon. PAUL GREEN [12.24 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, I speak to the Teacher Accreditation Amendment Bill 2014. The object of the bill is to amend the Teacher Accreditation Act 2004 as follows:
(a) to require all persons who teach in schools to be accredited under the principal Act (at present only new school teachers or persons who started or returned to teaching in schools after the principal Act commenced are required to be accredited),
(b) to require persons who teach in early childhood education centres to be accredited under the principal Act,
(c) to make it an offence for a person to teach in a school or early childhood education centre unless the person is accredited (at present, in the case of schools, only the person's employer commits an offence if the person is not accredited),
(d) to provide for the voluntary accreditation of certain qualified persons who do not teach but who are employed in areas related to teaching or education,
(e) to enable the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards (the Board) to accredit teachers at a provisional or conditional level and to also provisionally re-accredit persons whose accreditation has ceased or been revoked,
(f) to enable the Board, on application by a person who is accredited, to place the person's accreditation on hold during an extended period of absence from teaching,
(g) to provide that a person cannot be accredited as a teacher unless the person holds a Working With Children Check clearance,
(h) to make a number of other amendments of an administrative, minor or consequential nature.
The bill makes consequential amendments to the Board of Studies Teaching and Education Standards Act. The Christian Democratic Party is a great supporter of our teachers and education processes, particularly regarding child protection and safety. No doubt we want to make New South Wales the number one place to safely raise a child. As noted by the Hon. Penny Sharpe, other stakeholders will have some input into the process along the way. Pending that new information, we support the bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Dr JOHN KAYE [12.27 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens, I address the Teacher Accreditation Amendment Bill 2014. The Greens support this bill but have some concerns about its impact. The key component of the bill is to extend the mandatory accreditation requirements to all teachers, as has happened in other Australian jurisdictions. The bill requires the accreditation of all teachers in early childhood education centres. I shall address the second key provision first. The Greens support the accreditation of all teachers in early childhood education centres.
New South Wales is on a trajectory recognising that early childhood education is a critical component of lifetime education for any individual. That is a positive outcome. New South Wales is increasingly recognising the need for professional teachers to be employed in early childhood education centres. Recently I spent some time in Girrinbai Early Education Centre in Lake Macquarie and was impressed by this community preschool's programs for children. Programs on education, identifying children who might need additional assistance or who might have special needs, and teaching children how to engage in education and in the classroom will give them a head start when they get to school.
Evidence shows clearly that access to a professional teacher in a child's early years will improve outcomes not only throughout subsequent years of education but across that individual's entire life. Having high-quality, accredited teachers in early childhood education centres is a step forward. It is a shame that it is happening at the same time as the full impact of fee increases by the O'Farrell-Stoner and Baird-Grant governments is being felt by parents of many children in child care, particularly those who are three years of age and do not fall into a special category—that is, they are not Indigenous, they do not come from a disadvantaged background or they do not have a language difficulty. The fee increases are preventing two-year-olds from attending preschool, which will have consequences for those children and for many preschool centres. However, the bill is a step in the right direction. 1566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
I turn now to the extension of mandatory accreditation to all teachers. As it stands, only new-scheme teachers in schools in New South Wales are required to be accredited by the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards [BOSTES], which is an amalgamation of the Board of Studies NSW and the former NSW Institute of Teachers. BOSTES defines new-scheme teachers as those who began their teaching career after 1 October 2004. Teachers who worked before that time and have not been out of teaching for more than five years are not required to complete the accreditation process. The bill before the House proposes to extend that requirement to all schoolteachers as well as to early childhood educators. The accreditation process for new-scheme teachers to reach proficiency standards requires teachers to meet all the standard descriptors in the National Professional Standards for Teachers or the New South Wales Professional Teaching Standards.
The Greens support this legislation. Every child in a public school in New South Wales deserves to have a fully qualified teacher not only who is teaching pursuant to the standards but also whose professional development, standards and practices are world class. I have no doubt that that is the case already in public schools across New South Wales, which employ some of the finest teachers in the world. New South Wales public schools have senior teachers who pay serious attention to the development of junior teachers, who are embarking on their teaching career. This legislation will ensure that all teachers are fully accredited.
However, The Greens are concerned about the expectations being placed on teachers who are not new-scheme teachers and who have been teaching for a number of years but who will now be required to engage in the accreditation process. One teacher has described the accreditation process as being like completing a mini Diploma of Education. The gruelling process includes in-class assessment and paperwork assessment, and we should be convinced that the burden being placed on those who are not new-scheme teachers is justified. The Department of Education, BOSTES, and the community recognise that we have hardworking teachers in our public schools in New South Wales, and many of them are already stretched to the limit. They are working flat out and struggling with time commitments.
For example, teachers who are teaching students sitting for their Higher School Certificate or who run extra-curricular activities—they might be involved in the Tournament of Minds or helping students to prepare for the Math Olympiad—give more of themselves than would be reasonably expected, and accreditation will impose an additional burden on those teachers. Teachers who have worked for a number of years and developed their professional practices and others who are still developing their professional practices understand that being a leading professional means they must engage in a process of continual improvement. There should be balance regarding the impositions on their time. Teachers are required to complete a number of steps through the accreditation process, including providing a portfolio of evidence that they have met the standards, and some of their lessons will be observed by senior staff. This will occur whilst teachers balance the everyday demands upon them, regardless of whether they are early, mid or late career.
There are concerns that the registration process is not easy and is not always productive for many teachers. We have raised concerns in the past about what this process will mean for casual, temporary and part-time new-scheme teachers—and now all teachers—being able to access professional development opportunities. As I have said, the accreditation process can be quite onerous but we acknowledge that it has been refined over the years. Schools must also bear the costs associated with sending teachers to professional development courses if they are available and accessible. This is often done after hours and during the teacher's own time. Some teachers would like to see a more equitable system, whereby everyone must pay the fee and jump through the administrative hoops, not only the arbitrary post-2004 cohort. To that extent, this is fairer legislation.
We also have concerns about the current maximum period allowed for full-time teachers to achieve accreditation at the level of proficient teacher or professional competence. The period for full-time teachers to be provisionally accredited is three years. The regulation sets out a maximum of five years for casual and part-time teachers. I ask the Minister to consider what it means for part-time, casual or temporary teachers if these changes make it mandatory for all teachers to be accredited. Will they have a longer time to complete the accreditation process than on permanent full-time teachers? How will they be supported to access the 100 hours of professional development to maintain their accreditation? How will they gain accreditation when they work at multiple locations? It will be a massive burden for teachers, the various schools and their staff.
The accreditation process for those who are not new-scheme teachers must not introduce extra workloads for schools and their teaching staff. How will the Minister and his department resource schools and teachers to alleviate that additional burden? In particular, will schools in rural and regional areas be supported to permit their staff to achieve the 100 hours of professional development? Who will pay for the casual relief and 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1567
who will deliver the professional development? These are serious questions that, if not answered adequately, will call into question the ability of the legislation before us to genuinely deliver for children in public education across New South Wales.
We also have some concerns about fees. Annual fees are currently $100 per teacher. We want the Minister to answer the following question: What will the additional revenue be used for? It is hard to get an exact estimate but currently there are approximately 55,000 teachers in public education. I do not know what percentage are new-scheme teachers, but if it is a third that leaves approximately 38,000 teachers each paying a $100 fee to be accredited. If my math is right, that is $3.8 million in additional revenue that BOSTES or the Government will receive. The question in our minds is: What will happen to the additional revenue? Will it be used to pay for the costs borne by BOSTES in administering the accreditation scheme? If so, does that reflect the additional cost of BOSTES or is there an element of revenue raising?
If there is an element of that, surely the Government should not be raising revenue from teachers. It is inappropriate to collect an additional tax for professional engagement. The Greens are concerned that this may be, effectively, a tax on teachers. That tax should be borne by the employers, not the teachers. The Greens welcomed the majority of the Baird Government's Great Teachers, Inspired Learning blueprint when it was released. However, we raised strong concerns about how Minister Piccoli intends to implement and fund the plan. Those concerns remain. We accept that Minister Piccoli is genuine about his plan, and we support it. But we want to see where the money is and how it will be implemented.
Improving teacher quality is a good outcome and introducing accreditation for every teacher is a good idea, but if the resources in public schools are not provided the result will be not better learning outcomes for students but an additional drain on teachers' time. If the Government is serious about attracting bright, engaged, high performers, then teacher salaries is the real issue. It is hard to see how this State can attract high-quality teachers with a 2.5 per cent wage cap when many teachers, particularly those in the fields of science, technology and mathematics, could attract far higher salaries in the private sector. The vast majority of teachers are driven not by monetary rewards but by a sense of commitment to teaching. But it is deeply unfair and demoralising to teachers when they receive only a 2.5 per cent wage increase while others with whom they graduated and who went into industry or commerce enjoy far better outcomes.
The Greens are also concerned about how this legislation will interact with the Government's Local Schools, Local Decisions—or, as I prefer to call it, "Local Schools, Local Blame". The responsibility for the management of schools is being dumped onto principals, who are confronted with some very tough decisions— particularly when it comes to professional development. This has been made a lot worse by the Abbott Government's disgraceful reneging on the last two years of Gonski funding, or National Education Reform Agreement funding, for public schools. The education department has advised that over the next five years approximately 35 per cent of the teaching workforce will reach the notional retirement age. Some of those teachers will stay on, although the requirement to be professionally accredited may drive some of them out of the system.
One of the great challenges for those concerned about the future of public education—it is not only a problem for the Government—is securing an engaged, professional workforce to replace those teachers who will leave the system. The department is facing the potential loss of thousands of staff over the next five years. Indeed, statistics reveal that 26.9 per cent of permanent teachers are aged 55 or older and 53.6 per cent of permanent teachers are aged 45 or older. We must do more to retain teachers, and not enough work is being done to support beginning teachers. In 2011, under the Coalition, 8 per cent of primary school teachers in New South Wales government schools resigned from the department in their first five years of teaching. In 2014, according to the budget papers for 2014-15, that number is projected to rise to approximately 8.2 per cent.
There will always be a percentage of people who engage in a profession, get on the job and then decide it is not for them. But we must accept that teaching is a singular profession. To be a teacher requires a particular commitment and capacity to deal with children. There will always be those who enter the profession with good will and then leave, but far too many teachers are being dumped in difficult-to-staff schools—because that is where the need is—and they end up burning out very quickly. They are not given adequate support. Far too many individuals who would make fabulous teachers if given the right professional development opportunities are being lost to the system.
My final observation relates to the paucity of detail in this legislation. The Greens are particularly concerned about how the scheme will be implemented. We understand that all those details cannot be included 1568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
in the legislation and that it is appropriate not to do so. However, The Greens want to ensure that the teachers and their representatives are consulted properly about the final arrangements—in this case, they should be worked out with the NSW Teachers Federation. I foreshadow that The Greens will move an amendment in Committee to make sure that the NSW Teachers Federation, as the professional and industrial representative of teachers, has the opportunity to comment on and reject those plans that would not work for schools and teachers. In conclusion, for the sake of abundant accountability, I declare that my partner will be caught by the provisions of this legislation, which will have a direct effect on her teaching. Apart from those concerns, The Greens support the bill.
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [12.46 p.m.]: The New South Wales Labor Opposition will support the Teacher Accreditation Amendment Bill 2014. I note that consultation with key stakeholders concerning transitional arrangements will continue. The object of the bill is to amend the Teacher Accreditation Act 2004 to enable reforms agreed as part of the Government's Great Teaching, Inspired Learning package, which builds on the reforms introduced in this area by the previous Labor Government. I am a huge supporter of the teaching profession—my husband is a secondary school teacher. I understand how hard teachers work. In the past 10 to 15 years in particular, as a consequence of reforms introduced by Labor, teachers have achieved some fantastic outcomes.
Under the bill, New South Wales will be brought into line with other jurisdictions throughout Australia regarding the mandatory accreditation of all schoolteachers in this State. This will ensure that all teachers who teach within a school or an early childhood setting become accredited. These changes will not commence until proclamation of the legislation and, as I said earlier, there will be further consultation with key stakeholders concerning transitional arrangements. That is important. We must ensure that there are no unintended consequences, particularly for new teachers coming through over the next five years. Until now, only teachers who commenced teaching after 1 October 2004 or those who took a break from teaching for five years or more were required to be accredited. Provisions in this bill include the mandatory requirement that all new and existing teachers who are to be accredited hold a Working With Children Check clearance. This common-sense approach ensures that any teacher who receives accreditation has been cleared to work with children—a change that will help bring standards in New South Wales into line with those in other jurisdictions.
The aim is to have all school and early childhood teachers accredited by the end of July 2017. Further provisions will make it an offence for a person to teach in a school or early childhood centre if that person is not accredited. I understand that the member for Keira, Ryan Park, our very hardworking shadow Minister for education and training, has been in discussion with the Independent Education Union [IEU]. I understand that it is supportive of the bill but has raised a number of concerns relating to its sector and its members. I understand that these issues and others have been raised with the Minister's office on behalf of the IEU for advice and clarification. The union has raised concerns about the need to have appropriate safeguards in place, given the fact that under the legislation individual schools within the independent education sector will be teacher accreditation authorities [TAA].
The IEU is keen to ensure that personality and other non-performance related disputes do not result in teachers losing not only their position in a school but also their accreditation and therefore their ability to teach. This is a very important point and I hope that there will be more details provided around this issue. There have been calls for further consultation. We need to make sure that we get this right. It is about ensuring that our teachers have the utmost support and resources, because they are teaching the future generations of our State and our country. We must ensure that teachers are well equipped, and that professional development and training opportunities are available to them. The Opposition supports the bill.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.50 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, in reply: I thank the Hon. Penny Sharpe, the Hon. Paul Green, Dr John Kaye and the Hon. Sophie Cotsis for their contributions to debate on the Teacher Accreditation Amendment Bill 2014. This bill is long overdue. The Government wants all teachers to be accredited by the end of 2017, which is why it has introduced this legislation to make it accreditation mandatory. I thank Opposition members for their supportive comments. The Hon. Penny Sharpe raised the issue of the consultation that the Government has undertaken. I am happy to confirm that the Government will continue to undertake consultation with all organisations, including the NSW Teachers Federation, prior to the bill's proclamation.
The Minister would also like to acknowledge the significant consultation that has occurred with the Department of Education and Communities, the Association of Independent Schools of NSW, the Catholic Education Commission NSW, the NSW Teachers Federation and the Independent Education Union as well as 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1569
numerous early childhood stakeholders. I thank them for their broad support for the scope of the reforms and for agreeing to participate in further consultation with the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards [BOSTES].
The Greens raised a large number of questions during the second reading debate. Frankly, it is difficult to imagine that they are all genuine given that The Greens were part of the consultation process prior to the bill's introduction. I can answer one of the final questions about what will happen to any additional fees that are raised. The teacher accreditation fee is hypothecated under the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards Act 2013. The Act currently limits the expenditure of this revenue to meeting the cost of accrediting teachers, and maintaining, monitoring and enhancing teacher quality. I will save any further comments for the Committee stage. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): If there is no objection, the Committee will deal with the bill as a whole.
Dr JOHN KAYE [12.53 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet C2014-127A:
No. 1 Mandatory accreditation of school teachers
Page 11, schedule 1 [41], proposed section 28 (3), line 4. After "this subsection.", insert "Such a date may not be appointed unless the Minister certifies that the New South Wales Teachers Federation has approved of subsections (1) and (2) applying to Government school teachers."
I raised this matter during the second reading debate. New section 28 is the guts of the bill; it is the point at which there is a requirement for all teachers to be accredited. New section 28 (3) states that subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who was employed as a schoolteacher before 1 October 2004—these are the people we now refer to, although hopefully we will not have to do so for too much longer, as non new-system teachers—and who has remained employed as a schoolteacher until the date appointed by proclamation for the purposes of this subsection. So it holds off until the subsection has been proclaimed. It is a sensible mechanism. That mechanism is needed to allow the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards [BOSTES] to work out the mechanisms needed for the transition to a full accreditation system to occur.
There are some tricky questions about teachers who are non new-system teachers and who have been around for a while—for example, how the recognition of prior learning will work, how we will assess senior teachers, who will assess their classroom teaching and what sort of paperwork will be required. I have no doubt that BOSTES and the Minister will negotiate with the NSW Teachers Federation, and presumably also with the Independent Education Union, the Catholic Education Commission NSW and the Association of Independent Schools of NSW, to make sure they get it right. However, we are concerned that there should be a final sign-off by teachers and by the teachers' professional and industrial representative, the NSW Teachers Federation, before that goes ahead. Our concern is that the transition will happen without the NSW Teachers Federation having the capacity to say, "No, you're not there yet." There is a risk that we will rush into a new scheme that will not work. Our amendment therefore inserts after the requirement that this section be proclaimed before it comes into effect that:
Such a date may not be appointed unless the Minister certifies that the New South Wales Teachers Federation has approved of subsections (1) and (2) applying to Government school teachers.
That is to say, it must be happy the accreditation can be applied to all teachers. The NSW Teachers Federation supports the scheme. In fact, it came partly from the work of the NSW Institute of Teachers, which was informed in part by the work of Jennifer Leete, the then Deputy President of the NSW Teachers Federation. So it is not as if the NSW Teachers Federation would use this new power to hold up the process. It provides an appropriate level of checks and balances on progress in moving towards comprehensive accreditation of all teachers. I commend the amendment to the House. 1570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.57 p.m.]: The Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards [BOSTES] has engaged in extensive consultation with all key stakeholders, including the NSW Teachers Federation. The effective date for these changes is 1 January 2018. BOSTES will engage in further consultation early in 2015 to develop the transitional arrangements well in advance of the commencement of the changes. All stakeholders have expressed confidence in the BOSTES consultation process. This amendment is not required. It is not appropriate for an industrial organisation to have a legislative role over the BOSTES as regulator. The Government does not support the amendment.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE [12.58 p.m.]: The Opposition has only just received this amendment but it will not support it. The shadow Minister for education and training has consulted stakeholders in relation to this bill and this issue was never raised during that consultation. We believe the commitments the Government has made in relation to proclamation and consultation with stakeholders—and given the satisfaction that has been expressed by all stakeholders in relation to that consultation—are more than adequate. We believe that, within the three-year transition period, no teacher will be disadvantaged through the process and that the NSW Teachers Federation will have a right and proper place at the table during consultations. It does not have to be put into the legislation.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [12.59 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party does not support The Greens amendment, particularly when there is so much confusion within the NSW Teachers Federation. The Teachers Federation should get its own house in order.
Dr JOHN KAYE [12.59 p.m.]: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile could not have been talking about the NSW Teachers Federation. In my dealings with it and from its public statements I have found it to be an extremely well-organised body. It has a coherent message on all matters, ranging from education funding to teacher professional standards. I comprehensively reject the statement of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.
Question—That The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2014-127A] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.
The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2014-127A] negatived.
Title agreed to.
Question—That this bill as read be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Bill as read agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee without amendment.
Adoption of Report
Motion by the Hon. Catherine Cusack, on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, agreed to:
That the report be adopted.
Report adopted.
Third Reading
Motion by the Hon. Catherine Cusack, on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.
[The Assistant-President (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile) left the chair at 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 2.30 p.m. for questions. 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1571
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______
BALLINA KOALA PLAN
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Freight. Given the Minister's answer yesterday concerning section 10 of the Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway upgrade, and in light of the Federal environment Minister's August determination that Roads and Maritime Services must submit a Ballina koala plan to him for approval before the upgrade can commence, will the Minister update the House on the development of this Ballina koala plan?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for his question. As the member would be aware, Roads and Maritime Services is committed to analysing the impact of works on biodiversity and considers biodiversity issues carefully during route selection and road design for all infrastructure projects. During project development and design investigation, the potential impact on threatened species, populations and ecological communities of conservation concern are identified and assessed. Where the impact of a project cannot be avoided, it is minimised through the design process, and appropriate mitigation and management measures are included in the project, such as dedicated fauna crossings or fauna fencing. Where a residual impact remains, it may be offset through the acquisition of compensatory land for conservation purposes or contributing towards threat abatement plans.
Roads and Maritime Services is aware of the presence of koalas along the preferred Pacific Highway corridor and is working with the community and government agencies, including Ballina Shire Council, to reduce the potential impact. In response to community feedback to the environmental assessment documents for the Woolgoolga to Ballina upgrade project, Roads and Maritime Services further investigated the potential impacts of the highway upgrade on koalas and has made improvements to the project, including less land clearing, additional native animal crossing points, extra fencing, planting of koala food trees on land owned by Roads and Maritime Services, and preparation of a draft koala management plan.
Roads and Maritime Services is planning to fully fence the highway on both sides and will build fauna connectivity structures and fences to allow safe movement of animals, including koalas, under and over the new highway. It is intended to install the mitigation infrastructure and to plant the koala food trees as early as possible to reduce the risk to fauna during construction. This is where planning is different from what happened in the past. The Labor Government should have built some roads—it built a few, but not very many—but it was only at the last moment that it put this sort of mitigation in place. We are putting mitigation measures in place early so that the local fauna gets used to using those measures before vehicles start going along the roads. How sensible is that? Would Labor have thought about it? No. If it was not on a glossy brochure, it was outside its purview. Roads and Maritime Services is committed to engaging a team of experts— [Time expired.]
MID WESTERN HIGHWAY
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Freight. Could the Minister update the House on the proposal to rename the Mid Western Highway?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Today I was delighted to announce with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. Victor Dominello, that this New South Wales Government is seeking feedback from the communities of Western New South Wales to have a say in the renaming of the Mid Western Highway to recognise the traditional owners of the land. Following early conversations with the Wiradjuri people, we are now following guidelines to determine what it is involved in changing the name. We have already carried out some early conversations with stakeholders—including local councils, Aboriginal land councils and members of Parliament—about the proposal. The Wiradjuri nation is the largest Aboriginal nation in New South Wales and is centred on the Lachlan, Macquarie and Murrumbidgee rivers. Learning the geography of the Aboriginal nations which have existed on this land for thousands of years is integral to our understanding of Australian history.
The Mid Western Highway is the only New South Wales highway that starts and ends in an Aboriginal cultural area. It starts in Bathurst and ends 516 kilometres away in Hay, having travelled through Cowra, Crookwell and West Wyalong. Renaming this highway to recognise the history and culture of the Wiradjuri people I believe is a very worthwhile initiative. We have a long way to go before we know whether we need to start changing the names on the road signs. But, seeking feedback from people who live along the Mid Western 1572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
Highway is an important step in the process. This is a unique opportunity to incorporate recognition of the traditional owners of the land as a large part of the highway's future. This is about listening to regional communities and making sure we work with them to deliver what they expect and deserve.
I look forward to having the Wiradjuri Way join other routes like the Kamilaroi Highway. The proposal to change the name of the Mid Western Highway is one on a long list of projects this Government is doing to make sure Central Western New South Wales is back on the map. This Government is delivering vital upgrades to highways across Western New South Wales, including the Cobb, which joins the Mid Western Highway at Hay, as well as an upgrade of the highway between Wilcannia and Ivanhoe. We are upgrading the Gwydir Highway, east of Moree; the Mitchell Highway, north of Wellington at Wongarbon; and the Newell Highway and Castlereagh Highway, north-east of Gilgandra. All of these upgrades will be completed this year. I am proud that the Government is listening to the communities of Western New South Wales and is delivering. I, and I am sure all members of this House, look forward to the official naming of the Mid Western Highway as Wiradjuri Way.
NEWCASTLE RAIL LINE
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Freight. Has the Minister or Roads and Maritime Services conducted any modelling on increased traffic impact on Newcastle roads from the closure of the Newcastle rail line?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his question. I acknowledge that certainly today is the day before the last sitting day of Parliament before the Newcastle by-election. I am sure that had nothing whatsoever to do with the question, because if I were to suggest that I would be casting aspersions on the question and would be a cynic. I am not a cynic. Of course we do that sort of work. We look at the effects on and costs to roads within that area. That is part of what we do in any transport node. For example, when we are putting light rail into the Sydney central business district, effects on bus routes, parking and cars are part of our total project costs, as it is with the northern beaches hospital. Extra traffic in the hospital's location hits tipping points: Roads that may not be in the plan for the next five to 10 years suddenly come forward five years.
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: It's good planning.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is what good planning is about. That is what is done when not relying on policy out of brochures—something the member's lot would not know about.
SCHOOLS
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Education. In his answer dated 17 June 2014 the Minister for Education stated that he had not closed any schools in 2014; rather, he used the term "in recess". Given that Wyong Grove Public School has been confirmed to be amalgamated with Wyong Public School next year and that Milbrulong Public School has been declared publicly in news reports to have been closed by the Department of Education and Communities, and given that none of these schools currently is accepting any more students, does the Minister still stand by his statement that these schools are not closed? How does this Minister define the difference between closed and in perpetual recess?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the member for the question. I will refer it to the Minister for Education and come back with an answer for him.
SENIORS CHRISTMAS CONCERTS
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing. Will the Minister update the House on the annual Seniors Christmas Concerts across New South Wales?
The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will contain their enthusiasm.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the member for her question. As members are aware, a priority of this Government is to increase opportunities for seniors in New South Wales to fully participate in community life. The Premier's Gala Concerts for seniors, held since 1983, are a wonderful chance to recognise, engage and thank our State's seniors. Last year the Government made some changes to these concerts in order to allow 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1573
seniors in regional communities the chance to attend them for the first time. All members would agree that this regional tour of the seniors concerts was a complete success. We expanded the concerts held in Sydney during NSW Seniors Week in March and created a regional tour of the Seniors Christmas Concerts. Last year, these Christmas concerts toured to Penrith, Shoalhaven, Newcastle and Tamworth. These were wonderful events that were very warmly received by the local communities.
Following on from this success, I am pleased to advise that this year concerts again will be held in four different regional locations—Lismore, Central Coast, Queanbeyan and Wollongong. The Government will produce concerts for Lismore on Wednesday 19 November, Erina on Tuesday 25 November and Queanbeyan on Friday 28 November. Fittingly, the theme for these concerts will be "Twas the Month Before Christmas". For the fourth concert location, we are partnering with Wollongong Town Hall to present a "Spirit of Christmas" morning melodies concert on 1 December. I can confirm that some outstanding Australian talent is on the bill. I am thrilled to announce to the House that the concerts in Lismore, Erina and Queanbeyan will feature popular actor and singer Ben Mingay, musical theatre performer Rachael Beck, and well-known comedy legend Jean Kitson.
The Government will continue to produce a limited edition Christmas Concert DVD for distribution to seniors, nursing home residents and those less mobile who cannot attend the concerts. The Christmas DVD will be open-captioned for people with a hearing impairment. This year's DVD will be available in mid-December and made available to all members of Parliament for distribution in their electorates and communities. I encourage members to allocate these DVDS to any organisations and seniors they feel will benefit from them. In particular, for community organisations that work with older people to alleviate loneliness or social isolation, this DVD may present a wonderful opportunity to spread some Christmas cheer to their clients or members.
Sydney residents will have something exciting to look forward to, with planning already underway for the Premier's Seniors Week Gala Concerts in March next year at the Qantas Credit Union Arena, formerly known as the Sydney Entertainment Centre. It may be a little early to offer season's greetings, but I am pleased to advise that we are continuing to spread the Christmas spirit to our deserving seniors. I am pleased that we are able to share these concerts, whether live or via DVD, with seniors in different communities across New South Wales. I am pleased to see the excitement of all members in the Chamber over this wonderful announcement.
NSW RURAL FIRE SERVICE 10/50 VEGETATION CLEARING CODE
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing, representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. When will the Rural Fire Service live up to the commitment given by its commissioner at budget estimates hearings and publish its maps of 10/50 entitlement clearing areas?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the member for his question. I will refer it to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and come back with an answer.
LAKE ILLAWARRA ESTUARY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
The Hon. MICK VEITCH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for the Illawarra. Further to the Minister's answer yesterday, will he guarantee that the proceeds of all Crown land sales on Lake Illawarra will be transferred to the Lake Illawarra Estuary Management Committee?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the member for his question. As I have indicated previously, on 13 October 2014 Wollongong City Council resolved to establish a Lake Illawarra Estuary Management Committee in conjunction with Shellharbour City Council—the latter having resolved to establish the committee in December 2013. Negotiations between the councils on the terms of reference, membership and committee funding are ongoing. Funding is available to the councils under the New South Wales Government's Estuary Management Program to implement activities at Lake Illawarra that meet the objective of the program, which is to improve the health of New South Wales estuaries.
Funding under the program is targeted at coastal zone planning and technical studies to underpin management decisions, on-ground works to manage coastal hazards or to implement environmental repairs, pre-construction activities for on-ground works and for developing management tools such as education projects. The New South Wales Government and the Office of Environment and Heritage are actively engaged with councils on estuary and coastal management in other areas of the Local Government Associations, providing technical and financial support on a range of projects. 1574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
The Hon. MICK VEITCH: I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer about the funding he was talking about regarding Crown land sales? Will those sale proceeds go to the Lake Illawarra Estuary Management Committee?
The PRESIDENT: Order! That supplementary question is out of order. The member re-asked his original question.
HOUSING SUPPLY
Mr SCOT MacDONALD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Fair Trading, representing the Minister for Planning. Will the Minister update the House on how the New South Wales Government is boosting housing supply and the economy?
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: I thank the Hon. Scot MacDonald for the important question, which builds upon the discussion we had yesterday. I know that Opposition members have not brought their money boxes with them for a long time, but it is important that we focus on the economy. We need to keep explaining economics to those opposite if they are to understand what fiscal responsibility is all about. The "State of the States" report was issued yesterday and New South Wales was confirmed on all of the economic statistics to be number one again. It was this Government's promise upon coming to office in 2011 to make New South Wales number one again. According to the economic statistics, we are there.
As I mentioned yesterday, the key statistic that has underpinned the pathway from 16 dark years of Labor—the pathway from the gates of Mordor—is the housing industry and what this Government has achieved with housing starts. In 2009 we had 26,000 housing starts in New South Wales. Over the past 12 months we have had 52,000 housing starts in New South Wales. That gives Opposition members 52,000 reasons to scream. It is 52,000 reasons for this State being back on track. According to the latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, residential construction is at a 10-year high, which is 45 per cent above decade averages. I know it is hard to accept that the Monaro is doing well and is back in its growth phase, despite 16 years of darkness from the Hon. Steve Whan.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Steve Whan to order for the first time.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: The member for Monaro and Minister for Small Business is part of the success story. As members know, the Hon. John Barilaro has a building firm that produces windows and other building products, which is part of the great story in the Monaro.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: Do not pretend you care, Steve.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Mason-Cox to order for the first time. He will cease baiting Opposition members.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: The reality is that the latest figures show that housing starts in the June quarter were 10,874. We said when we came to office that we would kick-start growth and that is what is happening. The figure of 52,000 housing starts over the past 12 months is worth reflecting upon. We have boosted housing approvals to the highest level since 1999. Those approvals under Labor were around 2,600 per month. It is worth noting that for 22 months in a row we have seen more than 3,000 approvals a month, which is up from Labor's approval rate of 2,600 per month. Housing starts have grown over the past 12 months as a result of approval processes being streamlined and the money that was allocated to the Housing Acceleration Fund, which has allowed infrastructure construction to grow in the new housing estates.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PROPERTY RENTS
Ms JAN BARHAM: My question is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading, representing the Treasurer. I refer to the report in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday that Treasury has directed the Department of Planning and Environment to realise market values on around 1,200 properties that are currently leased from the department by non-government organisations at peppercorn rents. Does the Treasury's decision-making in such matters include any consideration of the impact of Government actions on the 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1575
wellbeing of people, communities and ecosystems in this State? Has Treasury conducted any analysis of the impact of imposing market rents on services, clients and communities for facilities such as Darling House at Dawes Point and the Warilla Child Care Centre in the Illawarra?
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: I thank the member for the detailed question. I will refer it to the Treasurer, obtain an answer and respond as soon as I can.
NORTHERN BEACHES HOSPITAL AND MAITLAND HOSPITAL
The Hon. WALT SECORD: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing, representing the Minister for Health. Why was the board of the Hunter New England Local Health District briefed on 16 July 2014 on the privatisation of the Northern Beaches Hospital when the same briefing considered the new Maitland Hospital? Will the Minister provide details of both discussions?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the honourable member for his question. As I indicate each time he asks a similar question, it gives me an opportunity to continue to remind members of the great work done by the Minister for Health, the Hon. Jillian Skinner. If those opposite were still running Health we can imagine what an absolute shambles the system would be in—it is a frightening thought. The redesign of health services in the area will improve access to health care for the northern beaches community. The new hospital will provide more complex acute care for a greater number of patients on the northern beaches. The new hospital at Frenchs Forest will be a level 5 hospital and will provide services such as surgery, emergency medicine, paediatrics, acute in-patient mental health, chemotherapy and clinical support, including radiology, pathology and pharmacy, non-clinical support and many other services.
A minimum of 423 beds are planned for the new hospital, which is more public beds and operating theatres than are currently available at the Manly and Mona Vale hospitals combined. Site preparation activities are underway. The hospital operator will be appointed in late 2014, with main building construction scheduled to start in 2015. Completion is due in 2018. Permanent and full-time staff who currently provide care to patients at the Manly and Mona Vale hospitals will have the opportunity to transfer to positions at the new hospital. The Government is committed to ensuring that the right road capacity exists around the hospital. In June 2014 it announced a $400 million infrastructure investment. Roads and Maritime Services have submitted an application to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, detailing roadworks to improve connectivity to the hospital. To boost public transport, $125 million will be invested to deliver kerbside bus rapid transit on the northern beaches. This is some of the great news from the Minister for Health. Let us not forget other great news.
The Government has delivered a succession of record health budgets to fund growth in services. This has enabled the Government to admit almost 170,000 more patients to hospital since being elected. Since March 2011 more than 17,000 elective surgeries have been delivered, with 99 per cent on-time performance. Emergency departments have become far more efficient and responsive under this Government thanks to the significant investment in emergency department capital works. But the Government could not deliver these improvements in patient care without a significant boost in staff. Since being elected we have employed an additional 4,600 nurses, or 3,400 full-time equivalents, and 1,400 full-time equivalent doctors. Since June 2011 we have more than 1,090 additional hospital support staff, and 979 intern positions are being recruited for 2015—up 20 from 2014 and up 129 from 2012.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Does the Minister have any more relevant information to provide?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: No, thank you.
The Hon. WALT SECORD: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer about the transfer of staff to the Northern Beaches Hospital? Will the Government guarantee their positions, conditions and entitlements beyond two years?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: As I have indicated, permanent full-time and part-time staff who currently provide care to patients at Manly and Mona Vale hospitals will have the opportunity to transfer to positions at the new hospital.
STATE ECONOMY
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I address my question to the Leader of the Government, and Minister for Roads and Freight. Will the Minister update the House on the latest economic performance of New South Wales? 1576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Since 2011—
The Hon. Steve Whan: Do you and Matthew tick-tack so you don't answer the same question?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We do. We felt you needed a double dose. You needed to be hit again because you are so far behind the eight ball. The Liberal-Nationals Government has been tirelessly rebuilding the New South Wales economy. After 16 years of Labor's complete mismanagement the economy was left in dire straits. Frankly, it was a mess. But I am proud to say that the great State of New South Wales is back on top in economic performance.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will cease interjecting.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Only those sitting on the losers lounge will not be rejoicing about the new-found economic credibility of New South Wales. They are looking so glum. They know they mucked up and we have fixed it. Last Monday CommSec released its "State of the States" report, which shows that New South Wales has regained the number one position amongst all States and Territories. New South Wales is number one again. I repeat, New South Wales is number one again. How good does that sound? This is great news for communities and businesses across this State. After 16 years of Labor's incompetence they are now seeing much brighter days.
But this is a far cry from the decay left by the now Opposition. In fact, the "State of the States" report shows that in the first quarter of 2011, which reflects the last three months of 16 years of Labor—members should listen to this because it is important—the New South Wales economy was the worst performing economy in Australia. New South Wales was absolutely last on the table. That is where those opposite left us. Economic growth had taken its place as the major weakness for New South Wales. This State was ranked last out of the eight States and Territories for this indicator.
Mr Jeremy Buckingham: Coalmining was booming.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Am I hearing part of the Coalition? I thank The Greens for reminding us that they were part of this Coalition that put New South Wales at the bottom of the table. It has taken—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Government, Opposition and crossbench members are making far too much noise. The Minister has the call.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It has taken a Liberal-Nationals Government to move this State out from under the dark ages of Labor. New South Wales now has the fastest annual economic growth rate in this nation. Our Government had to play catch-up after years of underbuilding and underinvestment by the former Labor Government. I am pleased that this latest report shows that New South Wales is the big improver and we are now outperforming the rest of the country in a number of key economic indicators.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Amanda Fazio to order for the first time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: New South Wales is at the top of the ranks in population growth and dwelling starts; second in retail trade, business investment and unemployment; third in housing finance; and fourth on overall construction work and economic growth. [Time expired.]
WILD DOG AND FOX CONTROL
The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: I address my question to the Minister for Fair Trading, representing the Minister for the Environment. Is the Minister aware of a recent report in the Daily Telegraph about a wild dog and fox poisoning campaign being run by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service in the Burragorang State Conservation Area in which two different strength baits are being used—namely, a three milligram bait for foxes and six milligram bait for dogs? If wild dogs eat the lesser strength baits meant for foxes and thereby undergo unnecessary suffering, has the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service breached the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act?
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: That is a very good question. It would be wise of me to seek an answer from the relevant Minister. I will return with a response for the honourable member as soon as practicable. 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1577
TAFE NORTHERN BEACHES
The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for the Illawarra, representing the Minister for Education. Given that staff at the TAFE Northern Beaches campus have been asked by management to detail a business case as to why the hospitality training course should not be solely located at one campus at Ryde, will the Minister rule out the closure of the hospitality training course at the TAFE Northern Beaches campus.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the honourable member for his question, which I will refer to the Minister for Education. I will come back with an answer for the honourable member as soon as practicable.
GRAFFITI REMOVAL DAY 2014
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I address my question to the Minister for Ageing, representing the Attorney General. Will the Minister inform the House how the New South Wales Government is cracking down on graffiti vandals?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the honourable member for her question. Sunday 26 October marks Graffiti Removal Day 2014. Graffiti Removal Day is an initiative of the New South Wales Government in partnership with Rotary. Local communities are encouraged to get out and help remove graffiti from local parks, shops and fences as a sign that they will not put up with graffiti in their area. Graffiti is estimated to cost New South Wales more than $100 million every year—although these figures are conservative because graffiti offences are not always reported to police. Last year a record number of more than 1,000 volunteers rolled up their sleeves to help clean up more than 23,000 square metres of graffiti across this State. The operation was incredibly successful, with volunteers saving nearly $1.5 million in graffiti removal costs.
I encourage everyone to get involved in this year's Graffiti Removal Day. It would be great if last year's efforts were replicated or even better expanded. To volunteer or nominate a clean-up site one needs to complete the online registration form at www.graffitiremovalday.org.au. I have volunteered in previous years and I encourage all members to do the same. Volunteers are provided with training, graffiti removal equipment and protective gear. However, the attack on graffiti does not stop on Graffiti Removal Day. In 2012 the New South Wales Government established a free and confidential graffiti hotline to make it easier to report and remove graffiti vandalism found on public assets, community facilities or private property.
This has proved to be a successful asset and last financial year it received 830 calls. To report graffiti in New South Wales people should call 1800 707 124 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. Reporting graffiti is important to the New South Wales community to maintain the aesthetic beauty of our local areas and to reduce the cost of graffiti clean-up. Changes to laws recently passed by the New South Wales Government will give the NSW Police Force up to two years to catch graffiti vandals. Increasingly, offenders are recording their graffiti crimes on smart phones so they can brag to mates or gain notoriety by posting the clip on YouTube. Often these records are not discovered until sometime after the offence has been committed. Existing laws prevent police from charging a vandal with a specific graffiti offence if the incident happened more than six months ago.
The six-month cut-off may have resulted in some graffiti offenders being charged under the Crimes Act 1900 with the more serious offence of destroy or damage property, which has no time restrictions. The maximum penalty for a first-time offender charged with destroy or damage property is five years jail, or six years if committed in company, which is not appropriate for a young graffiti offender. Whereas first-time offenders convicted of a specific graffiti offence face a $440 fine or, if the offence has an aggravating feature, up to 12 months jail and a $2,200 fine.
The New South Wales Government wants to see all graffiti offences dealt with under the one piece of legislation: the Graffiti Control Act 2008. Changes to that Act passed earlier this year made it easier to deal with emerging threats such as acid etching. Graffiti has emerged where paint and spray cans are not the materials used to graffiti. Etching is the process of using strong acid to cut into the unprotected parts of a metal surface to create a design or engraving in the metal. There is also a new offence of aggravated marking for graffiti that cannot be readily removed by wiping, water or detergent, which carries a 12-month jail sentence and fine of $2,200. The New South Wales Government has worked with communities to protect public facilities and to ensure that vandalism by way of graffiti is punished. [Time expired.]
The PRESIDENT: Order! I welcome to the public gallery our former colleague the Hon. David Oldfield and his family. 1578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
COFFS HARBOUR SLIPWAY
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Freight, representing the Minister for Regional Infrastructure and Services. Is the Minister aware of concerns by commercial fishermen in Coffs Harbour that the indefinite closure of the local slipway in August may drive them out of business because boats needing repairs or inspections will be forced to use Yamba or Port Macquarie?
Mr Jeremy Buckingham: Oh, a fishing question.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I note the interjection from the Hon. SpongeBob SquarePants.
The PRESIDENT: Order!
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: What is the Minister doing to ensure that the slipway remains open, at least for emergencies, during the remediation work?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the Hon. Robert Brown for his question. I am aware that the Maritime Management Centre is working with Crown Lands to ensure that the Coffs Harbour slipway is restored as a viable service centre as soon as possible. If there is any other information I can get for the honourable member on this then I certainly will undertake to do so. I acknowledge the importance of fishing to the Coffs Harbour community and I note the inane interjections from The Greens. They would shut down the fishing industry at the drop of a hat. You have to watch out for people in koala suits—they look fluffy on the outside but on the inside it could be Lee Rhiannon or Jeremy Buckingham; and that is a pretty dangerous koala. Not even the Hon. Walt Secord would attend a koala like that.
DISABILITY VOTER SUPPORT SERVICES
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services. What specific steps has the Minister taken since becoming the Minister for Disability Services to enhance support for people with intellectual disabilities when they are required to vote next March? What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that their needs and desires are respected?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the Hon. Helen Westwood for her question. It is actually an excellent question. I am happy to indicate that this Government is leading the way in relation to ensuring that all people with disability are included in all aspects of community life. That is exactly what we do—we ensure that people with disability are not restricted in any way or in any aspect. Whether it comes down to access or to voting, that is what we will continue to do. We will continue to provide advice and assistance to people with disability.
LOCAL BUSINESSES
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Fair Trading. Will the Minister update the House on how NSW Fair Trading is promoting local businesses?
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: I thank the Hon. Greg Pearce for the question. He understands business. This side of the House understands business; the other side of the House understands how to nationalise business, how to tax business and how to regulate business. This side of the House understands business and how to do the absolute opposite to those on the other side of the Chamber. I will reflect on a couple of things in this space. Last week it was my absolute pleasure to launch the "I love my local business" Facebook competition for this year. I hope those opposite are going to get on Facebook and get involved in this. I know that the Government Whip is busting keen to get onto Facebook—I see he has his phone out already, which is wonderful to see.
This competition promotes local business by encouraging consumers to name a local business that has provided great service to the community, whether that is through exceptional customer service or their support of local initiatives. I was very pleased to welcome to the Cabinet the new Minister for Small Business, the Hon. John Barilaro. He has a great background in small business and brings a lot of relevant skills to the Cabinet. 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1579
The Hon. Duncan Gay: He is the hero of the Monaro.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: That is right; in fact the reaction of the local community to his elevation to Cabinet has been just brilliant. I heard a number of comments from members of the local community who said, "It's great to finally have a Minister from the Monaro community who is listening to small business." Indeed they said that it has been a long time since a member for Monaro was actually a Cabinet Minister. They could not remember the former member for Monaro and they could not remember that he had been in Cabinet—that reflects how much of an impact he made. It is a long way back from the losers lounge. The reality is that the new Minister for Small Business is setting an absolutely cracking pace. I know he will be on Facebook letting people know the sort of businesses out there in the Monaro and what a great job they are doing.
This competition supports local businesses and promotes local businesses, and I urge all members to get behind it. It is worth noting that entrants have 60 words or less, and I know that is a lot for members opposite, to promote a local business that has given great service. I will leave that with members. Robyn Hobbs, the NSW Small Business Commissioner, will be on the panel which will judge this year's competition and determine a winner. Last year's winner was Café DOV in Potts Point. It runs a community garden and supports the Wayside Chapel. This is the sort of wonderful local business that provides a lot of support to its community and indeed great service.
Another way that the Government is supporting local business is by trying to reduce regulation and red tape. That is in our DNA. That is what we do. We get out of the way of business so they can get on with delivering jobs and economic growth in this State. In the last few moments I have to speak it is worth noting that we are on target to reach—
The PRESIDENT: Order! There are far too many interjections.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: This Government is on track to reach its target of $750 million worth of red tape reduction. I look forward to expanding on this topic in the near future. [Time expired.]
COAL SEAM GAS
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Freight, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. When does the Government intend to respond to the Chief Scientist's report into coal seam gas?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his question and also for not being critical of the Chief Scientist for the first time in a long time. The Greens released a lot of pre-publicity saying how biased and terrible this report would be. Once again the member got it wrong. Having got it wrong, he is sucking up by asking when the Government will respond to a report that it asked for. The answer is: Very soon.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FIT FOR THE FUTURE
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: My question is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading, representing the Minister for Local Government. Given that last Friday a list of facilitators was announced to assist councils in preparing structural change proposals in accordance with their Fit for the Future agenda, how were these facilitators commissioned, what is the total cost of contracting these facilitators and will ratepayers be funding that cost?
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: If it was Victorian Labor it would be Mick Gatto.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: What a stupid comment.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has the call.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: Although the interjections are very interesting I will pass the question on to the Minister and come back with a detailed answer. 1580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
GRAIN RAIL LINES
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Freight. Will the Minister update the House on continued upgrades and maintenance of grain lines in country New South Wales?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for that important question. I would not get to talk about freight rail and rail if I relied on the Opposition, even though the shadow transport spokesperson is in this House.
[Interruption]
Some days I am not sure either. On winning office in early 2011 the New South Wales Government committed $277 million over the five financial years between 2012-13 and 2016-17 to maintain and upgrade grain rail lines. This financial year alone it has committed $44 million to improve grain lines, which is undoubtedly the largest investment for such works in the State's history. Indeed, I have been a member of this place for more than 26 years and I cannot remember any previous Labor Government getting within a bull's roar of such levels of investment.
To date with this funding the Government has successfully: replaced 331,000 old timber sleepers with modern long-life steel sleepers; resurfaced 1,284 kilometres of track; constructed 60 new low-maintenance bridges and culverts; upgraded 48 level crossings; and laid 141,000 tonnes of ballast, which is equivalent to more than 3,300 six-axle 19-metre semitrailers filled with aggregate.
The Government has also completed the re-railing of 57 kilometres of track from Armatree to Coonamble with heavy rail. The re-railed Coonamble line also allows main line locomotives to operate from grain terminals all the way to Port Kembla or the Port of Newcastle. In addition, the Government has completed a 700-metre passing loop extension at Trangie, creating more than 1,300 metres of dual track for more efficient train movements on the rail line between Narromine to Nevertire and beyond, and re-railed approximately 5.3 kilometres of track between Auscott and the Namoi Cotton facility on the Nevertire to Warren line with heavier rail.
Level crossings were also upgraded and track was aligned and resurfaced to allow main line locomotives to run all the way from the terminal to Port Botany. The Wellington bridge across the Macquarie River was refurbished by replacing more than 280 wrought iron cross girders with modern long-life galvanised steel girders, which has allowed for a long-term speed restriction to be lifted. That has improved the reliability of freight and passenger services and greatly extended the life of the structure.
The Government agrees that more needs to be done—rest assured, it will be—but no administration can reverse 16 years of gross neglect, mismanagement and underinvestment in rail freight infrastructure in fewer than four years. In addition to our historic $277 million commitment, we have allocated $6 million in 2014-15 to commence a program of rail infrastructure upgrades at key sites on the network to help to improve loading times for trains moving grain to our ports. Members opposite did not even dream of doing that. [Time expired.]
WESTCONNEX M5 EXTENSION
Dr MEHREEN FARUQI: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Freight. What environmental conditions were in place for the WestConnex M5 extension exploratory drilling that was done recently at the Landing Lights Wetland in Rockdale?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There is standard procedures in environmental areas.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: There are.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Exactly. There are standard procedures that are adhered to in that situation. We are finding out the location of the soil structure and what is happening in particular areas. I know that there is concern that the road should not go through the wetlands but we need to investigate the entire area to get an idea of what is happening. The proper procedures were adhered to as proscribed within the Environment Protection Authority Act. 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1581
DENHAM COURT ROAD UPGRADE
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Freight. When will the Minister commit to a timeline on the Denham Court Road upgrade to give local residents certainty about their future?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Announcements for local communities are between me, the local members and the communities. They are not something I communicate to the losers lounge in question time.
DRAFT ILLAWARRA REGIONAL GROWTH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for the Illawarra. Will the Minister update the House about the new draft regional growth and infrastructure plan for the Illawarra?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I am pleased to advise the House that earlier this month whilst I was in Wollongong I released the draft Illawarra Regional Growth and Infrastructure Plan on behalf of Minister Goward. I congratulate my colleague the Hon. Pru Goward and her department on their work. The draft Illawarra Regional Growth and Infrastructure Plan is a strategic framework that will guide growth in the Illawarra between now and 2031. Once the draft plan is finalised it will outline where and how growth will occur in the region and the community's role in meeting the need for jobs, homes, services and infrastructure. Between now and 2031 the Illawarra population is forecast to grow by 65,050 to 450,300. This means that we need to plan for more than 45,000 new homes and 32,150 new jobs in the region.
The New South Wales Government wants to ensure that these homes and jobs as well as the infrastructure to support them keep pace with growth, and that the region's wonderful natural environment and lifestyles for residents are preserved. In 2013 the Government released a discussion paper, "Illawarra over the next 20 years", to promote feedback from the community about their needs and aspirations for the future. Feedback from this engagement is reflected in the draft plan. The draft plan identifies opportunities to diversify the economy into growing sectors such as tourism, health, disability and aged care, information and communications technology, education, advanced manufacturing, logistics and port-related activities. These are the sectors that will drive the Illawarra's future growth.
The plan highlights the role that strategic assets in the region could play in helping to transform the economy. These strategic assets are Wollongong's City Centre, the northern growth corridor, the West Lake Illawarra and Nowra-Bomaderry regional release areas, Nowra's town centre, the international trade gateway of Port Kembla, and the Shoalhaven Defence bases. With investment, a review of current planning controls and the collaborative effort of all stakeholders, those assets have the potential to trigger great growth in the Illawarra economy, and broader housing and jobs outcomes for the region.
A framework to support economic growth is outlined in the draft plan and includes the stakeholders responsible and the actions that need to be taken to maximise the benefits of economic growth. Infrastructure is a critical component of this draft plan. The draft plan identifies new State road projects, water, wastewater and electricity infrastructure, and plans for new education services. Councils will be required to implement actions that are relevant to their local government area. To ensure that the plan stays on track, an advisory group with an independent chair will be appointed to oversee implementation. The draft plan is now on exhibition until 7 December 2014 and is available online. I encourage everyone with an interest in the continued growth of the Illawarra region to participate in this process.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If members have any unasked questions, I suggest they place them on notice.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: You can answer the one I asked you.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No. I will do that with the local member, as I indicated.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: The local member asked you to answer it and you have not answered it.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is a conversation I will have with the local member.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will not conduct conversations across the Chamber.
[Interruption]
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Lynda Voltz to order for the first time. 1582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
SOUTHERN TABLELANDS TRAIN TIMETABLE
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: On 17 September 2014 the Hon. Paul Green asked me a question about Endeavour train services in the Southern Highlands area. The Minister for Transport has provided the following response:
I am advised:
Customers can catch a train from Goulburn at 5.31 a.m. on weekdays, and connect with a fast suburban service at Campbelltown, to arrive at Central at 8.46 a.m.
Customers can also catch a direct XPLORER service departing Goulburn at 8.20 a.m. and arriving at Central at 10.56 a.m.
WAKOOL INDIGENOUS CORPORATION
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: On 17 September 2014 the Hon. Steve Whan asked me a question about the Wakool Indigenous Corporation's concerns about damage to traditional burial sites and breaches of consultation requirements in the Mungandi, Darcoola, West Abercrombie and Nimmie-Caira area. The Minister for Natural Resources, Lands and Water has provided the following response:
The Minister for Natural Resources, Lands and Water responded to the Wakool Indigenous Corporation in writing on 1 October 2014.
CANNABIS USE FOR MEDICINAL PURPOSES
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: On 17 September 2014 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked me a question about medical cannabis. The Premier has provided the following response:
The Government's reforms extend compassion to terminally ill patients and their carers by implementing NSW Police Force guidelines to formalise the current arrangement which allows police to exercise their discretion not to charge terminally ill adults who use cannabis to alleviate their symptoms, or their carers. There are no changes to cannabis offences or penalties. These reforms are about compassionate care. Recreational use of drugs is illegal and will not be tolerated.
The Premier has established a working group to develop a proposed model for a clinical trial to further explore the use of cannabis or cannabis products in providing relief for patients suffering from a range of debilitating or terminal illnesses. The New South Wales Government is leading discussions with other Australian jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth, on a collaborative trial.
CONTAINER DEPOSIT SCHEME
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: On 17 September 2014 Dr Mehreen Faruqi asked me a question about when I would commit to a container deposit scheme. I provide the following response:
This question should be referred to the Minister for Fair Trading, who represents the Minister for the Environment in the Legislative Council.
ENABLENSW
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: On 17 September 2014 the Hon. Greg Donnelly asked me a question about the number of people waiting for items such as wheelchairs, shower chairs and pressure care mattresses through EnableNSW. The Minister for Health has provided the following response:
I am advised:
As at 29 August 2014, there were 2,272 people awaiting assistance for equipment through the Aids and Equipment Program administered by EnableNSW.
COAL SEAM GAS
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: On 18 September 2014 Mr Jeremy Buckingham asked me a question about the safety of coal seam gas in the Gloucester area. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response:
I am advised that this is a matter for the Minister for Resources and Energy.
22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1583
WORKCOVER NSW AND MR HILTON GRUGEON
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: On 17 September Mr David Shoebridge asked me a question about communications between the office of the Minister for Finance and Services and the offices of WorkCover, former Minister Hartcher's office or Mr Hilton Grugeon regarding the withdrawal or potential withdrawal of WorkCover's occupational health and safety prosecution against Mr Grugeon in 2012. The Minister for Finance and Services has provided the following response:
Prosecution proceedings in 2012 were brought against Mr Grugeon by the Department of Primary Industries [now a division of NSW Trade and Investment], as the regulator of mine safety under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, following a fatality at Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd. WorkCover had no role in these proceedings.
MACQUARIE STEM CELLS
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: On 17 September 2014 the Hon. Peter Primrose asked me a question about Macquarie Stem Cells charging Australian consumers thousands of dollars for untested treatments. I provide the following response:
Issues surrounding stem cell procedures or treatments, or any other medical procedures, should be directed to the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC] or the Therapeutic Goods Administration [TGA]. Likewise, issues or enquiries about the professional standard or conduct of a health care provider should be referred to the HCCC.
MACQUARIE STEM CELLS
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: On 18 September 2014 the Hon. Adam Searle asked me a question about Macquarie Stem Cells and an adjournment speech on 30 May 2013 by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier, the Hon. Marie Ficarra. I provide the following response:
I refer to my answer to the Hon. Peter Primrose, MLC, responding to his question of 17 September 2014.
Questions without notice concluded.
WATER NSW BILL 2014
HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014
Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.
Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.
Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:
That the bills be read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages and the second readings of the bills be set down as orders of the day for a later hour.
Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.
Second readings set down as orders of the day for a later hour.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT (NOT-FOR-PROFIT NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOL FUNDING) BILL 2014
Second Reading
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [3.34 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted. 1584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
I rise to seek agreement in principle to the Government's amendments to the Education Act 1990 contained in the Education Amendment (Not-for-profit Non-Government School Funding) bill 2014.
Introduction
This bill exemplifies the New South Wales Government's responsible approach to the regulation of non-Government schooling in New South Wales.
The bill's amendments are designed to give the community greater confidence that the significant financial investment in non-government schools, by both the Government and by parents, is not directed to schools that operate for a profit.
The amendments are proportionate and fair. They build on the longstanding requirement that non-government schools in receipt of public funding do not operate for profit.
The measures aim to strengthen the rules around this funding condition, making it harder for operators to run a school as a profit making business or to divert school funds to other individuals or entities.
The measures will also help schools better understand what they need to do to comply with the not-for-profit condition, including rectifying any policies and practices that may cause them to be in breach of the rules.
The amendments in the bill are not about putting obstacles in the way of non-government schools.
Nor are they meant to constrain in any way a school's right to meet the particular needs of its community.
The amendments enable the Government to meet the legitimate public expectation that funding provided to educate school students is used for that purpose rather than improving an investor's bottom line.
Government schools
The measures are not intended to disproportionately increase the regulatory burden for non-government schools.
Government schools are already subject to the full range of regulatory requirements because they are public entities. Government schools are within the scope of the Audit Office of NSW, Independent Commission Against Corruption, the internal audit processes of the Department of Education and Communities, and the New South Wales Police Force.
Government schools will also now be required to demonstrate that they meet registration requirements monitored by the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards. This will strengthen existing quality assurance processes by ensuring there is independent verification that government schools meet required standards for operation.
Role of the non-Government school sector
The Minister for Education takes his role as Minister for Education for all schools very seriously.
He is responsible for ensuring that all New South Wales students receive an education of the highest quality and that it extends to every school, regardless of location, religion or sector.
Non-government schools greatly enrich the education landscape in New South Wales. They provide a diverse range of choices for parents considering the educational needs of their children.
And of course, the Government sees the non-government school sector as a key partner in our aim to have New South Wales students be the best in the world.
This is more than rhetoric.
In 2012 we established the New South Wales Schools Advisory Council, which includes representation from the Catholic Education Commission and the Association of Independent Schools, to advise the Minister on a range of school education matters from across the sectors.
Since its establishment, the council has contributed important work in a range of areas, in particular, the governance of the Great Teaching Inspired Learning reforms, which aim to lift the standard of teaching in New South Wales.
The council is a now a vital part of the educational landscape of the State and I take this opportunity to thank members for their valuable contribution.
The Government's financial support for the non-government sector
In recognition of the role of non-government schools the Government provides significant financial assistance to the sector.
This is currently provided for in section 21 of the Act.
In 2014-2015 that assistance amounts to more than a billion dollars.
Parameters around receiving New South Wales Government funding
The community expects that public funding going to non-government schools be used only for the purpose of enhancing student outcomes, and parents have the same expectation concerning the fees they pay.
22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1585
That is why New South Wales Government funding is only available to schools that certify they are not-for-profit.
It does not mean that a school cannot make a surplus—just that any surplus must be used only for the operation of the school.
This Government will not countenance individuals enriching themselves at the expense of students.
If school funds are siphoned off for other purposes, it means there are fewer dollars available for resources to support student learning.
This is unacceptable and prohibited under State legislation.
Strengthening the parameters
To date only one school has been found to be operating for profit under the existing conditions of the Education Act.
In establishing compliance with the existing legislation, a number of areas have been identified where strengthened regulation is called for, and where more nuanced responses need to be available.
The amendments I propose today strengthen the Act by removing anomalies, providing greater clarity and equipping the Minister for Education with enhanced powers to ensure that schools comply with the not-for-profit provisions.
This should not be seen in any way as a punitive exercise; nor is it a licence for unnecessary interference in a school's operations.
The New South Wales Government respects the autonomy of the non-government school sector and has no intention of undermining that autonomy.
As long as the requirements of the Act are met, a decision to employ staff or purchase equipment belongs solely to the school. We will not restrict the capacity of non-government schools to meet the needs and expectations of their communities and to follow their particular mission or ethos.
For example, religious organisations perform many vital services in our community, including operating schools.
The changes in this bill do not prevent those schools from purchasing appropriate resources to support their unique mission.
They do not challenge the right of the schools to deliver religious education.
That fundamental human right is underwritten in common law and will not be undermined by this legislation.
This applies to all faith-based schools no matter what their religion.
The changes will also not undermine schools that may have an emphasis on sports or performing arts. These schools would rightly be purchasing goods and services that support their particular focus.
I turn now to the specific provisions of the bill.
Section 83B Non-government school financial assistance
Section 21 of the current Act, which provides for financial assistance for non-government schoolchildren, will be renumbered and transferred to section 83B in the new legislation. This does not change any of the current arrangements for funding non-government schools.
Section 83C (1) For profit school financial assistance
Section 83C (1) makes clear that the Minister must not provide any financial assistance to a for profit school.
Section 83C (2) (a) Payments required for the operation of the school
Section 83C (2) (a) makes clear that a school will be taken to be operating for profit if its income is used for a purpose other than for the operation of the school.
This is an important principle and is intended to ensure school assets and income are used for the operation of the school such as paying teacher salaries, the school library, maintenance and many other related areas.
The key test is that the payment is for the school and not for the benefit of another individual or entity.
Section 83C (2) (b) Market value
Under the current legislation a school can make payments at above market value to a related party that is also not-for-profit.
This exception has led to some uncertainty in implementing the regulations.
Section 83C (2) (b) removes any doubt by requiring all financial transactions entered into by a school to be at market value.
The Government will not be taking a heavy-handed approach to determining what is market value.
For example, the Government will not be determining salaries within a school.
1586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
It is up to the school governing body to determine the market in which the school operates and to set salaries according to that assessment.
As with all other goods and services, salaries will only be considered as a "for profit" issue if they are clearly beyond a reasonable level.
Section 83C (2) (b) Payments must be required for the running of the school and be reasonable
The same section also requires that payments are required for the running of the school.
Section 83C (2) (b) further requires that payments are reasonable given the fact that financial assistance is being provided for the benefit of the school.
The three tests—that payments meet "market value", are required for the running of the school and are reasonable—work together to ensure that payments are genuinely required to meet the educational objectives and operational requirements of the school.
Section 83C (2) (c) Directors' fees
The payment of fees to directors of school boards provides a means for some individuals to obtain significant personal benefit from a school.
In most non-government schools, parents and community members volunteer their expertise, work tirelessly and free of charge on school boards.
Section 83C (2) (c) ensures that no payments are made to directors in connection with their activities as members of the governing body of a school, beyond reasonable reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses.
The not-for-profit guidelines will require the school's proprietor to identify the governing body that has delegated authority for the school.
Section 83C (3) Regulations
Section 83C (3) allows the regulations to provide further detail of uses of school assets or income that may or may not be considered for profit.
This will ensure that we can take steps at a later time to prevent any future financial practices from occurring that seek to circumvent the legislation.
The regulations may also enable prohibitions on particular types of entities or legal structures that may be established in the future with the purpose of evading the not-for-profit requirements.
Section 83C (4) Graduated responses to minor for profit conduct
Sections 83C (3) and 83E (3) allow the Minister to apply graduated responses to less serious breaches of the not-for-profit requirements.
While the Government is committed to the policy of not funding for-profit schools, and the bill maintains this prohibition, there are cases where a school may have a more minor infringement of the not-for-profit requirements which calls for a proportionate response.
The current arrangements impose a threshold whereby the only possible outcome for any minor breach of the not-for-profit requirements is to declare the school as operating "for profit" and cease funding.
This is the only possible sanction no matter how serious or how trivial the breach.
This section enhances the Minister's regulatory powers by allowing for graduated responses that better fit the nature and severity of the infringement.
These less serious cases that meet the legislation's definition of "for profit", but in a more minor way, will be considered non-compliant and will allow the graduated responses under section 83E (1) to be invoked.
More minor breaches could be an oversight or error, a one-off payment that breaches the requirements or a transaction or practice that can be easily rectified and return the school quickly to a compliant status.
A range of responses could be considered such as withholding part of the school's funding or funding the school on a month-to-month basis until the for profit conduct is rectified.
There will also now be scope to impose conditions on the provision of funding.
For example, the school could be directed to take certain actions in relation to its financial management.
This change is consistent with best regulatory practice.
It avoids an unnecessary, heavy-handed approach.
22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1587
It is designed to ensure minimum government intervention, which will reduce the burden on schools and concentrate resources on the highest areas of risk.
It is not intended that these more graduated responses will apply to systemic breaches of the law. The prohibition on schools that operate for profit from receiving New South Wales Government funding remains in force. Schools that do not meet the not-for-profit requirements in any substantive way will continue to not be eligible for funding and funding may be recovered.
Section 83D For-profit schools
Section 83D provides that the Minister may declare a school to be operating for profit, if he or she is satisfied that is the case, for a specified time in the past or into the future.
The declaration is conclusive proof that the school is a for-profit school.
Once a declaration is made, steps can then be taken to stop payments and/or recover payments made during the period the school was declared to be operating for profit.
I must emphasise that the declaration will be based in fact, follow a rigorous investigation process, be subject to independent scrutiny, and also take into account the outcome of any appeal made by the school against the declaration prior to it being made.
The Minister will not make the declaration in isolation and will have the benefit of independent advice.
This is demonstrated by the fact that under section 83D (2), the declaration can only be made on the recommendation of the Not-for-profit Advisory Committee, which will provide independent advice to the Minister.
I will discuss the role and functions of the advisory committee in more detail later.
Additionally, section 83D (6) provides a reserve power for the Minister to make an alternative decision to that recommended by the committee if he or she considers that appropriate. The declaration will also occur at the conclusion of the process and will be based on the principles of procedural fairness.
Section 83E Financial assistance to non-compliant schools
The bill also provides for a new type of declaration which is one of "non-compliance" with not-for-profit requirements.
This type of declaration is one step down from a "for-profit" declaration and as I have previously outlined under section 83C (4), allows for a determination that better reflects the severity of the breach.
The distinction between for-profit and non-compliant is important.
A school may have been established purely for the purpose of making a profit, which it is legally entitled to do.
However, we must ensure there is no scope for that entity to access public funds, in accordance with the Act.
A school may also, in terms of its behaviour, demonstrate that it is, in fact, operating for profit, contrary to its declared not-for-profit status.
For-profit declarations made by the Minister are reserved for serious infringements and remove any discretion to provide funding.
Alternatively, under section 83E (3) when a non-compliance declaration is in force, the Minister retains discretion to stop funding or provide funding, albeit at a reduced level or on a different basis, such as month to month.
This can occur only if the Minister is satisfied that the infringement is minor or more appropriate action could be taken instead of termination of financial assistance.
The new non-compliant declaration will be very helpful in giving the Minister the option of a more graduated response detailed in section 83E (1), which provides that the Minister may suspend, reduce or impose conditions on a non-compliant school.
Other reasons for a Minister's declaration of non-compliance, in addition to minor breaches of 83C, can be that the school has not complied with a funding condition or a direction, or that it has failed to provide reasonable assistance in relation to the conduct of an investigation of the school.
Some of these reasons are detailed in section 83E (2) but there may be others that arise in future.
Under section 83E (4), if a school later becomes compliant, it is not entitled to government funding during the period it did not receive any payments because it was non-compliant.
Section 83F "Non-compliant" declarations
Under section 83F (1) the Minister may make a declaration that a school is non-compliant. As I have indicated, this is a second tier of misconduct and can range from minor infringements of not-for-profit requirements to hindering an investigation.
Section 83F (2) provides that the Minister may make a declaration only on the recommendation of the Not-for-profit Advisory Committee.
1588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
The Not-for-profit Advisory Committee may also recommend that the Minister impose funding conditions or other sanctions under section 83F (3) to ensure that the school rectifies any issues.
Section 83F (4) provides that a declaration of non-compliance will be conclusive proof that a school is a non-compliant school and that there were grounds for making the declaration.
Section 83F (5) allows the Minister to modify or revoke a non-compliance declaration at any time, and section 83F (6) provides a reserve power for the Minister in the use of the provisions.
As with a for-profit declaration, the reserve power allows the Minister to make a decision without the advisory committee's recommendation if he or she considers this appropriate.
Section 83G Written notice and 107(1) (E1) appeals
Section 83G requires the Minister to give written notice to the school or proprietor prior to making either a "for-profit" or "non-compliant" declaration.
The school will then have a legal right to appeal to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal under section 107 (1) (e2) prior to any decision by the Minister.
This is consistent with other government decisions.
For example, if the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards finds a school non-compliant with registration requirements, the school is able to appeal to the Tribunal.
The Office of Education will conduct an internal review of the advisory committee's intended recommendation prior to any appeal being lodged with the Tribunal.
Section 83G (a) gives the school 30 days to appeal the advisory committee's recommendation to the Tribunal, while section 83G (b) requires the Minister to consider any contrary recommendation of the Tribunal unless the appeal has been withdrawn under section 83G (c).
The Minister must consider the advice of both the tribunal and the advisory committee prior to making his or her decision.
Section 83H Investigations
Section 83H (1) provides that the Minister will carry out an investigation into a school if any for profit or non-compliant conduct is suspected.
In practice this function will be undertaken by the part of the department that is separate to the area that has responsibilities for the running of public education.
This will protect against any conflicts of interest in terms of the regulation of non-government schools.
Section 83H (2) requires the Minister to consult with the advisory committee before carrying out an investigation.
Section 83H (3) gives the Minister the power to defer all or part of any payment to a school during an investigation.
Deferral of funding is only undertaken where there are serious allegations of for-profit activity.
This ensures that New South Wales Government funding is protected in cases where there is a reasonable suspicion that payments are not being properly directed to the school's operations.
Section 83H (4) provides that an investigation is completed as soon as is reasonably practicable.
This gives reassurance to schools, particularly where funding has been suspended, that an investigation will not be open-ended or take an unreasonable amount of time to resolve.
A specific time cannot be set for an investigation as it depends on the number and severity of the issues.
But every effort will be made to progress investigations as quickly as possible.
The Minister is also required under section 83H (5) to consider advice from the advisory committee in relation to an investigation.
Section 83I Directions
A key component of the changes to the Act is that the Minister will be able to give directions to schools.
These directions include requiring a school to agree to an audit under section 83I (1) (a).
This ensures that schools must give the auditors access to the school and its financial records and provide reasonable assistance.
It is not acceptable for a school to refuse an audit, attempt to mislead or put up barriers to the auditors conducting their investigation or any way prevent the audit from proceeding.
22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1589
Giving the Minister the power to require schools to pay for an audit under section 83I (3) ensures that schools that have ongoing financial irregularities pay for the costs of their increased regulation.
The Minister may also direct a school to provide specified information relating to the affairs of the school or proprietor under section 83I (1) (b) in any form and time frame as he or she sees fit.
Again, this should not pose any significant new burden on schools.
There is a reasonable expectation that appropriate financial and other records are kept and can be readily accessed in relation to the operation of a school.
Section 83I (1) (c) gives the Minister the power to direct a school to cease any activity that is in breach of the not=for-profit requirements.
The advisory committee would be consulted prior to any direction of the Minister, except for the information gathering power under section 83I (1) (b). For reasons of practicality, this will be conducted on behalf of the Minister by the Office of Education in the Department of Education and Communities.
Section 83J Recovery of amounts paid
If an investigation finds a school is operating for profit it is reasonable that the school should repay the public funds received while the school was in breach of funding conditions.
This is an important principle.
There is community expectation that public funding provided during a period when a school was later found to be ineligible for funding will be recovered and returned to the people of New South Wales.
At present, the only means of seeking repayment is by taking action through the courts.
Under the current legislation, this has been a time-consuming and expensive exercise.
By inserting section 83J, the Minister will be able to recover the money either as a debt in court, under section 83J (3) (a), which is the current situation, or by offsetting it against future funding under section 83J (3) (b). In some cases, both provisions will need to be applied.
The intention of the debt-offset provision is to simplify any potential recovery proceedings.
This means that if a school is currently compliant but was not so during a past period, deductions can be made from future payments until the school has repaid the debt.
Of course there is no intention to take any arbitrary or unreasonable action against a school.
It may be that the debt could be repaid in instalments.
The outcome of the measure is simply to ensure there is a practical avenue for recovery of New South Wales Government funds beyond an expensive and protracted court process.
Section 83J (2) also allows the costs of an audit to be deducted from future payments while section 83J (4) outlines the responsible parties for repaying the debt owed by a school for breaches of the not-for-profit requirements. The school, proprietor and any funding system are jointly and severally liable for repayment of the amount.
Section 83K Not for Profit Advisory Committee
A key aspect of the new not-for-profit arrangements proposed by this bill is the establishment of the Not-for-profit Advisory Committee. The committee will advise me directly on individual school compliance with the not-for-profit requirements.
Establishing the advisory committee in legislation underlines the serious nature of its responsibilities and ensures transparency of its roles and functions. The relevant part of the bill is section 83K.
This legislative basis also sends a strong message to the community that the Government is serious about ensuring appropriate use of public funds.
The advisory committee will be representative of the whole education community in New South Wales.
Membership will include representatives of the Catholic Education Commission New South Wales, the Association of Independent Schools of New South Wales, the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards, and the Department of Education and Communities through the Office of Education.
To mitigate real or perceived conflicts of interest, the advisory committee will have an independent chair from outside Government and the non-government schooling sector.
This will ensure the advisory committee has the highest standards of probity and transparency and provide greater assurance of procedural fairness.
1590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
There will also be independent experts and members of other relevant agencies, as determined by the Minister.
The advisory committee will be supported by the Office of Education, which will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the audit process and investigations.
Section 83K (2) outlines the functions of the advisory committee. Primarily this is to advise the Minister on compliance by schools with the not-for-profit requirements under 83C, and to make recommendations on the making of "for profit" or "non-compliant" declarations.
The bill also specifies that the Minister has the power to develop guidelines under section 83L (1) to assist non-government schools to better understand their responsibilities under the Act. The advisory committee will be involved with the preparation of these guidelines under section 83L (2). The cumulative expertise and experience of members will be very valuable in this process.
In the future there may be emerging issues where the advisory committee will also need to have a role. There may also be a need to change the composition of the committee or its procedures. For this reason section 83K (3) provides that the regulations may contain these provisions in the future.
Section 83K (4) provides that members of the advisory committee are not personally liable for any action, claim or demand arising from their committee work.
Evidence Section 123 (2A)
The new section 123 (2A) states that if the Minister signs a certificate stating that an amount has been paid to the school or that a for-profit or non-compliant declaration is in force, this is evidence that the amount was paid or that the misconduct has occurred.
This evidentiary process will streamline debt recovery procedures.
Consequential amendments
The transitional arrangements provide schools with time to make changes to their financial arrangements in order to be compliant with the new requirements.
The not-for-profit requirements under section 21A of the current legislation will continue for three months from the date of assent of the amendments.
This means that if allegations are made that a school was operating for profit prior to this time, the old definition of "for profit" will be used.
There is no intention to backdate the new rules under the new legislation.
There is no suggestion that the new definition of "for profit" under section 83C will be applied retrospectively, nor will there be any "fishing expeditions".
However the new process involving the advisory committee, appeals and declarations will be used to assess any past breaches of section 21A and any that occur up to three months after the commencement of the Act.
This is a sensible provision. It means that there will be one process that starts on the commencement of the Act, thus allowing the advisory committee to have an immediate advisory role.
This will require the advisory committee to oversight investigations covering either the old or new definition of "for profit". In some cases there may be infringements covering both the old section 21A and the new section 83C.
In these situations, the advisory committee can make a recommendation that a school be declared to be operating for profit or non-compliant for past breaches under the old rules as well as the new rules proposed by this bill.
However, each investigation will follow exactly the same process regardless of the law that applied when the breach occurred.
To recap, the process will allow the Minister to make directions that the school cooperate with an investigation including undergoing an audit and providing information and to cease any conduct that may breach for-profit requirements.
At the end of the investigation, on the advisory committee's recommendation, the Minister can make the same "for profit" or "non-compliant" declaration, irrespective of whether the old or new legislation has been breached.
Any funding provided by the New South Wales Government during the period the school was assessed as non-compliant or operating for profit can also be deducted from future payments under section 83J. Again, it does not matter whether the breach was of section 21A or the new section 83C.
The advantage for a school is that it will have a right of appeal to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which is not currently available for breaches of section 21A.
In addition, if a non-compliant declaration is subsequently made, a graduated response will be possible, rather than the only currently available option of terminating funding and recovering past funding.
22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1591
Declaration that Malek Fahd Islamic School was operating for profit
Only one school, Malek Fahd Islamic School at Greenacre, has been found to be operating for profit under current legislation.
In the bill, a provision has been included to specifically address this finding. The provision will deem the school to have been operating for profit under the new legislation and allow a "for profit" declaration to be made.
This will ensure that the Minister's finding is consistent with the amended legislation.
The declaration will apply to the period 1 January 2010 to 31 July 2012.
Some financial misappropriation is outside the scope of not-for-profit
These changes to the legislation are not intended to remedy every financial management issue at a non-government school.
In recent years, allegations of financial irregularity have been referred to the Minister for Education and the department to investigate under the existing legislation around for profit activity by non-government schools.
These include allegations relating to corporate governance, tax evasion, fraud, corruption, grant acquittal, environmental protection and school management.
However, investigating potentially fraudulent or criminal activity or breaches of corporation requirements is outside the scope of the Education Act.
This is appropriately the role of New South Wales police and other State and Federal agencies.
Improved information sharing with other agencies will strengthen the protocols and procedures for referrals.
Report on legislation
When the new legislative provisions have been in operation for some time, the Government will be in a better position to assess whether any unforeseen issues have arisen from the Act.
For this reason, the Minister will require the advisory committee to give a report on any unintended consequences of the legislation within three years of its commencement.
Amendments supported by the non-government school sector
I am pleased to advise that these amendments are fully supported by both the Catholic Education Commission NSW and the Association of Independent Schools of NSW.
In particular the New South Wales Government would like to thank Dr Geoff Newcombe and Dr Brian Croke for their continued support in developing these necessary changes to the Education Act.
Conclusion
New South Wales has a long tradition of excellence in education.
And the non-government sector has made a significant contribution to that tradition.
The Government knows that the majority of schools in the sector do not want that contribution to be undermined by a small number of operators that could be using schools to line their own pockets.
The sector's schools, teachers, parents and alumni are concerned only with providing a high quality education for their students.
They are committed to meeting the requirements associated with receiving Government funding.
This bill is a measured and appropriate response to ensuring that happens.
I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE [3.35 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Education Amendment (Not-for-profit Non-Government School Funding) Bill 2014. I indicate that Labor supports the bill. The Education Act 1990 will be amended to strengthen not-for-profit requirements in relation to non-government schools in receipt of New South Wales Government funding. In 2006 the New South Wales Government introduced legislation to prevent for-profit schools receiving State Government funding following ABC Learning expressing an intention to establish "for-profit" schools. Non-government schools that operate for profit are currently ineligible for New South Wales Government funding under section 21A of the Act.
While for-profit schools are able to operate in New South Wales, they cannot receive State Government funding. The Opposition understands that issues have emerged over time in relation to the operation of the legislation. The issues include a lack of clarity surrounding the Minister's powers, some difficulties in 1592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
interpreting and administering the Act, the lack of power to make guidelines, the lack of graduated responses for non-compliance, and no express power to recover debts arising from past non-compliance from future payments. Essentially, this bill seeks to tidy up all those difficulties. The key amendments proposed for the Education Act 1990 are that the Minister will establish and seek the advice of the Not-for-profit Advisory Committee in relation to all investigations and directions, and prior to imposing sanctions on any school. The definition of "for profit" has been tightened. There continues to be a prohibition on funding for for-profit schools, as defined by the Act and as Opposition members believe is appropriate.
Further reforms include school income and assets not being used for a purpose other than the operation of the school. All payments, including payments to related parties, are to be at reasonable market value and required for the running of the school. Payments must also be reasonable, given that financial assistance is being paid to the school. Payments to members of school governing bodies will be prohibited. The Minister can declare a school to be either "for profit" or "non-compliant" and declarations will be conclusive evidence of a breach. That will make it easier to reduce or stop payments and to recover past payments made during periods when a school was operating for profit or non-compliant. Any debt owed to the New South Wales Government for past breaches can be deducted from future payments.
While a for-profit declaration prevents funding being provided, a non-compliant declaration will allow for graduated responses, such as reduced funding or the imposition of funding conditions. This applies to a failure to comply with a Minister's direction, such as not cooperating with an audit or minor breaches of not-for-profit requirements. The Minister will have the power to make directions to non-government schools—for example, to undergo an audit or provide information, or cease non-compliant conduct and to impose funding conditions. The bill is not retrospective. The new definition of "not-for-profit" will apply three months after the legislation commences. The new investigations process, which consists of matters before the advisory committee, appeals and declarations will commence immediately and can apply to any breaches of the existing legislation around "for profit" as well as the new legislation. That will allow the advisory committee to have an immediate role in investigations, but it will require past cases to be assessed under the old definition of "for profit".
The Minister's decision that the Malek Fahd Islamic School was operating for profit from January 2010 to July 2012 will be deemed to be a declaration under the new legislation. That will ensure that the Minister's decision is consistent with the amended legislation. As members may be aware, this matter is currently before the Supreme Court. The Opposition understands that there has been a great deal of consultation in relation to this bill. Representatives of the non-government sector are very supportive of the amendments. This legislation has received a tick from the Independent Education Union, the Association of Independent Schools and the Catholic Education Commission. The Opposition believes this is a sensible bill, and we support it.
Dr JOHN KAYE [3.39 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of The Greens in debate on the Education Amendment (Not-for-profit Non-Government School Funding) Bill 2014. I say from the outset that The Greens strongly support this legislation. We congratulate the Minister for Education on taking on this issue—not an easy issue for an education Minister, particularly a Coalition education Minister. The Minister is addressing a serious issue that affects a number of non-government schools. This is not a new issue; in fact, it has been around for some time. It was badly mishandled by the Labor Government in 2006, and the issue has continued to cause problems for both the New South Wales Government and the education sector in general. I take the House back to the 29 September 2006 broadcast of a program that was then called Stateline but is now called ABC 7.30 NSW on which a gentleman by the name of John Kaye—who was not a member of Parliament, but a Greens education spokesperson—
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: No relation?
Dr JOHN KAYE: He actually is related; it was me. Dr John Kaye said of what was then section 21A, which had just been introduced into the legislation:
The loophole is quite straightforward. It says that a school, a private school, can continue to pay members of their boards, their governing boards as much as they like. And that leaves open the idea that a company like ABC Learning Limited can put themselves or a representative onto a board of a private school and pay themselves an unlimited amount.
That was part of a debate that involved the then Minister for Education and Training, Carmel Tebbutt. Carmel Tebbutt, now the member for Marrickville, responded to accusations that I made that she should stop for-profit schools getting access to public funding and said:
The way we've structured our legislation is that, if any part of a proprietor's assets or income are transferred to another party, then that is taken to deem the school as a for-profit school.
22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1593
The problem for Carmel Tebbutt then, and now, is that that is simply not true. It was impossible to enforce; section 21A was completely unworkable. Despite a media campaign—and, once I was elected to Parliament, it was a campaign I ran here, including in an adjournment speech on 7 June 2007 when I raised these issues again; it was one of the earliest adjournment speeches I gave in this Chamber—and despite an op-ed that appeared in the Newcastle Herald on 3 October 2006, the then Labor Government refused to listen. It continued to refuse to listen for another four years.
Eventually, to its credit, the Coalition Government has listened. It is sad that a Coalition government had to do this. Labor was so captured by the Catholic education authorities and by the private school lobbies that it could not move to shut down a rort. The rort that we were worried about at that stage was brought to our attention by an organisation called the Coalfields Education Alliance, which is a group of teachers, parents and community childcare providers in the Cessnock-Kurri Kurri area who were very concerned about a plan by an organisation called Independent Colleges Australia—which turns out to have been a front for ABC Learning Limited, the now, fortunately, defunct operator of for-profit child care that went spectacularly bankrupt, destroying the careers of thousands of people.
The Hon. Walt Secord: Eddie Groves.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Indeed. Eddie Groves ended up with a criminal prosecution. It was trying to set up a for-profit school in Cessnock, and the local educators were extremely concerned that this would see yet more leaching of money from the pockets of public education and into organisations with voracious appetites for profits, like ABC Learning Limited. They were also concerned—as I am, and have been—that for-profit education organisations inevitably will cherrypick the easy-to-educate children and use them to turn a profit while leaving public education to cope with the children who are more expensive to educate, and that those organisations would also bias the curriculum towards profit, not community advantage. I quoted then the Chief Executive of Independent Colleges Australia, Tom Mould, who told the Sydney Morning Herald on 24 June 2006 that, despite the new laws, he was confident he would get funding from the New South Wales Government for the school. He said:
We have no issue with the legislation.
That is section 21A of Labor's legislation, but continued:
The Queensland legislation is a different kettle of fish.
Mr Mould was referring to legislation introduced by the Beattie Labor Government in Queensland that closed the door on corporate schools. So effective was the Queensland legislation that ABC Learning's attempt to establish a school for profit in Queensland was thwarted. It was thwarted in New South Wales, not by government legislation but by the financial circumstances of ABC Learning Limited and the fact that that organisation was about to go bankrupt.
Section 21A of the Education Act contained two major loopholes. The first loophole allowed services or other goods to be purchased from other so-called not-for-profit organisations at an above-market price and so not make the school a for-profit school. That is to say, money could be passed between a school and another not-for-profit organisation that would effectively, in any other circumstances, be determined to be a profit. There was the get-out-of-jail card, largely for the Catholic education authority, that allowed funds to be transferred to other activities within Catholic education and away from schools. The second rort was the one that I referred to earlier—the capacity to pay directors an uncapped amount and have it not declared a profit. Those rorts are being stopped by this legislation in this Parliament in October 2014—and none too soon.
A number of schools are clearly in the spotlight. In particular is the school of Malek Fahd, Australia's most heavily subsidised non-government school. It receives the largest amount of money from the Federal Government of any school in Australia; it receives the largest amount of money from the State Government of any school in New South Wales. It has been the subject of accusations at various stages. Indeed, it has been quite hard to keep track of the range of accusations. In 2013 the then Board of Studies—now BOSTES, the Board of Studies, Teaching and Education Standards—qualified the school's registration and accreditation. The Federal Government set the police onto the school to investigate its registration. There were accusations that it over-enrolled beyond its council approval. In fact, the Government alleged that the school operated for profit through its connection to the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, which in turn made it a for-profit organisation. 1594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
I will not say much more about Malek Fahd because I understand the matter is before the courts, and I do not wish to traduce that. But I can talk about another school, Bellfield College, of which the Minister would also be aware. In 2013 Bellfield College was facing a two-year freeze on its State funding, for similar reasons. Allegations made against Bellfield College by a former principal, Mr Cannavo, suggested that the college was involved in a large number of highly unsavoury financial deals, and that it also put at risk the safety, health, welfare and educational outcomes of the children enrolled there.
It is clear from the evidence that section 21A needed to be rewritten, and the Government has done exactly that. I say slightly in jest that my only major concern with this legislation is that we can no longer refer to section 21 funding; it must be called section 83B funding. It cannot be called the 25 per cent rule—which is a good thing—but must be called the "nearer related funding". So those of us who have been involved in arguments about education funding for a long time will have to get used to calling it section 83B funding, which does not sound quite as good as section 21 funding.
That is my major gripe with the bill—and I do not have an amendment to fix it. No doubt one day the sections will be renumbered and that problem will be easy to fix. The first thing the bill does is rewrite section 21 (6), which spells out how non-government school systems can pass on money, and rename it new section 83B (6). The biggest change is the last word. It now states:
(6) Any financial assistance in respect of non-government school children may be paid directly to the school that the children attend or to a system of non-government schools for the benefit of that school.
For the first time since section 21 was written by the Greiner Government under education Minister Terry Metherell—probably in 1990—new section 83B makes clear that, when money is given to the authority of a non-government school system in respect of a particular school, the money must go to that school. It now becomes unlawful for a non-government school system to redirect funds to another school if the money is given for a particular school. That restores some degree of order to a quite chaotic system of State funding of non-government schools, particularly those in the Catholic and Seventh Day Adventist systems. It may include Anglican schools, although I am not sure whether they are block funded.
I ask the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary—whoever replies to the debate—to clarify exactly how that clause will be enforced. Where a system of schools does not comply—that is, money is directed not to benefit the school in respect of which the funds were given but to another school or activity—what mechanisms exist to parallel the division 3 mechanisms this bill creates? That is not a criticism of the division 3 mechanisms; it is a question about how an equivalent regulation can be exercised over a system of schools. I turn my attention to division 3, particularly new sections 83B to 83L, which do two substantial things. Paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of new section 83C (2) (b) state:
(2) A school operates for profit (without limiting the circumstances in which it does so) if the Minister is satisfied that:
(b) any payment is made by the school to a related entity or other person or body:
…
(ii) for property, goods or services that are not required for the operation of the school, or
(iii) for property, goods or services that is in any other way unreasonable in the circumstances having regard to the fact that financial assistance is provided to or for the benefit of the school by the Minister …
These wideranging powers give the Minister, or at least the advisory board that this legislation establishes, a degree of financial probity to enforce upon those non-government schools that in the past have sought to play fast and loose with public money. The Minister can use these powers to make sure that money is not leaching from the school system. I draw the House's attention to new section 83C (2) (c), which, in effect, states that there are no directors' fees other than out-of-pocket expenses. The loophole that The Greens identified in 2006 finally has come to an end eight years, many media releases and stories, and lots of parliamentary speeches later.
New section 83C (3) allows the Minister, by regulation, to identify non-government school schemes that seek to disguise the fact that the school is operating for profit. New section 83D allows the Minister to declare that a school is operating for profit—the first time a mechanism officially recognises the Minister's capacity to make such a declaration. New section 83E creates a class of non-compliant schools rather than for-profit schools. Therefore, the bill creates two classes of schools. For non-compliant schools—those that have 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1595
failed to cooperate with an investigation or comply with a direction, or because of any other circumstance set out in the regulation, such as operating for profit, that is not sufficiently severe to deserve the full punishment of being classed as being for profit—the Minister can impose greater degrees of sanction either by suspending or reducing funding, or making the funding subject to conditions.
The Minister can declare that a school is non-compliant and can carry out investigations of schools. New section 83J allows the Minister to recover funds given to schools. The Minister's activities are bound only by the non-government schools Not-for-profit Advisory Committee, which this bill establishes. It gives the Minister permission to declare a school to be operating for profit or to be non-compliant, and can instruct the Minister to remove such a declaration. The Minister cannot declare a school to be for profit or non-compliant without the approval of the advisory committee. The committee will have an independent chair and comprise representatives of the Association of Independent Schools [AIS], the Catholic Education Commission, the board, the department and any other persons. It is extremely important that the Minister appoints a good chairperson who is both tough and fair.
The bill's provisions are strong and will enable the New South Wales Government and the Minister to stop the rorting of school funding. The transitional arrangements on lines 30 to 36 on page 8 of the bill make it clear that the provisions are not retrospective. The final transitional arrangement declares that Malek Fahd has operated for profit between 1 January 2010 and 31 July 2012. I understand that that provision is intended to bring to an end an expensive court case, and I hope it is successful in achieving its aim. This legislation does a service to the public education community of New South Wales, the education outcomes of people in New South Wales and the taxpayers. This bill will stop the rorting and give the Minister the capacity to crack down on those schools operating for profit or which are non-compliant. The bill will create some degree of certainty around some of the funding arrangements that have operated in non-government schools. The Greens strongly support the legislation. I foreshadow that we will move one minor amendment to it in Committee.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.59 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I am pleased to support the Education Amendment (Not-for-profit Non-Government School Funding) Bill 2014. The Education Act 1990 (NSW) is being amended to strengthen the not-for-profit requirements of non-government schools in receipt of government funding. In 2006 the Government introduced legislation to prevent for-profit schools receiving government funding following ABC Learning expressing an intention to establish for-profit schools. Non-government schools operating for profit currently are ineligible for government funding under section 21A of the Act. While for-profit schools can still operate in New South Wales they cannot receive government funding. I am sure all members and the community would agree that it is an abuse of government funding for it to be used in a way that profits individuals who run schools.
However, a number of problems have emerged with the current legislation, such as a lack of clarity surrounding the Minister's power and, in particular, what to do when the legislation is breached. It seems the only penalty is a termination of funding. I could not find any penalties in this bill, so perhaps the Government will address that in due course, unless the penalty is that the school is charged with fraud. Our courts would then impose the appropriate penalty such as a fine or perhaps imprisonment, if the individuals are guilty of extreme abuse and have misled the Government when applying for taxpayers' funds while operating a for-profit school. As members know, the Government provides more than $1 billion per annum to non-government schools. Joint funding is provided by the Federal Government and the State Government. This legislation will give the community greater confidence that taxpayers' dollars are being used for educational purposes and not for private benefit.
The bill before the House includes a number of amendments. The main amendment is that the Minister will establish and seek the advice of the Not-for-profit Advisory Committee. The committee will include representatives of the existing not-for-profit school system as well as others. The definition of "for profit" has been tightened. There continues to be a prohibition on funding for-profit schools as defined by the Act. School income and assets are not to be used for a purpose other than the operation of the school. All payments, including payments to related parties, are to be reasonable market value and are required for the running of the school. Payments to members of the school's governing body will be prohibited, so individuals starting a school will not be able to make an indirect profit. The Minister can declare a school to be a for-profit school or a noncompliant school and declarations will be conclusive evidence of a breach. This will make it easier for the Minister to reduce or stop payments and to recover past payments made during periods when the school was operating for a profit or was noncompliant. Any debt owed to the Government for past breaches can be deducted from future payments. 1596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
There are a number of positive aspects to this legislation. It is not retrospective. The new definition of "not-for-profit" will apply only three months after the legislation commences. It will help the Minister to deal with schools such as the Western Sydney Malek Fahd Islamic School, which is before the courts after being found to be operating for profit from January 2010 to July 2012. Under this new legislation, it will be deemed to be a declaration. This will ensure that the Minister's decision is consistent with the amended legislation. I have been following the matter before the Supreme Court for some time. The school abused its use of taxpayers' funding. The parents and students cannot be blamed because they are unaware how the school's administration operates.
A profit was being made by charging exorbitant rent to the school for the land on which it was located. In other words, another body owned the land on which the school was built, with its permission, and then the school was charged rent. There is nothing wrong with that but the rent was between $1 million and $2 million a year. The school's grant was $11 million a year, so a large slice of the public funding for education was going to the association that owned the land, which is how the school landed in serious trouble. The money was used to subsidise the Moslem religion, which means that the State Government was funding the Moslem religion in New South Wales without intending to do so.
I am pleased that the associated not-for-profit schools in New South Wales have all expressed support for the legislation. On 25 September Brian Croke, Executive Director of the Catholic Education Commission, wrote to the Minister for Education and stated:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the proposed amendments to the not-for-profit requirements of the NSW Education Act 1990.
He concluded:
The Catholic Education Commission NSW supports the Education Amendment (Not-for-profit Non-Government School Funding) Bill 2014 as well as the associated regulation.
On 24 September Dr Geoff Newcombe, Executive Director of the Association of Independent Schools of New South Wales wrote to the Minister for Education and stated:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the proposed amendments to the not-for-profit requirements of the NSW Education Act 1990.
The amendments will improve the current operation of the NSW Education Act 1990, which provides that schools operating for profit did not receive State Government funding.
He made other remarks and concluded:
The process of consultation and engagement implemented through your office by the Office of Education has been very much appreciated and welcomed by the independent school sector in NSW.
Because of their support, I am pleased to support the bill before the House on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [4.07 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. Penny Sharpe, Dr John Kaye and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for their contributions to debate on the Education Amendment (Not-for-profit Non-Government School Funding) Bill 2014. As the Minister for Education has said, almost all non-government schools are doing the right thing. These amendments are designed to ensure that all people operating non-government schools know exactly what is expected of them and that they are held accountable for their actions. I thank the hardworking staff at the Department of Education and Communities for their assistance, including Lesley Loble, Martin Graham, Anne McClellan and their staff.
I acknowledge the extensive and lengthy consultation with the Association of Independent Schools NSW and the Catholic Education Commission. I thank them for their broad support for the scope of the reforms and for their agreement to work cooperatively with the department in drafting this legislation. I acknowledge the consultations undertaken with the Board of Studies, Teaching Education Standards, Crown Solicitors and Parliamentary Counsel as the difficulty and technicality of the design and drafting of this amendment should be properly acknowledged.
Both the Minister for Education and the Government are grateful for the effort that the department and our key stakeholders have made to ensure that the bill strikes the right balance. I turn now to discuss a number 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1597
of issues raised by Dr John Kaye in debate. The State already requires that funding systems use all their State funding to benefit their schools. This is a requirement under current section 21 (6); this obligation will not change. Funding systems are required to provide an externally audited financial accountability certificate each year, certifying that the New South Wales Government recurrent funding is spent on teaching and ancillary staff salaries, professional development, curriculum development, maintenance and general operations. If the system does not provide this certification, it is no longer eligible for State funding.
The current Education Act exempts transactions between schools and related not-for-profit entities from having to be at market value. The bill will remove this exemption. This will mean that related entities such as the proprietors of schools will not be able to charge above market value to their schools without being in breach of the Act. The regulations also provide that other activities could be proscribed in future to ensure that the Act keeps pace with any emerging issues that might arise in schools or school systems. The funding systems are accountable for their State funding through current section 21 of the Act.
This requires the systems to use all their State funding for the benefit of member schools. Funding systems may not exclusively run schools but they can be responsible for a range of other services. This means they will rightly be using other income to provide these services, and many of the not-for-profit provisions could not apply to them. For example, if an organisation ran a school and a hospital, not all their income would be spent on the operation of the school, but the system is still required to spend all its State education funding for the benefit of the school.
The bill does not go to issues of funding levels or broader funding conditions for funding systems, including different and additional requirements for systems that would potentially weaken the legislation in a way that could undermine the intention of the bill. The bill is the result of significant consideration, including extensive work with the Crown Solicitor's Office and Parliamentary Counsel. As I have indicated, extending provisions to systems could have unintended consequences that may weaken the intent of the bill. For the benefit of Dr John Kaye, we will not be auditing systems; we will only be auditing the school. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): With the concurrence of the Committee, I will deal with the bill as a whole.
Dr JOHN KAYE [4.13 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet C2014-126:
No. 1 Membership of Advisory Committee
Page 8, schedule 1 [14], proposed section 83K (1). Insert after line 8:
(d) one person who represents the New South Wales Teachers Federation,
Proposed section 83K creates a Non-Government Schools Not-for-profit Advisory Committee, which is a misnomer because it is far more powerful than an advisory committee. The committee will restrict and direct the Minister in a number of declarations as well as in the lifting of declarations made by the Minister. It will play a significant role—not much can happen without the approval of the advisory committee and much can happen with the approval of the advisory committee. Therefore, this important and powerful body needs robust representation. Currently, the committee is to be comprised of the following members appointed by the Minister:
(a) The Chairperson of the Advisory Committee, being a person who, in the opinion of the Minister, is independent of the non-government school sector and the NSW Government— an independent—
(b) one person who represents the Association of Independent Schools,
(c) one person who represents the Catholic Education Commission—
1598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
two from the non-government sector—
(d) one person who represents the Board,
(e) one person who represents the Department,—
And two people from the Government. So the score so far is two for the non-government sector, two for the Government and one who is independent between the two. The committee will also be comprised of the following members appointed by the Minister:
(f) any other persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, will be of assistance to the Advisory Committee in the exercise of its functions.
We do not know where they will come from. Exercising the functions of this legislation will require the advisory committee to make some assertive judgements in respect of a number of non-government schools. It will also be required to have some sensitivity with respect to the challenges that start-up non-government schools undoubtedly face. The committee thus requires voices that stand entirely outside the circle of government bureaucracy and the non-government school sector. The Greens amendment No. 1 proposes that an additional person representing the New South Wales Teachers Federation be added to the committee.
The New South Wales Teachers Federation has a direct and material interest in the exercise of the functions of the committee. Specifically, the New South Wales Teachers Federation is the highly democratic industrial and professional body that represents teachers in the government school sector. The failure of the previous section 21A has meant money from the education pocket has gone into the pockets of profit-based organisations. That means there is less money in the overall budget and in a constrained budget there is less money for public education.
Teachers in the public sector have a direct and material interest in the operations of the advisory committee. They will also add to that advisory committee an understanding of how schools operate. I do not mean to imply that the Association of Independent Schools and the Catholic Education Commission do not have an understanding of that operation. They certainly do, but they see the operation of a school from the top down as it were. They see it from the perspective of funding authorities or association authorities that look at non-government schools from the top. A representative of the New South Wales Teachers Federation would have an understanding of the finances of a school from the perspective of a teacher and would add an additional view point to the committee.
Finally, a voice from the New South Wales Teachers Federation would give the committee genuine independence in the non-government school sector as it would create a change in the balance of power on the committee. This would make the committee more independent and more capable of making the tough decisions it needs to make. This amendment will strengthen the capacity of the committee to fulfil its functions in a way that respects the objectives of this legislation—namely, to end the capacity of non-government schools to rort the system and to pay a profit. I commend The Greens amendment No. 1 to the Committee.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [4.18 p.m.]: The Government opposes The Greens amendment No. 1. It would not be appropriate to have representation by the New South Wales Teachers Federation on the Non-Government Schools Not-for-profit Advisory Committee. The legislation targets non-government schools but only in respect of their compliance with not-for-profit eligibility requirements for New South Wales Government funding. The legislation does not affect government schools that are subject to the full range of regulatory reforms.
The committee will not consider any issues that could be considered to be within the remit of the federation, such as industrial issues. There will be a range of safeguards to ensure that the committee has members who are independent and who bring particular expertise and experience to the role. This will be additional to representations from key stakeholders, including the non-government sector, the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards and relevant government agencies. The committee will have a chair who is independent of the New South Wales government and non-government schools sector. The associated regulation will also require committee members to declare any conflict of interest.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE [4.19 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support this amendment for reasons similar to those given in debate on the Teacher Accreditation Amendment Bill 2014. As we understand it there has been extensive consultation in relation to this bill. As far as we are aware, stakeholders are overwhelmingly positive about every aspect relating to this bill. The issue of having the NSW Teachers 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1599
Federation on this board has not been raised with us by the NSW Teachers Federation or by anybody else. There are cases where we would want to have a body like the NSW Teachers Federation on a board and I can think of a number of different boards where that would be warranted. However, I do not believe it is warranted in this case. I also note that if we were going to do that we would need to give consideration to the Independent Education Union which also is not on this board. We do not think it is necessary.
Dr JOHN KAYE [4.20 p.m.]: I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their comments on this amendment. The Minister says that the legislation targets the non-government school sector and does not affect government schools. I do not agree with the Minister on that. It does affect government schools. Every non-government school which operates for profit represents money that is taken out of the education budget, and that means less money is available for public education. One of the greatest fears of everybody who cares about the future of public education is the growth of the for-profit sector.
I note that a conservative government in Sweden handed over almost all the education budget to the for-profit sector. In England and Wales the current British Government has invited in the Swedish for-profit corporations—they are largely private equity companies—to move in and set up for-profit schools in the United Kingdom. The NSW Teachers Federation and all supporters of public education have a direct interest in making sure that these provisions work and that they do so in a way that protects the education budget and protects the integrity of education. The Minister suggests it is not an industrial issue. I again take issue with the Minister on that point. The NSW Teachers Federation is an industrial body but it is also a professional body. It represents both the industrial and professional interests of teachers in the public sector and it is also one of the most articulate voices for public education.
The Opposition spokesperson does not support the amendment for similar reasons to those given by Minister Ajaka, and I have already dealt with them. She went on to say two other things. She said that this is not an appropriate role for the board. I disagree strongly with that. I think having a voice for public education on this board is critical. She also said that stakeholders were extensively consulted about this bill and that stakeholders were extremely positive. I understand stakeholders to be the Association of Independent Schools of NSW and the Catholic Education Commission NSW. Sometimes it is better to have legislation where some of the stakeholders are less than ecstatic—
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: I have a much broader view of stakeholders than Dr John Kaye. The unions have been consulted on this as well.
Dr JOHN KAYE: And also possibly the Independent Education Union. To my knowledge the NSW Teachers Federation was not consulted on this. I might be wrong, but to my knowledge it was not. When the stakeholders, by which I take the shadow Minister to mean the Association of Independent Schools of NSW and the Catholic Education Commission NSW—
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: And the union.
Dr JOHN KAYE: —and the Independent Education Union are all happy with proposed legislation I immediately become more concerned about it. If one is designing legislation to regulate a sector it is not always good to have everybody absolutely ecstatic about it. As to the issue relating to the Independent Education Union, I imagine that the interests of that union would align closely, as they seem to have in all matters of policy, with those of the Catholic Education Commission NSW and the Association of Independent Schools of NSW. They do have a valid industrial interest. If the shadow Minister had proposed an amendment to put the Independent Education Union on the board we would have given it due consideration. But she did not. I commend our amendment to the Committee.
Question—That The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2014-126] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.
The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2014-126] negatived.
Title agreed to.
Question—That this bill as read be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Bill as read agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee without amendment. 1600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
Adoption of Report
Motion by the Hon. John Ajaka agreed to:
That the report be adopted.
Report adopted.
Third Reading
Motion by the Hon. John Ajaka agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.
PETITIONS
The Hon. Melinda Pavey lodged a response to the following petition signed by more than 500 persons:
Japanese Military History—lodged 16 September 2014 (The Hon. Ernest Wong)
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Melinda Pavey.
MULTICULTURAL NSW LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014
Second Reading
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.27 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The Government is pleased to introduce the Multicultural New South Wales Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, which amends the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act 2000. This bill will give greater emphasis to the need for all citizens of New South Wales regardless of nationality, cultural origin or religious affiliation to have a collective responsibility to work together for our common welfare and future as Australians.
There have been many metaphors used to describe multicultural practice. The melting pot and the patchwork quilt immediately come to mind. For me, Australia's journey in multicultural practice is akin to the life of a river.
There is a Korean proverb that says, "a great river does not refuse small streams". This is a wonderfully profound proverb, in the context of Australia and our increasingly diverse State.
Australia is "the great river". And over the years, she has accepted streams of people from all around the world, including streams of people from England, streams of people from Ireland, streams of people from Armenia, China, India, Italy, Korea, from Lebanon, from Poland and in recent times, people from Africa.
Every time a new stream comes into the river, it makes the river richer—as it brings in new nutrients, new foods, new songs, new histories and new lessons. In return the river provides direction, safety, and a place to call home.
With every stream, the river becomes larger, it becomes deeper and it becomes more diverse. In terms of diversity, Australia, on any view, is truly one of the world's most majestic rivers and New South Wales is unquestionably the most culturally and linguistically diverse place in that river.
Over the past 40 years, we have welcomed more than 1.35 million overseas migrants. Each year, around 70,000 people from many countries settle here. They come to our shores to make a better life for themselves and their children.
When the original New South Wales Ethnic Affairs Commission was established in 1979, the emphasis of our multicultural policy was to assist individual ethnic groups to integrate into New South Wales society and to address barriers to their participation. Although our commitment to the benefits of multiculturalism has not changed over the ensuing years, our approach has.
22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1601
In 2001 the organisation was renamed the Community Relations Commission for a Multicultural New South Wales and the legislation was amended to underline that all citizens of New South Wales have rights and responsibilities in a multicultural society and need to recognise the importance of shared values within a democratic framework governed by the rule of law.
In 2014 it is timely to re-examine this legislation to ensure it accurately reflects who we are and who we want to be. We should continue to celebrate the unique cultures, traditions and languages of our ancestors but we need to do more to promote initiatives that bring people from diverse backgrounds together as Australians. And that is what this bill does.
I will now outline the key provisions of the bill.
The bill makes it clear in the re-ordering of the elements in the preamble that while different linguistic, religious and ancestral backgrounds will continue to be recognised and valued, we will also pursue a commitment to New South Wales and Australia as being part of a cohesive and multicultural society.
This commitment is defined in new section 3 (2A) as including a commitment to the common values and things that bind Australians together such as a volunteering ethos, participation in Australian national days and events, and recognition of the heritage of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The bill will commence on proclamation.
To ensure that the principles set out in section 3 are not seen as merely ideological statements, the reference to "multiculturalism" in the section and elsewhere throughout the Act, will be amended to "multicultural". The principles are substantially the same with the recognition and value of different linguistic, religious and ancestral backgrounds remaining paramount, however the order in which they appear has been changed to reflect the renewed emphasis on the need for all individuals to demonstrate a unified commitment to Australia, its interests and future.
The definition of "cultural diversity" will be amended by removing the term "racial and ethnic backgrounds" and replacing it with "ancestral background" wherever occurring. This has been done to remove any possible pejorative connotations that may be associated with the term "ethnic" and to reflect the question asked routinely by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the national census when inquiring as to each person's background.
The bill proposes to rename the Community Relations Commission [CRC] as Multicultural NSW. During consultations for a recent review of the organisation, many respondents stated that the term "community relations" was too broad and caused confusion with other government organisations such as Family and Community Services and the term "Commission" suggested an authoritative and investigative body similar to a royal commission or commission of inquiry.
Adopting the name, Multicultural NSW, will also highlight the change from the existing governance arrangements to those more in keeping with modern practice. Under the current Act the full-time Chairperson of the commission is also the Chief Executive Office of the organisation. The bill will give effect to the change brought about through administrative orders following the retirement of the former long-time Chairperson Dr Stepan Kerkyasharian in January this year.
There is now a clear delineation between the roles of the full-time chief executive officer, who is a public service employee responsible for the management of the organisation, and the part-time Chairperson of the Advisory Board appointed in keeping with the New South Wales public service boards and committees framework.
It is important to note that Multicultural NSW will continue to be subject to the control and direction of the Minister except in relation to the contents of any advice, report or recommendation it makes. Similarly there is no attempt in the bill to fetter the advisory board, allowing it to continue in its role as an independent expert body.
Part 3 of the bill deals with the objectives and functions of Multicultural NSW and the advisory board. In relation to the objectives of Multicultural NSW, new section12 re-orders the existing provisions and includes a reference to combating racism as an example of how to promote mutual respect for and understanding of cultural diversity. It also includes the promotion of rights and responsibilities of citizenship and unity and a strong commitment to a New South Wales and an Australia where all people live in a cohesive and harmonious multicultural society.
New section 13 reflects the current functions and activities of Multicultural NSW and broadens the function of supporting community initiatives to include support for women and girls and other groups of diverse backgrounds.
This legislative reform is supported by Multicultural NSW's strategic plan, Harmony in Action, that I announced on 20 August at the CRC Symposium.
Key reforms under Harmony in Action include a revitalised grants program, a stronger focus on the beliefs and values which unite us all as Australians and a refocused and formalised community engagement strategy which will engage across multicultural communities to promote social cohesion.
Australia's Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, congratulated Multicultural NSW and the New South Wales Government on the leadership in producing the new strategic vision for Multicultural NSW saying, "You have my full support for your efforts to engage, enable and enrich the people of New South Wales. After all, those of us who are friends of multiculturalism have an enduring collective responsibility—to tend to our cultural harmony."
Under new section 13 (1) (g), Multicultural NSW is to assist and develop programs for, and assess the effectiveness of, public authorities in observing the multicultural principles in the conduct of their affairs. One way that government agencies demonstrate they comply with this requirement is through the implementation of a multicultural plan under the Multicultural Policies and Services Program. Reporting on the achievements of these plans enables Multicultural NSW to prepare a report on the state of community relations across the sector.
1602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
The bill will enable this report to be prepared by Multicultural NSW for a financial year rather than a calendar year, and for it to be furnished to the Minister not later than the end of February in the year following the end of the financial year to which the report relates.
The bill will also constitute and confer functions on the Advisory Board of Multicultural NSW. New section 8 retains the current maximum number of advisory board members at 15, with two of those being representatives of the youth of New South Wales and the CEO being made a non-voting member of the advisory board. The Minister will be required to have regard to a number of factors when appointing members to the advisory board. This will ensure that the advisory board consists of a range of skill sets and points of view as well as being broadly representative of our diverse communities.
New section 13A confers on the advisory board the functions of advising Multicultural NSW or the Minister on any issue relating to the objectives or strategic directions of Multicultural NSW it considers appropriate, or that is referred to it by either the organisation or the Minister, and to review and provide advice to Multicultural NSW on the state of community relations in New South Wales.
Amendments to current schedule 1 will enable the chairperson to be removed by the Governor, the appointment of deputies for members and the establishment of three-year terms for all members including the chairperson. Reappointment will be possible, for no more than three terms or nine years in total, provided the relevant eligibility criteria are met. This will enable fresh insights and experiences to be brought to the advisory board as appropriate.
The bill generally mirrors the existing provisions relating to members of the advisory board and its procedures. These include remuneration, vacancy in office, disclosure of pecuniary interests, filling of vacancies and the effect of the holder of the office being absent from three not four consecutive meetings, where the absence is unreasonable in all the circumstances. Also as the role of chairperson is now part-time, it is no longer necessary to have a nominated deputy and in the case of absence of the chairperson any member of the advisory board can be elected to preside at a meeting of the advisory board.
Finally schedule 1 item [57] of the bill contains savings and transitional provision related to the commencement of the bill, and schedule 2 makes consequential amendments to a number of other pieces of legislation which are needed as a result of the reforms contained in the bill.
Multicultural practice is not a natural forest—it is more like a garden. It is a human construct. If it is properly nurtured and developed it will produce a cornucopia-style bounty that will benefit us all. However if it is not cared for then challenges quickly arise. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that multicultural practice in New South Wales remains current and adaptive to our changing environment.
We should not take for granted the success of our harmonious multicultural society and we should not assume what we have done in the past will continue to work in the future. We need Multicultural NSW to be innovative and forward thinking in setting policies so we can continue to lead the way in the promotion of multicultural practice around the world—as outlined in Multicultural NSW's strategic plan, setting policies so we can continue to lead the way in the promotion of multicultural practice around the world. As outlined in Multicultural NSW's strategic plan, Multicultural NSW will become a multicultural policy centre of excellence by providing research, information and advice on multicultural issues including but not limited to initiatives to empower and support women and girls, initiatives to combat racism, and opportunities to increase volunteering and civic engagement.
On a personal note I thank the multicultural communities who have been with me on this journey for the past four years and for their input in this important piece of reform. In particular I thank Hakan Harman, CEO, of Multicultural NSW; Dr Hari Harinath, Chair of Multicultural NSW; the advisory board members, past and present; former Chair Vic Alhadeff and the staff at Multicultural NSW, particularly Marie Swain, for their commitment and dedication in developing this bill. I also thank Stepan Kerkyasharian for his leadership and guidance as Chair of the Community Relations Commission for 24 years.
I thank the members of my ministerial office, particularly my Deputy Chief of Staff, Jane Standish, and my Chief of Staff, Verity Lomax, who worked tirelessly to make sure this reform was driven and realised. I thank them for their time, knowledge and commitment.
I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. WALT SECORD [4.28 p.m.]: On behalf of the New South Wales Labor Opposition I speak in debate on the Multicultural NSW Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. My colleague the member for Fairfield, the shadow Minister for Citizenship and Communities, Guy Zangari, gave a response in the Legislative Assembly on the bill so I propose to be brief and will focus my remarks on several aspects of the bill. From the outset I state that Labor will not be opposing the bill. As a person who has had a longstanding interest in ethnic affairs and community relations since the late 1980s I support the renaming of the Community Relations Commission to Multicultural NSW. I have watched with interest the evolution of community relations and ethnic affairs since 1988, when Bob Carr and Nick Greiner in a bipartisan manner introduced the State's first and historic racial vilification laws. I was a journalist at the Australian Jewish News.
I also watched and admired the work of former Community Relations Commission Chairman Stepan Kerkyasharian. Mr Kerkyasharian skilfully and diplomatically navigated the various communities and provided genuine leadership, fostering and protecting cultural diversity in New South Wales. That said, I have strong concerns about an aspect of the bill. This relates to the sinister moves to reduce the body from a commission to a mere advisory body. 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1603
Hidden behind another glossy re-badging, this sinister move has been largely overlooked in comments about this bill. But I believe it deserves attention. It goes to the heart of whether this Government is serious about supporting New South Wales diversity and truly giving a voice to migrant communities. While the overt aim of this bill is to change the name of the Community Relations Commission to Multicultural NSW, the covert aim is to render the body almost toothless and relatively powerless. Stripped of its role as a commission it will be merely an advisory body.
The Minister for Citizenship and Communities in the Legislative Assembly claimed that Multicultural NSW has had none of its existing functions changed. That is a fiction. Minister Dominello has changed the entire scope and impact of its functions by slashing the commission and making it an advisory body. As an advisory body I fear it will become another collection of dodgy, gravy-stained Liberal Party apparatchiks appointed by the likes of Michael Photios and Paul Nicolaou.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! Government members will cease interjecting.
The Hon. WALT SECORD: I fear this advisory board will not be able to hold a candle to the supported community leadership that was established under the late Neville Wran, Barrie Unsworth, Nick Greiner, John Fahey, Bob Carr, Morris Iemma, Nathan Rees and Kristina Keneally. How can it when it no longer has the status of a commission? This is a disgraceful sleight of hand. But for anyone who understands how Executive Government works, this is a demotion. It is a downgrade. It is a downplay. Under Mike Baird's leadership migrant communities have been rendered voiceless. No-one can tell me that the Premier's office is not aware of this. I can see the sticky fingers of Mike Baird and his office on this measure.
The Hon. Niall Blair: You're a grub.
The Hon. WALT SECORD: Thank you. We know how uncomfortable Mike Baird is at ethnic community and migrant functions. He sits alone in the corner, sweating and staring at the ceiling while waiting to race out at the first opportunity. While a vast majority of the proposed amendments in this legislation are largely consequential changes as a result of the structural change from its former state as a commission to an advisory board, a number of additions to the bill are worth noting. For starters, two new objectives have been added to section 12 (a) and (b) wherein Multicultural NSW will "promote the equal rights and responsibilities of citizenship" and "promote the unity, and strong commitment to Australia, of all people in a cohesive and harmonious multicultural society".
These new objectives are clear cut. They aim to promote the Australian way of life, citizenship and what it means to Australians as well as to promote harmony in our communities. I think almost everyone in the community supports that. But we have reason to be sceptical when we look at the record of members opposite. In opposition Liberal members and The Nationals members courted the various community groups in the State. I know that the Hon. Marie Ficarra and the Hon. David Clarke ruthlessly pursued various ethnic community groups. They were literally prepared to show up anytime anywhere and were willing to say anything to get those people's votes.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I advise the member that if he wishes to cast aspersions on another member of this place he should do so by way of substantive motion. Now is not the opportunity to do that.
The Hon. WALT SECORD: This Government has reduced the voice and input of ethnic communities through the downgrading of the Community Relations Commission. Labor will not oppose the bill but we will hold members opposite to account. I thank members for their consideration.
Dr MEHREEN FARUQI [4.33 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I speak in debate on the Multicultural NSW Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. This bill serves to rebrand the Community Relations Commission and the principles of the Multiculturalism Act 2000 as Multicultural NSW and establish an advisory board that reflects the new governance structure. Other changes include replacing the terms "racial and ethnic" with the term "ancestral" and renaming the "principles of multiculturalism" as "multicultural principles". I will talk about these changes in more detail later. I note the insertion of the definition of "commitment to Australia" as "a commitment to the common values that bind Australians together (such as volunteering ethos, participation in Australian national days and events and recognition of the heritage of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people)". 1604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
I thank Minister Dominello for his commitment to multiculturalism, especially in the current climate of heightened fearmongering and bigotry. Our paths often cross at various multicultural events and I appreciate his work in this area. I know that some conservative politicians are sceptical and hostile to the concepts of multiculturalism. Just a few weeks ago former Prime Minister Howard noted in a television interview on Channel 9, "As many people know I'm not an overwhelming fan of the doctrine of multiculturalism." In 2011 Federal Senator Cory Bernardi advocated a viewpoint that multiculturalism had failed. It is therefore refreshing to see the term "multiculturalism" being used in New South Wales legislation.
Some people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what multiculturalism is and why we need it. Multiculturalism is not a rejection of Australian culture; it is part of Australian culture. Maintaining and enhancing a connection to one's culture and language does not mean rejecting Australian culture. That is because, firstly, identity is a fluid thing. Secondly, and importantly, it is because Australian culture is made up of many rich and diverse communities. We must encourage and celebrate the linguistic and cultural diversity of what makes up Australia. Most importantly, when discussing Australia's diversity we must acknowledge the culture of our first peoples and remember on whose land we stand. As we speak we are on the land of the Gadigal.
This bill comes at a time when we are reflecting on the legacy of former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. He was a man who removed the last remains of our shameful White Australia policy and introduced the concept of multiculturalism into government policy for the first time, including the provision of multicultural radio stations and telephone translation services and the establishment of radio stations that would later evolve into SBS under the Fraser Government. This debate provides an opportunity to also seriously look at the underlying issues in conversations and representations about race, religion and ethnicity. In 2011 in New South Wales 22 per cent of people spoke a language other than English at home. Sydney's west is home to more than half of the 20 most multicultural suburbs in Australia. But when we look at the television, at the media and around this very Parliament where are they? It is clear that the so-called corridors of power and influence are not at all representative of the rich multicultural society we live in today.
I recently attended the Ethnic Communities Council annual general meeting. Macquarie University students raised the lack of diversity in the media in their excellent presentation to the audience. Similarly, at The Greens NSW multicultural forum a few months ago the South Sudanese community was particularly upset about their being not only excluded but also stereotyped by the media. At the Ethnic Communities Council annual general meeting I was also interested in the contribution of Professor Lucy Taksa, who spoke about the concept of the intrinsic versus instrumental value of multiculturalism. In debates on immigration and multiculturalism there is much discussion about the instrumental value—that is to say, the economic value of immigrants such as how many jobs each immigrant creates and so forth. But we need to embrace the intrinsic value of multiculturalism and ensure cultural preservation as an essential part of the fabric of Australia. Immigrants or other cultures should not have to justify themselves only on the basis of what economic value they can contribute.
A concern I have with this bill is the removal of the term "racial and ethnic" and its replacement by the term "ancestral". The New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 uses the term "race" and defines it as being inclusive of "colour, nationality, descent and ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin". "Ethnicity" more commonly refers to cultural identity. Ancestry is important but it refers only to a family line. "Multiculturalism" is a much broader term than "ancestry". My wider racial and ethnic identity is made up not only of the experiences of my ancestors but also the wider experience of Pakistani ethnic identity. I am afraid that removing the reference to race and ethnicity may inadvertently water down those considerations. The concept of ancestry also flirts dangerously close to a time-bound concept, as if to say your multiculturalism is in your past and something that your forebears did. We need to resist this concept. Ethnic communities cannot be asked to consider their racial, cultural and linguistic heritage as something in the past; rather, it is something that is lived every day.
By excluding "racial and ethnic" and replacing it with "ancestral", the terminology serves to limit the objectives and the potential of the bill to build on and expand multiculturalism and a multicultural New South Wales. I question the Minister's decision to replace "racial and ethnic" with "ancestral" on the basis that race, ethnicity and ancestry are indeed quite different. All three terms reflect different aspects of a person's identity, so it would make sense that all three terms would be included in the bill, as they reflect different aspects of multicultural identity. I note that the Australian Bureau of Statistics uses the term "ancestry", but I contend that the necessity to categorise people in a census is quite different to the role of what will be Multicultural NSW, which engages with communities on a much deeper level. It would be appreciated if the Parliamentary Secretary could respond to these concerns in her reply. 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1605
Having a strong, vibrant, rich, diverse and cohesive multicultural society requires ongoing effort and consideration. We can never drop the ball on this. We need to keep working towards ensuring that our laws and our societal attitudes are, and remain, free from discrimination and prejudice and provide equality and the same opportunities for all who live in this wonderful State of New South Wales. The Greens always have been massive supporters of a multicultural and diverse Australia, and we will not be opposing this bill.
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL [4.42 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the Multicultural NSW Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. New South Wales comprises close to 245 different ancestries; we speak approximately 215 languages; and about 45 per cent of residents were either born overseas or have at least one parent who was. Our multicultural society is no longer a small section of our community. It is a crucial piece of our collective identity as a State. We have a strong history of championing cultural and linguistic diversity. New South Wales was the first State in Australia and the second in the world to introduce a policy specifically designed to welcome cultural and linguistic diversity as a social and economic advantage.
The role of Multicultural NSW is to maximise our diversity dividend by promoting social cohesion and diversity in equal measure. By way of background, following the retirement of the former long-time Chairperson of the Community Relations Commission, who was also the chief executive officer of the agency, new governance arrangements were introduced in January 2014. The former role was split into two positions—a full-time chief executive officer and a part-time chairperson. The bill gives legislative support to the policy direction of the New South Wales Government contained in the three-year strategic plan for Multicultural NSW, Harmony in Action, which was launched on 20 August this year.
This bill will legislate these arrangements and also allow for greater emphasis to be placed on the need for commitment to our shared democratic values, laws and institutions as Australians while still recognising the diversity of all backgrounds in New South Wales. In particular, the bill will assist in promoting social cohesion through a strong focus on citizenship, mutual obligation and respect. This can be achieved only by learning about different cultures and meeting, living and working alongside each other, through taking part in community events, festivals and days of commemoration. The bill also includes a definition of "commitment to Australia", which is defined as a commitment to the common values and things that bind Australians together—such as a volunteering ethos, participation in Australian national days and events, and recognition of our Indigenous heritage.
Examples of funded projects that aim to engage with the community and promote a sense of community harmony in 2013 and 2014 include $20,000 towards the Harmony Walk, which was initiated by the Moving Forward Together Association and $20,000 towards a project to challenge racism through bystander action, which has been organised by the Inner South-West Community Development Organisation. Similarly, the Multicultural March, which was established in 2012, is a month-long celebration of our cultural diversity. The Premier's Harmony Dinner, which is now in its third year, brings people together from a variety of cultures, faiths and linguistic backgrounds. This year more than 1,000 people attended and it has been added to the Destination NSW calendar of significant events.
This bill removes the ideological aspect through use of the term "multicultural" rather than "multiculturalism" and amends the definition of "cultural diversity" by removing references to "racial and ethnic backgrounds" and replacing it with the more neutral term "ancestral background". This bill seeks to change the name from the Community Relations Commission to Multicultural NSW. This is in line with other States—for example, Multicultural SA and the Victorian Multicultural Commission. This change does not affect its statutory independence or its role as the lead agency in New South Wales for ensuring the objectives of this legislation are met.
The Government recognises that our diverse and multicultural community is one of the State's most important and valuable economic resources. It has established the New South Wales Multicultural Business Advisory Panel to ensure that we harness our cultural diversity, language skills and overseas links as part of our pitch for new business. I congratulate Minister Dominello on reforming the grants program so that it further supports multicultural communities. One of the primary functions of Multicultural NSW provided for in the bill, of which I am particularly proud, is its support for community initiatives, including those which support women and girls. Recently $80,000 was awarded to White Ribbon Australia to combat violence towards women and further engage with our culturally diverse communities and a $75,000 partnership grant was made to help Girl Guides NSW and ACT to recruit members from diverse cultural backgrounds.
This bill defines the functions and objectives of the agency from that of the advisory board and introduces selection criteria for those seeking appointment to the board. The board comprises members from 1606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
Anglo-Celtic, Aboriginal, Indian, Korean, Jewish, Chinese and many other backgrounds to ascertain a wide variety of unique personal and professional expertise. Attendance requirements for members will be made more stringent and three-year terms for all members will be introduced, with a maximum appointment period of nine years. This bill demonstrates the New South Wales Government's commitment to ensuring a diverse community that celebrates the contributions of those of different ancestral heritage. I thank the Minister and his staff for their hard work and dedication. I commend the bill to the House.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.47 p.m.]: I am pleased, on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, to support the Multicultural NSW Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, which will amend the current legislation to allow greater emphasis to be placed on the need for commitment to our shared democratic values, laws and institutions as Australians while still recognising and valuing the different linguistic, religious and ancestral backgrounds of all the people in New South Wales. Members may not recall, but in 1999 I chaired an inquiry into multiculturalism in New South Wales on behalf of the upper House, which reported in 2001. That report and its recommendations provide the basis for the system that is currently in place, which will be amended by this legislation. I recall the committee had a big debate on what should be the language used in Australia and whether English should be the predominant language, and that was one of the inquiry's recommendations.
The bill will reorganise the whole system that has been operating up until now. The former role of the chief executive officer of the Community Relations Commission will be split into two positions—a full-time chief executive officer of the agency and a part-time chairperson of the commission. I believe the bill will achieve a number of positive outcomes. The Christian Democratic Party fully supports this legislation, especially in the current environment in Australia. The bill will assist in promoting social cohesion through a strong focus on citizenship, mutual obligation and respect. In the current environment, in which there is a tendency towards division rather than cohesion, that is certainly needed.
The bill includes in the definition of "commitment to Australia" a commitment to the common values and things that bind Australians together, such as a volunteering ethos. Visitors and members of governments from other countries are amazed by that volunteering ethos and how many volunteer organisations there are in Australia covering such a wide range of needs, such as rural fire brigades and surf lifesaving organisations. Those organisations are supported by hundreds of thousands of volunteers. Very few countries can point to that same spirit, that volunteering ethos.
Obviously, we need to do all we can to encourage that ethos. Included in the definition is encouragement of participation in Australia's national days and events, as well as priding ourselves in and recognising our Indigenous heritage. We should be pleased, as I am, that—despite what happened in the early years of the colony—we still have a vibrant Aboriginal community in Australia. Given some of the earlier policies and actions taken in those days, we could have lost our Aboriginal community; the relics could have been something we could only see in our museums. So I am pleased that we still have that vibrant Aboriginal community in Australia.
The bill amends the definition of "cultural diversity" by removing the reference to "racial and ethnic background" and replacing it with the more neutral term "ancestral background". In the inquiry that I chaired there was considerable debate about the word "ethnic". I gather that many people do not like being called "ethnics", so it is good to move away from the use of that terminology and support what has become the official Commonwealth terminology, "ancestral background". The bill changes the name of the Community Relations Commission to Multicultural NSW. I have already spoken about social cohesion. The bill includes specific areas important to the maintenance of social cohesion and community harmony in the objectives and functions of Multicultural NSW. That will include, for example, combating racism, supporting community initiatives to address issues affecting women and girls, and encouraging our volunteering ethos.
During the 33 years that I have been a member of the upper House, and prior to that when I was a pastor of churches in Newcastle and Sydney, I have been pleased to have been able to build genuine friendships with very many representatives of the 200 or more cultural groups now in Australia. I was noting as I was preparing my comments on the bill just how many groups that covered—Coptic Egyptians, Armenians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Chinese, Koreans, Fijians, Samoans, Tongans, Indians, Pakistanis, Lebanese, Scandinavians, Germans, French, the Polish and Russians, and now especially Italians. As members know, I have married a lady of Italian background and have enjoyed attending all of the Italian festivals and other events, which I had not been very conversant with. I have many friends in the Aboriginal community from all over Australia. I think it is important that we all—as I am sure many members do have—have very many friends in those communities, as I do. 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1607
The bill sets out the requirements for the establishment of the new advisory board. As other members have said, the only question is whether calling it an advisory board downgrades the importance of the organisation from a commission. It was argued that people thought commissions are legalistic, like royal commissions into crime, unionism and so on. Some people from overseas do not understand the way in which we use the word "commission". So, to deal with confusion, I am happy for the commission to be replaced by an advisory board. On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, I am very pleased to support this bill, and I look forward to the positive results that will come from it.
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [4.54 p.m.]: I rise to speak on the Multicultural NSW Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. As stated by the shadow Minister in the other place and his representative in this place, the Hon. Walt Secord, we will not oppose this bill. But, having said that, we do not oppose the bill because it has already been acted upon and its objectives have already been executed. In any event, I am keen to speak on the bill and to have my comments put on the record. I want to speak about multiculturalism in our community, a subject which I am passionate about. Ever since I started work as a community youth officer about 30 years ago, multicultural communities have been one key area of interest of mine. So I take great pride in working with multicultural communities from all parts of the world and all faiths, and celebrate their contributions to New South Wales and Australia.
This bill seeks to amend the Community Relations Commission and the Principles of Multiculturalism Act 200 to rename the Community Relations Commission as Multicultural NSW. From the outset, might I say it is a bit deceptive to say that this is a mere renaming of that organisation. The reality is that object (d) of the Purpose and Description document members have received from the Legislation Review Digest article on the Multicultural NSW Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 says:
To rename the Community Relations Commission of New South Wales as Multicultural NSW and to change the structure of that body so that it is no longer a commission constituted by commissioners and to confer management of its affairs on the Chief Executive Officer.
So this is more than just a renaming of that organisation. As other members have said, particularly the Hon. Walt Secord, this change does devalue the commission. The Minister is of the view that this change will ensure there is no confusion about the body's role, or its scope, within the community. Effectively, the Minister has scrapped the Community Relations Commission and in its place created an advisory board, in effect demoting the commissioners and devaluing their role as they will no longer be responsible to the community; their responsibility will be as advisers to the Minister. That is a change that I certainly object to. An advisory board, made up of the chief executive officer and no more than 15 part-time members, including the chairperson, will simply advise the Minister. As I said, the New South Wales Opposition will not oppose this bill. However, it seems that the Government has pre-empted these changes.
In preparing to say a few words on the bill, I looked at the Community Relations Commission website this morning. There, I saw that the name Multicultural NSW is already emblazoned on the website. So the Government has already acted on this proposal; there is no longer any reference to the commission on the site or the site's organisational flow chart. I was not sure when this change was made, so I checked the recent media releases. The only reference to the commission I could find was when Vic Alhadef's resignation was mentioned in a press release. I looked deeper, and found it was a media alert from the Minister, not a press release.
Basically, the media alert states that ahead of the Multicultural Marketing Awards "the Minister for Citizenship and Communities, Victor Dominello, will announce the new chair of the Community Relations Commission"—which was Dr Hari Hiranath—"as well as new advisory board members". That made no sense, so I looked further afield and read a www.weeklytimesnow.com.au article of 10 September 2014 that appeared under its "Breaking News" headline. It stated:
Ex-Cricket NSW boss appointed CRC head.
… Hari Harinath has been appointed the head of the state's Community Relations Commission.
What happened to the chairman of the commission? Was he demoted or sacked? The bill does not address those issues. The Legislation Review Digest lists the bill's objectives, one of which is:
(g) to revise the functions of Multicultural NSW to reflect its current functions and activities
That does not mean anything. I do not know what that statement is intended to mean.
The Hon. Walt Secord: It could be a typo. 1608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: It could be a typo, but it is a whole sentence. Paragraph (g) just does not make any sense. Other objectives of Multicultural NSW relate to promoting the equal rights and responsibilities of citizenship and a commitment to Australia. Such statements make me angry because they make a number of subliminal assumptions about multicultural communities in Australia. For example, it assumes that Australians from multicultural communities do not understand or contribute to Australian citizenship, and that those communities lack something and must change. The digest's background comments on the bill refer to the Minister's second reading speech, and state:
In his Second Reading Speech to Parliament, the Hon Victor Dominello MP, Minister for Citizenship and Communities, stated that in 2014 it is timely to re-examine the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act 2000 to ensure that it 'accurately reflects who we are and who we want to be'.
It is clear who we are: We are Australians. But paragraph 3 of the digest's background reveals that the Minister also said:
'… but we need to do more to promote initiatives that bring people from diverse backgrounds together as Australians'.
What are we? Are all those communities not Australian? Is that what we assume from that comment? I do not understand it. I take offence at those fairly blatant comments that imply multicultural communities are not Australian. The Minister made a number of similar comments when introducing the bill that I also consider offensive, particularly the claim that multicultural communities effectively need to become Australian. They are all Australian; we are all Australian, irrespective of our background. The Legislation Review Digest talks about "transitional savings" in its comments on the bill's provisions. Anyone reading comments knows that obviously means cuts. Has the Minister explained to the community where those cuts will be made? Will staff numbers be cut? Will administration costs be cut? The digest does not make clear what will be cut.
The Minister has had 3½ years in this portfolio and his biggest contribution to date has been to abolish the Community Relations Commission [CRC] and urge multicultural communities to embrace some mythical Australian ethos, without explaining which multicultural communities are doing that. The Minister is a proud Italian Australian; he is part of the multicultural Australia story. How would he feel if he were told that he needs to embrace Australia's ethos? I am sure his response would be that he already does so. Every member of the Australian community embraces that ethos. All multicultural groups would respond similarly. Unless the Minister has more to add or can explain exactly what he means, he may be best served by staying out of this debate. It is a shame that the CRC has been scrapped without proper community consultation. Devaluing the role of the commission and its commissioners is an insult.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [5.05 p.m.]: Multiculturalism has been the subject of much talk. I intend to examine the whole issue. Notably, previous speakers have not attempted to define "multiculturalism", which is hardly surprising considering it has varied consistently and constantly in the 40 years since it has been an official Australian policy. My intention is not to argue whether multiculturalism is good or bad; I simply seek to go back to first principles and examine whether multiculturalism actually exists in Australia today. Governments, non-government organisations and politicians all like to state that Australia is an example of a strong, multicultural society. But is it? Before going any further we have to make a clear distinction between culture and ethnicity. How often have we heard dreary, ignorant politicians and community leaders talk about how "people come from all around the globe to live in Australia" and claim that that presence in and of itself is proof of multiculturalism? It is nothing of the sort. It may demonstrate that we are a multiethnic society, but it says nothing whatsoever about whether we are multicultural.
What do I mean? The heart of the issue lies in the difference between culture and ethnicity. Imagine if, for example, Mike Baird had, at the age of six months, been adopted by a Vietnamese family living in Hanoi. Ethnically, he could be described as being of northern European descent, but culturally he would have been brought up as a Buddhist, speaking Vietnamese, living under a Vietnamese legal system, eating Vietnamese food and enjoying Vietnamese pastimes. He would never even have heard of the Manly Sea Eagles. That is the difference between culture and ethnicity. Racists see no difference between ethnicity and culture, believing the latter is entirely contingent upon the former. One has simply to look at Nazism to see this truth. But even simple observations reveal that one's culture has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with environment.
In Australia, the most famous example of this is Mei Quong Tart, who was a Chinese orphan raised by Scottish missionaries in China. His life repudiates any intrinsic nexus between ethnicity and culture. Originally a Chinese immigrant lured here by the gold rush, Quong Tart became one of Sydney's most successful merchants and made a significant impact on the social and political scenes of late nineteenth century New South Wales. 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1609
Despite the virulent anti-Chinese agitation in Australia at the time—often led by the trade union movement and the nascent Labor Party—Quong Tart was, according to the contemporary Daily Telegraph, "as well known as the Governor himself" and "quite as popular among all classes" in Sydney. He was even appointed to a famous royal commission into gambling in 1892, and there was a massive crowd of mourners at his funeral in 1903. Remember this was only two years after the White Australia policy became Australian law.
It was not his ethnic Chineseness that Australians looked at and considered important; it was his cultural Britishness, at least in his public dealings. Although Quong Tart is largely remembered now as a uniquely Victorian character—a Chinese Mandarin who adopted the dress and manners of an English gentleman and was renowned for his public performances of Scottish songs—his life and success demonstrates that Australians, even at the height of White Australia, actually cared far less about race or ethnicity and far more about cultural assimilation.
Culture and ethnicity are often conflated by people like Nazis, but also by the bourgeois Left. One often hears of someone speaking of a hidden cultural wellspring that suddenly appears when they find that some long-lost great-great-great-great-grandmother turns out to be Aboriginal. Even the Left falls for this ethnicity-equals-culture myth when it suits its purpose. It might be worthwhile at this point to have a brief discussion of public versus private culture. I do not deny the multiplicities of non-Anglo cultural practices in private but any formal policy of multiculturalism seeks to give official imprimatur to activities in the public sphere that differ from existing Anglo cultural practices. True multicultural theory—hard multicultural theory as it is sometimes called—says that all cultures are not merely to be tolerated but embraced and welcomed alongside the existing ethos. For multiculturalists, every culture is worthy of recognition and acceptance.
It is not good enough simply to show that existing non-Anglo cultural practices are being undertaken in the private sphere and to claim that as proof that a nation is multicultural. After all, at the height of White Australia non-Anglo communities retained such private cultural practices. If multiculturalism does not recognise public difference, then the official policy of multiculturalism means, effectively, nothing. But I return to my main question: Is Australia a multicultural nation? Let us examine the question by assessing six key components and delimiters of any culture: language, law, religion, food, clothing and entertainment.
Let us turn first to language. Is there any doubt that English is the common language of Australia? Canada adopts a strict policy of having two official languages, as does Belgium, and Switzerland has four. So there are multicultural societies that recognise language difference and require diversity in official languages, but not Australia. Sure, some people speak a different language at home but how is this different from 150 years ago when there was no official policy of multiculturalism? Some people claim that SBS is an example of linguistic multiculturalism. This is a furphy. Overlook for a moment the fact that SBS's ratings still fall in the realm of statistical error—except when they show South Park. All the shows on SBS are captioned in English because it is the sole mode of official public discourse in Australia. Perhaps the final word should go to the editor-in-chief of Australia's own dictionary, the Macquarie Dictionary:
Australia is essentially a monolingual country despite its long history of migration from Europe and Far Eastern countries. The effect of these migrations on our vocabulary has not, so far, been very great, and the history of foreign words in Australian English owes more to European intellectual and artistic tradition than to our migration history.
Regrettably, in the latest edition the authors have been bludgeoned by political correctness to semi-recant, and have added words of foreign origin, which, nevertheless, they are forced to admit "are not in common use in Australia, but are in use in South-East Asia where Australians may travel". Thus on the issue of the public use of language, Australia is monocultural. Let us move to the law. It is a system conducted in English and based on the English common law tradition, with people in outfits coloured black to mourn the death of English Queen Anne, whose laws are made in a Parliament based on the English and United States models and where all business is conducted in English. Peut-être, Madame la Président, nous pouvons parler Français ici? Mais pourquoi pas? Le Parlement du Canada parlent en cette langue.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: The President has ruled on numerous occasions that members must speak in English when addressing the Chamber. As the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps has asserted that this is the official language of Australia, he should do so.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps should speak in English.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I thank the Hon. Amanda Fazio for raising that point of order, which demonstrates my point: There is only one official language in Australia, which has been recognised by multiple 1610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
rulings in this Parliament. Seriously, there is no real multiculturalism here. There is no recognition of cultural differences in the law of the land either, other than the occasional cultural stereotypes, such as references to "hot-blooded Italians" in R v Romano. There is no recognition of different divorce laws in the Marriage Act; there is no subsidy for female genital mutilation under Medicare; there is no recognition of cultural differences in determining size limits in State fishing regulations. Basically, the law recognises only one Australia and only one type of Australian culture. Thus on the issue of law, we are monocultural. As for food, the multiculturists say:
Ah, you have forgotten food. Look how multicultural Australia has become: Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, Italian, Portuguese, chicken, pizza and cappuccinos. That proves we are multicultural after all.
Maybe; maybe not. Most of the food mentioned has been anglicised to meet traditional Australian tastes. Much of it has come to Australia through other English-speaking cultures, such as the United States and Britain. The pizza I get from Pizza Hut or Dominoes is not the same as the pizza I got in Venice. The Chinese I have at the Junee RSL is not like the Chinese they are eating in the suburbs of Shanghai, much less in the Chinese countryside. Singapore noodles from my local noodle bar in Queanbeyan are quite different from those made by my sister-in-law, a Singapore native, and so on. Sure, there are foods different from the traditional steak and three vegetables, but did Britain become multicultural just because tomatoes, potatoes, maize, coffee and chocolate came in from the Americas in the sixteenth century? If we were to consider the imported foods that have really grabbed hold of the Australian public, we would find they are overwhelmingly fast foods that are American in origin or ethnic dishes that have been reconstructed in the image of white America to suit their tastes. Thus on the issue of food Australia is essentially monocultural.
What about religion? Australia has no official State religion, and since the days of Reverend Samuel Marsden Australians have maintained an active disregard for religion in public life. Sectarian issues that have arisen in the past are, rightly, recognised as the eruption of the private into the public sphere. Not for us "God bless Australia" at the end of every address by the Prime Minister or arguments over prayer in schools or enforcing religious moral codes through our legal system. There are many different faiths in Australia, all of which can be practised freely in private.
So does that make us multicultural? If so, then how does that vary from when there was no official policy of multiculturalism? There were Jews in the First Fleet. Was Australia therefore multicultural at that point, before an official policy was needed? There is, however, still some official recognition of religion in the public sphere but we have been very picky about what we choose to recognise. When it comes to the public culture of the nation, we have the Christian Lord's Prayer at the start of each day of Parliament. Moreover, we only recognise the Christian religious holidays as public holidays, and even in this regard we accept the Western Catholic rather than the, ironically, more accurate Eastern Orthodox dates for these celebrations. Thus on the issue of the public recognition of religion, we are monocultural.
As for clothing, most suits and dresses follow an American or European design. Jeans, sneakers and T-shirts are all American cultural imports that have become de rigueur even among the so-called disaffected members of Australia's ethnic minorities. How many muu-muus do you see on a news reader or in Parliament? How many headscarfs? How many saris? After a brief moment of popularity in the 1960s not even the Nehru or Mao jackets make an appearance in public these days. That is why the whole issue of Islamic dress for women has become such a ridiculous cause célèbre. In earlier years rabbis in Australia dressed in the manner of English country vicars so that they could "fit in". The intrusion of overt religious symbology through dress into the public sphere has produced an unsurprising, if somewhat small-minded, backlash.
The Muslim community has, not unreasonably, expected that Australia would live up to its official policy of hard multiculturalism. They have taken our utterances at face value and simply transposed the cultural norms that are used where they came from onto the streets of Australia. Nobody appears to have told them that all along we really meant soft multiculturism. I suspect that the majority of offended Australians who complain about Islamic dress would not give two hoots if it is worn inside a person's home. But to venture into the public sphere in a niqab intrudes upon the demands for homogeneity and it becomes a challenge, a threat to Anglo societal norms—norms which, it must be stated, have been overwhelmingly endorsed and adopted by subsequent waves of immigrants since World War II. In fact, the very existence of a controversy about Islamic headscarves is the best evidence I can adduce that we are not, when it comes to clothing, a multicultural society. Thus on the issue of clothing, we are essentially monocultural.
Turning to entertainment, where do we get our sport from? It is from Britain and America or nineteenth century homegrown derivatives of those sports. Where do we get our television and movies from? 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1611
Overwhelmingly, they come from the United States and Britain. Indeed, one might point out that these most popular forms of entertainment are particularly Anglo forms of entertainment. Going to the opera? Look out for the surtitles in English. Heading to the beach? One of the great ironies of the Cronulla riots was that we had two groups of people in conflict both of whom were essentially mimicking different versions of United States sub-cultures: the white beach culture versus the black ghetto culture. Despite claims on both sides of cultural authenticity, they had the look and talk of their compatriots from the United States thus demonstrating an hilarious lack of introspection and a deeply ironic subservience to American culture.
Tuning the radio? More rock or pop—in other words, direct or derivative expressions from the United States and Britain? Prefer the ABC? How about a nice nineteenth century piece from Dvorak? Even Triple J, that doyen of political correctness, dropped its World Music Show in favour of an increase in United States style hip-hop. Why? Because the "yoof" market—as opposed to the tiny group of middle-class posers they were catering for—did not give a stuff about the sounds of Africa and South America, they wanted American rap. Does anyone watch SBS—I mean, apart from South Park?
Things like SBS, World of Music, Arts and Dance—WOMAD—and the now-defunct Carnivale in Sydney have all had a miniscule influence in comparison with mainstream Australian culture. They are small bursts of the exotic, primarily for the consumption of the bourgeois Left, who can then convince themselves that they are really broad minded and "people of the world". But how many punters even know these events exist? How many actually go and participate, as opposed to those who sit on their lounge and watch the footy or the latest film? Thus on the issue of entertainment, we are monocultural.
So what are we? I have picked the six key components of culture that one will find in any standard textbook. Indeed, if one were to go through the whole gamut of culture, one would achieve the same result. Any serious and objective examination can lead to only one conclusion: We are not multicultural, at least in terms of Australia's public culture. What we are is a very successful multiethnic society that has maintained a high degree of stability by the official, and more recently unofficial, coercion of immigrants towards assimilation into the dominant Anglo culture. We are, for all practical purposes, the same monoculture that we have been for most of Australia's white history—at least as far as our public culture is concerned.
I think governments actually understand this. In the 41 years since the policy of multiculturalism was first proclaimed by Al Grassby, successive governments have whittled away and read down the official definitions of multiculturalism, always in deference to the preponderant position of the dominant Anglo culture. Let us look back. Multiculturalism first emerged in its hard form as a political project and public policy under the Whitlam Government. The policy speech delivered by immigration Minister Al Grassby in August 1973 set out a program for settling migrants, providing welfare and developing multicultural policies intended specifically to maintain diversity.
Grassby's use of "multiculturalism" was inspired by the Canadian experience of cultural diversity, which had begun with the recognition of rights secured by French-speaking Canadians. As other minority groups pressed for recognition, "multiculturalism" was the term adopted to acknowledge the mix of diversity in Canadian society. Grassby's statement on multiculturalism was followed over the next few years by a range of initiatives promoting the new policy. Historian Mark Lopez said that, whatever intellectual appeal multiculturalism enjoyed in Australia, popular appeal lagged. Perhaps Australians did not think their cultural disposition to hospitality needed supplementing by state-funded projects.
The 1988 Issues in Multicultural Australia Survey found 81 per cent of respondents agreed that "No matter whether Australians were born here or come from overseas they should all be given equal opportunities", and 62 per cent agreed that "So long as a person is committed to Australia it doesn't matter what ethnic background they have." Hence in order to secure public acceptance of the new policy, "It was necessary for the multiculturalists to vigorously and strenuously promote it, often in the face of indifference or sometimes stiff opposition from those who supported other approaches." The alternative approaches, which tended to emphasise the importance of assimilating migrants and ensuring their cultural compatibility with core Australian values, were condemned as racist to emphasise the need for a policy dedicated to advancing cultural diversity.
Centre for Independent Studies Research Fellow Jeremy Sammut has remarked that the emphasis on integration went against the grain of a key assumption of hard multiculturalism, which was that migrants had the right to keep their cultural identity as a way of promoting diversity. Critics who warned of the danger of encouraging cultural divisions were often condemned as racists yearning for the homogeneity of the White 1612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
Australia era. The other side of this persistent and pervasive belief in Australian racism, and another key factor driving hard multiculturalism, was a fear that diversity would inevitably become the seedbed of social intolerance and prejudice in a fundamentally racist country.
While diversity appeared to be welcomed and encouraged by most Australians, proponents of hard multiculturalism nevertheless maintained that the State must use its coercive powers to ensure that minorities were afforded group-differentiated special protections against the winds of intolerance. Hard multicultural policy treats the nation as a collection of separate ethnic groups that are able to coexist only thanks to managed responses to diversity and standards of tolerance legally enforced by the state. Migrants to Australia have been welcomed and afforded every opportunity to integrate and enjoy the opportunities this country has to offer. The diversity of Australian society has increased accordingly. However, where they see increased diversity, hard multiculturalists also see increased inequality and, they argue, a greater need for governments to interfere. Indeed, the current definition of "multiculturalism" can be summed up as follows:
You can do most of what you would like in private, but do not transgress the boundaries that have been set by the dominant Anglo culture. In your public dealings you have to be like us, and in return we will treat your non-threatening practices as a quaint and interesting form of exotica, if we don't just ignore them entirely.
That is the true state of multiculturalism in Australia, as it always has been. Australia is not, and has never been, a multicultural society—at least in terms of its public culture. This bill goes some way to recognising that.
The Hon. ERNEST WONG [5.25 p.m.]: I join my Labor colleagues in debate on the Multicultural NSW Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. Before I commence my remarks I must admit to being very confused. Can this be a Government bill when Government members do not believe in multiculturalism?
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: We have a democracy and freedom of speech.
The Hon. ERNEST WONG: I am trying to establish the basis of this bill. Do members opposite believe in the essence of multiculturalism?
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: What is your definition, Ernest? You define multiculturalism and I will tell you if I agree with it.
The Hon. ERNEST WONG: I make this point. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps mentioned Quong Tart. Quong was very successful. He was based in Australia. We all live in Australia. If we are successful, we are successful as Australians because we use the assets Australia has.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Why was he successful? He was successful because he assimilated.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps will cease interjecting. He has made his contribution to the debate.
The Hon. ERNEST WONG: If we look behind that, we see he was successful because he shared the values he had inherited from his culture with his Australian fellows. They integrated to bring better values to Australia. That is what multiculturalism is all about. It is a lot more than food, music or religion; it is values. We all try to accept the values of others. We discuss them and then integrate them to make better values for Australia. As my colleague the Hon. Walt Secord has noted, the details of this bill have already been covered in the Legislative Assembly. I note that Labor will not oppose the bill. But as someone who has always represented and stood for the diversity of communities in New South Wales, at both local and State levels, I wish to comment on the impact of this bill.
New South Wales has a proud record on the issue of respecting and protecting the rights of all its citizens—and as Australians we are proud of that. New South Wales led the way on racial vilification laws. I commend both Bob Carr and Nick Greiner for taking a commendable bipartisan approach to that issue. That was real community leadership; a real example of using the power of politics to unite, not divide. What a contrast that is to the examples of divisive politics that my colleague the Hon. Walt Secord has brought to the attention of the House. But I digress.
Returning to the bill, the Government's headline goal for this bill is the renaming of the Community Relations Commission as "Multicultural NSW"—I emphasise the new title. I strongly support that. Indeed, it is pleasing to have the positive and inclusive term "multiculturalism" again at the forefront after a period of years 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1613
when conservative politics sought to restrict us to the less inspiring goal of "tolerance". That term by its nature encourages our communities to see diversity as a burden to be tolerated. Labor prefers to see diversity as a powerhouse economic and cultural opportunity, which it has proven to be time and time again throughout generations of Australian growth.
So renaming the Community Relations Commission [CRC] is fine. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is scrapping the commission—because, let us be honest, that is what this bill really does. This bill reduces the longstanding Community Relations Commission, which has done so much great work over many years and many governments, to a mere advisory board. That is the truth that the Government has hidden behind another glossy rebadging. While the Government is out there slapping new brands and names on every government agency, it is often cutting what those agencies stand for and deliver. The Government's vision appears to be one of no services but a lot of great logos.
In the case of the CRC, this is a particularly slippery and nasty change. Stripped of its role as a commission, the CRC will now merely be an advisory body. As the Hon. Walt Secord pointed out, the Government claimed in the other place that Multicultural NSW has had none of its existing functions changed. But that is simply not plausible. Does the Minister not understand the difference between a statutorily empowered commission and a mere advisory board? This is the scrapping of the CRC. It might be a scrapping by stealth, but it is a scrapping.
Does the Government have the right to scrap the CRC? Of course it does. But it should have the guts to come clean to the community of New South Wales and explain why it is doing just that. It is easy for Government members to go out and wine, dine, flatter, placate and cajole any and every community group in New South Wales, promising anything and everything to win the election. They talk endlessly about supporting our diverse communities yet in government their commitment clearly is not serious. If they were serious about this they would have brought the proposition forward openly—they would have made the case to the diverse communities of New South Wales who so respect the CRC's work. So while Labor will not oppose the bill we will expose the hidden hypocrisy of it.
Finally, on a related matter, I draw the attention of the House to the objectives added to new sections 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (b). These include that Multicultural NSW will "promote the equal rights and responsibilities of citizenship" and "promote the unity, and strong commitment to Australia, of all people in a cohesive and harmonious multicultural society". Presumably those rights include the right to respectfully disagree with, and raise questions about, government policy of the day. Presumably the unity promoted does not mean that everyone must think the same way about every issue. I mention this because it is evident that not all members of this House agree with those propositions.
Indeed, one member stood in this House just last night and proceeded to dismiss a perfectly respectful question about foreign policy as "an attempt to use multiculturalism as an instrument of division". That member encouraged giving the New South Wales citizen who had rightly raised the question only one alternative—"If they do not like it, they should leave." Perhaps the new advisory board might be able to advise the member that unity does not mean "agree with me or leave the country". That is not the Australian way. I thank the House for its consideration.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [5.32 p.m.]: I express my concerns about the Multicultural NSW Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. The object of this bill is, first, to change the name of the Community Relations Commission [CRC] to Multicultural NSW by amending the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act 2000 in a number of ways. Secondly, following the enactment of the amendment bill, Multicultural NSW will operate as an advisory board rather than a commission. This is a very unfortunate development. It devalues the role of the CRC and the great work it has done over decades.
Two new objectives are added to new sections 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (b) wherein Multicultural NSW will "promote the equal rights and responsibilities of citizenship" and "promote the unity, and strong commitment to Australia, of all people in a cohesive and harmonious multicultural society". I do not oppose these new objectives. New section 13 (1) (g) will be set out as:
… to assist and develop programs for, and assess the effectiveness of, public authorities in observing the multicultural principles in the conduct of their affairs, particularly in connection with the delivery of government services, so as to facilitate consistency across authorities on issues associated with cultural diversity.
1614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
The main change in this section provides that Multicultural NSW will now have the development of programs set out as one of its key functions. But of course it will only be an advisory board so it can only advise the Government on programs; it cannot do anything about it. I do not oppose this change. Additionally new section 13 (1) (j) will be set out as:
… to support community initiatives that promote the objectives of Multicultural NSW (including initiatives that support women and girls and other groups of diverse backgrounds)— which I think is clumsily worded—
… and to promote community engagement for the purposes of promoting those objectives …
Again, I do not oppose that. It is proposed that the definition of "cultural diversity" be amended by removing the reference to "racial and ethnic backgrounds" and replacing it with "ancestral backgrounds". I am concerned about this change. I see it as a watering down and pandering to the long-established Anglo-Celtic community and their tabloid mouthpieces. It changes the whole focus of the Community Relations Commission and the principles of multiculturalism to make them bland and to satisfy all the latent racists we see on the Government benches. Given our stance on combatting racism and promoting harmony and social cohesion within our communities, this definition should not be changed. I am totally opposed to this change.
Flowing on from the structural changes to Multicultural NSW—transforming it into a limp, ineffective and disempowered advisory board—a number of consequential amendments have been put forward in this bill concerning the newly appointed positions and their responsibilities, given that Multicultural NSW is to be downgraded and will no longer be a commission. Some of the key changes include: the introduction of three appointed positions within Multicultural NSW—those being a chief executive officer, a chairperson and 15 board members. One of the members of the board is appointed as the chairperson. The duration of the terms of members serving on the advisory board for Multicultural NSW will change. The criteria for reappointment to the board will change, as will requirements when their reports must be submitted to government. There has been no justification that I can find anywhere for changing this body from a commission to a mere watered-down and disempowered advisory board.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: It is just a name change.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I acknowledge the interjection from the Hon. Melinda Pavey that this is just a name change. I think it is disappointing that the Parliamentary Secretary with carriage of the bill does not understand that changing something from a commission to an advisory board is not a mere name change; it is a significant change. In fact it is a slap in the face for the multicultural community of New South Wales. There is no explanation for why a commission is no longer the appropriate body. The Minister has not been able to enunciate and explain clearly why he is changing it from a commission to an advisory board. No answer has been given; there is no understanding and no rationale. This is the sort of bodgied up stuff we have come to expect from the Government.
Additionally it should be noted that within Multicultural NSW, just like within the Community Relations Commission, there will be broad selection criteria that each of the 15 board members appointed must fall within. Let us hope that this time the Government does not simply appoint its mates to these positions, because it has form. It just cannot help itself on this. Previous appointments have not been about merit and they have not been about the esteem in which these people are held in the multicultural community or their influence; it has been about the number of fundraisers they have been to and the amount of money they have kicked into election campaigns. It is not about the individual merits of the people and it is not about their capacity or their ability to represent different communities.
But we will not hold our breath for the procedure to be open, honest and fair or for the selection rules and guidelines to be followed. For the sake of the people of New South Wales I would like to see the right people appointed to these jobs on the advisory board. They should deserve their positions and not just be there because they are a donor, an acquaintance of the Liberal Party or a personal friend of a Minister. We have had too much of that in the 3½ years since this crooked Government was elected.
I am concerned that the Minister has done very little over the past 3½ years to introduce new strategies or directions or implement significant policy changes that would make a positive difference throughout our diverse multicultural community. I believe that the people of New South Wales deserve better than what they 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1615
have received from the Minister. After 3½ years what is the Government's big policy on multiculturalism that it will take to the next election? It is to abolish the Community Relations Commission and establish a limp, ineffective advisory board.
It is an insult to and a slap in the face of all the commissioners who have worked hard over the past 20 years. I attend many multicultural events where I often meet commissioners. They are part-time commissioners who week in and week out have spent their nights and weekends representing the Community Relations Commission at events. They have shown their respect for different community organisations by demonstrating the importance they place on attending multicultural events. What is their reward after all their years of hard work? There will be no more commissioners.
The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: A slap in the face.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: It is a slap in a face. A bunch of political cronies with no community connections will be appointed to an advisory board to advise a Minister who has no power in Cabinet to get anything done. This bill is an insult to the community. The change from the Community Relations Commission to Multicultural NSW is a retrograde and disgraceful step that waters down the Government's commitment to multiculturalism and disempowers the community.
Many people have said that Australia's culture is multiculturalism. I agree. I am proud that Australia has embraced multiculturalism, and it is a pity to see this Government backing away from it. If anyone doubts what I am saying they can read in Hansard the contribution of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps to this debate. It shows us everything we need to know about the Anglo-Celtic point of view and the politics of envy when thinking that somebody from a multicultural background might be getting something he or she does not deserve.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! Members on both sides will cease interjecting or they will be called to order. The Hon. Amanda Fazio has the call.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: In this legislation I particularly object to the change in the definitions section from "racial and ethnic background" to "ancestral background". That is a sop to the Andrew Bolts, Miranda Devines and Christian Kerrs of this world. It is a terrible shame. This bill is all about the rise of the Anglo-Celtic mob, which is the dominant community in Australia, and it wants to ensure that it is the dominant community in multicultural affairs. That is not why multiculturalism was introduced. It is not what the Labor and Liberal parties have given bipartisan support for ever since multiculturalism was introduced by the Whitlam Government and supported by the Fraser Government. This bill does not simply institute a name change; it represents a complete change of philosophy towards dealing with the multicultural community. It is disgraceful for this Government to try to slip it in as a minor change when it is a significant change.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Oppose it. Vote against it.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: The Labor Party position is to not oppose this bill. But if the passing of the legislation comes down to a division, members will not see me voting for it in this Chamber. I will refuse to do so because this bill is absolutely disgraceful. Through their raucous support for this bill Government members are clearly showing that what we are dealing with is underlying racism in Australia. Government members ought to be ashamed.
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [5.44 p.m.]: I share many of the sentiments my Opposition colleagues have expressed relating to the Multicultural NSW Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 in their passionate and comprehensive speeches about the changes the Government is making to the New South Wales Community Relations Commission. It was former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who sadly passed away yesterday, who established the SBS. In the 1970s the Whitlam Government gave our ethnic communities important recognition as part of Australia and its way of life.
Gough Whitlam meant a great deal to my parents as people from non-English speaking backgrounds. He was a special person because of the initiatives and changes he made for ethnic and migrant communities. A valuable initiative of the Whitlam Government was its anti-discrimination legislation. It was important for people like my mum, who was from an ethnic background, because the anti-discrimination legislation helped many new migrants to overcome the racism they were experiencing at the time. The Whitlam and Wran governments placed many institutions on the statute book. This Government has pandered to sectional interests. 1616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What sectional interests? Name them.
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: It has taken this Government three years to release the names of the people on its ministerial consultative committees.
The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: They sacked the whole consultative committee without telling them.
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: We did not know the names of those people because the Government kept them private for three years. There were no meetings and no agenda. It was not until the call for papers that many interesting things were revealed. Members on all sides of this House embrace multiculturalism and racial harmony. I see many Government members at functions held by groups from ethnic backgrounds. It is important that we continue to have racial harmony in our multicultural community.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Australian harmony would be a better word.
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: Of course it is about embracing Australian values and culture. It is also about allowing people from different backgrounds to celebrate their culture, traditions and religion. It is important to me as somebody from a Greek background that I am able to celebrate my religious and cultural heritage. But that only happens because of the freedom, peace and harmony of our democracy. It is what we love about Australia: we can celebrate our heritage in peace. That is part of the beauty of Australia and it is why it is so important that we debate this bill and make our arguments against the Government's assertion that it only makes a name change.
Ethnic communities have raised many concerns about this bill. As the Hon. Amanda Fazio stated, the commissioners have spent many years building community relations and easing tensions at times of international conflict over the past 20 to 30 years. It is because of the commissioners and the relationships they have built by attendance at functions, taking phone calls and helping out communities day in, day out, that trust has been earned and engendered, which ensures that we all live in a peaceful and harmonious society. In addition to the many concerns already raised by my colleagues, I refer to the primary change in new section 13 (1) (g), which states:
to assist and develop programs for, and assess the effectiveness of, public authorities in observing the multicultural principles in the conduct of their affairs, particularly in connection with the delivery of government services, so as to facilitate consistency across authorities on issues associated with cultural diversity,
The primary change in that new section ensures that the development programs will be set out as one of the key functions of Multicultural NSW. By enabling this function, Multicultural NSW will have the capacity to provide a greater level of input and the ability to provide government with useful tools and additional information to enhance its delivery of services to communities throughout New South Wales. New section 13 (1) (j) will state:
to support community initiatives that promote the objectives of Multicultural NSW (including initiatives that support women and girls and other groups of diverse backgrounds) and to promote community engagement for the purposes of promoting those objectives,
The main change within new section 13 (1) (j) is the inclusion of initiatives that support women and girls and other groups from diverse backgrounds. It is very important to acknowledge the requirement of additional support and services being provided to women and girls. As the shadow Minister for Citizenship and Communities stated in the lower House, we cannot overlook the fact that many young boys and men who migrate to Australia also suffer a great deal of trauma and prejudice, and also are in dire need of government outreach to ensure that they get the assistance they require. It is proposed that the definition of "cultural diversity" be amended by removing the reference to "racial and ethnic grounds" and replacing it with "ancestral background". This change updates the reference.
As the shadow Minister for the Status of Women, I state for the record and for the Minister's consideration that a number of newly arrived women of non-English speaking backgrounds or women who have been in Australia for up to 10 years have been lobbying me about the need to provide services for women who are escaping severe domestic violence. I have spoken to a number of groups about the provision of services related to housing and refuge accommodation. The Opposition opposed the Government closing women-only refuges. Women from a non-English speaking background have nowhere to go, no services and no information. 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1617
I ask the Minister to take that on board and to do something about it. A great number of domestic violence incidents are occurring in a number of cultural communities. I will be happy to speak to the Minister privately about this. I assure the House that this is a very serious issue.
I will not deal with the bill further except to say that the Opposition is very concerned that it does not represent a change of the commission in name only. This legislation will have many unintended consequences. The Opposition has very serious and grave concerns in relation to this bill.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.53 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, in reply: I acknowledge all members who contributed to debate on the Multicultural NSW Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. The purpose of the bill's amendments is twofold. It is quite simple. There is no conspiracy. First, the bill is intended to bring about administrative change to the governance structure by creating a full-time chief executive officer position as the head of Multicultural NSW and a part-time chairperson of the advisory board. It is quite simple. In delineating the role of the agency from the role of the advisory board, it is important to note that the independence of the expert advisory board has not been diminished. Its role continues to be one of providing advice that it considers appropriate, either to the agency or to the Minister, on any issue relating to the objectives or the strategic directions of Multicultural NSW.
Secondly, the bill makes clear that while we continue to recognise and value the different linguistic, religious and ancestral backgrounds of all the people of New South Wales, this exists alongside the recognition that we are Australians, first and foremost. The bill includes a definition of what is meant by "a commitment to Australia", which is a commitment to the common values and things that bind Australians together, such as a volunteering ethos, participation in Australian national days and events, and recognition of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage. The bill enhances the objectives and functions of Multicultural NSW by including specific reference to implementing initiatives to combat racism, empower multicultural women and girls, and increase volunteering. In that way, citizenship, mutual obligation and respect are strengthened.
In commenting on some members' contributions, I point out to Dr Mehreen Faruqi that I found it quite ironic that at one point she said we ignore people from ethnic backgrounds and, at the very moment she said that, behind her there was a Canadian and someone from a Lebanese background was occupying the chair. Also in the House was someone from Central Asia and someone from a Chinese background. Then in walked the Hon. Amanda Fazio, who has an Italian background, and there was someone who is part Welsh. We also have Richard Weber, a Legislative Council officer who is from Sri Lanka, and someone from Ireland. We can be proud as a nation and as a State that we have broad representation within this Chamber. We should be proud of that, we should celebrate it, and we should not be ashamed of it.
In relation to the board members who have been appointed, the problem with Labor is that Labor expects us, as a government, to govern in line with Labor's poor standards. I point out that Margaret Piper has been appointed to the advisory board from the Refugee Council. For the first time an Aboriginal person has been appointed to the board. All board appointments were submitted through an expression of interest process. If Labor members think that the Government would appoint board members to an important position of membership of an advisory board—as Labor did, according to its standards—they would have good reason to be concerned. But I give Labor members a guarantee that the Government will not do so. I also point out to the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane that the commission's name was the Community Relations Commission for a Multicultural New South Wales, and we have simply highlighted the last part of the name.
I should also mention that the advisory board retains the same powers. The ethnic, racial and ancestral rationale is part of the terminology of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The savings, not cuts, will result from better transitional arrangements and better expenditure of money. The Hon. Ernest Wong confused the board with the agency. There will still be an independent statutory authority, which is Multicultural NSW. There is an agency, which is Multicultural NSW, and that was formerly the Community Relations Commission. There is also an advisory board that comprises 15 members, who formerly were known as commissioners. Nothing has changed. It is just a name change. New South Wales is one of the most culturally diverse societies in the world, but what is most important is not just that we have people from more than 225 countries making our State their home, but that it is being done in a spirit of harmony and cohesion. Judging by the speeches and contributions to this debate made by Labor members, one would not think so. Opposition members are supporting the bill, but if they stood by the principles espoused in the comments they made during the debate, they would be opposing it.
There has been extensive community consultation regarding this reform bill, and Opposition members disrespect representatives of bodies who contributed to the formulation of this legislation. Those organisations 1618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
include the Federation of Community Language Schools, the Arab Council of Australia, the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, the Vietnamese Australian Welfare Association, the Indian Australian Arts and Film Association, the Liverpool MRC, the Alliance of Philippine Community Organisations, the Eastwood Chinese Senior Citizens Club, the Lebanese Muslim Association, and the School of Vedic Sciences Australia. These people have contributed, and they support the bill. We do not act like the Hon. Walt Secord; we do not issue threats like he did. We have their contributions, and they are supporting the bill.
The Hon. Walt Secord: Denounce what Charlie said last night in the Chamber.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: The amendments in this bill will enhance the ability of Multicultural NSW to engage in a meaningful way with the community and to carry out significant research and policy development so that New South Wales continues to be a leader in multicultural practice—
The Hon. Walt Secord: Denounce what Charlie said.
The Hon. Niall Blair: Point of order: It is very hard to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying due to the noise in the Chamber.
The Hon. Walt Secord: To the point of order: I feel very strongly about this, and I just wanted to place on record our objection to Charlie's disgusting comments last night.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! That is not a point of order.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Why don't you leave?
The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order: Are you telling me to leave Australia?
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: No. I asked you a question, you goose.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order for the first time. I call the Hon. Charlie Lynn to order for the first time.
The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order: He told me to go back where I came from, and he threatened me.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! The Hon. Walt Secord will resume his seat. The House will come to order.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: The amendments in this bill will enhance the ability of Multicultural NSW to engage in a meaningful way with the community and to carry out significant research and policy development so that New South Wales continues to be a leader in multicultural practice today and into the future.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.
Third Reading
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.01 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka: I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [6.01 p.m.]: I have already voiced my concerns about this bill, but I want to add to what I said by simply saying that the Government is disrespecting this House by having already 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1619
changed the Community Relations Commission web page to show Multicultural NSW. The Minister's advisers are shaking their heads. If they Google they will see that the Government has already done that. That is a disgraceful attack on the privilege of this House to consider legislation before the Government makes these changes. On that basis, I will not be supporting the bill on the third reading.
Question—That this bill be now read a third time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES
Membership
The Deputy-President (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner) informed the House that this day the Leader of the Government nominated Mr Lynn as a member of the Standing Committee on Social Issues in place of Dr Phelps.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Postponement of Business
Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 7 to 9 postponed by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps, on behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay, and set down as orders of the day for a later hour.
RURAL FIRES AMENDMENT BILL 2014
Second Reading
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.03 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
There is nothing more thoughtless and disappointing than fires that are deliberately or carelessly lit. Fires can destroy lives and properties, which have long-term effects on our communities and the environment in which they live. During the 2013-14 bushfire season, the NSW Rural Fire Service responded to more than 6,950 bushfires and grassfires across the State. In that period the New South Wales Rural Fire Service formally investigated more than 1,900 suspicious bushfires or grassfires. This is in addition to bushfire incidents that are reported and investigated by police through Strike Force Tronto. It is sad to think that some of these may have occurred at the hands of others.
While the NSW Rural Fire Service works hard to keep our communities safe through bushfire reduction programs and public awareness campaigns, these efforts can be undermined because of the careless acts of others. It is for this reason that the Baird Government is taking the threat of bushfires seriously and has proactively developed the Rural Fires Amendment Bill 2014 to address these mindless acts. This bill introduces two key measures into section 100 (1) of the Rural Fires Act 1997 to address an emerging problem for the NSW Rural Fire Service—fires being lit during a total fire ban. A total fire ban is introduced when weather conditions pose a high fire risk. These involve predominantly hot, dry and windy conditions.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Niall Blair and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (PARLIAMENTARY PRESIDING OFFICERS) BILL 2014
Second Reading
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Freight, Minister for the North Coast, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.06 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
1620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
The Government is pleased to introduce the Constitution Amendment (Parliamentary Presiding Officers) Bill 2014 to provide for consistency for the roles of the Presiding Officers in continuing their administration duties during the election period. The changes will provide certainty and stability to the administration of the Parliament and the employment of parliamentary staff. The Presiding Officers administer the executive functions of the Parliament, including during the period when Parliament is dissolved ahead of an election and until the Parliament assembles after an election. The administrative duties of the Presiding Officers include approval of the appointment and termination of staff, including members' staff, management and control of the parliamentary buildings and precincts, and approval of administrative matters concerning the Department of the Legislative Council, Department of the Legislative Assembly and the Department of Parliamentary Services.
In accordance with longstanding practice, the Constitution Act permits the Speaker to remain in office until the assembly of a new Parliament following a State general election. However, there is currently no power for the President to exercise administrative functions once he or she ceases to be a member of the Legislative Council. The bill will amend the Constitution Act to expressly provide that the President of the Legislative Council remains in office until the Council assembles for its first meeting after a State general election. The bill amends the wording of the Constitution Act in relation to the Speaker to align the provisions in relation to both Presiding Officers. Similar amendments are made for their deputies when the Presiding Officers are unavailable.
The bill also removes redundant and outdated provisions in relation to the procedures for electing the Presiding Officers, which existed before such procedures were determined by the standing orders of the particular House of Parliament, and it makes some consequential amendments to the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989. I commend the bill to the House.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.09 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I am pleased to support the Constitution Amendment (Parliamentary Presiding Officers) Bill 2014. This bill was introduced because a problem has arisen with the forthcoming State election and the timetable in that the President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly no longer will act in those roles officially. A time gap exists between their positions discontinuing, the election and the creation of the new holders of those positions. This bill will allow the President of the Legislative Council, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and their deputies to continue in their roles, particularly taking into consideration the role of the Chair of Committees in this House in case the President is unavailable.
The administrative functions of the Presiding Officers relating to the Parliament and the employment of parliamentary staff during a State general election period when the Legislative Assembly is dissolved and the Legislative Council is suspended may be exercised. The Legislative Council is suspended because it has a different system to that of the Legislative Assembly. When the Assembly is dissolved, everybody is out. However, as members know, the Council has 42 members and only 21 positions are declared vacant at a State general election while the Legislative Council continues with the remaining 21 positions—50 per cent of its membership. After the election the suspension is lifted and the Legislative Council resumes its normal work.
The bill makes consequential amendments to the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989 to ensure that the Parliamentary Presiding Officers and their deputies continue to receive their usual remuneration during the State general election period, which is not very long. That will ensure the continuation of their financial positions. The bill provides for consistency in the Presiding Officers roles to continue their administrative duties during the election period and, therefore, provide certainty and stability for the administration of the Parliament and the employment of parliamentary staff.
Matters may occur during the election period that require the intervention of the Presiding Officers. These officers will continue to administer the executive function of the Parliament, including during the period when the Parliament is dissolved ahead of an election until it assembles after the election. We are pleased to support this bill. It will provide for the smooth function and administration of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council during that period.
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [6.13 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I indicate that we will support the Constitution Amendment (Parliamentary Presiding Officers) Bill 2014. The bill amends the Constitution Act 1902 to expressly provide for the following parliamentary officer holders to continue to hold office during the election period and up until the Parliament reconvenes: the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Deputy-Speaker, the President of the Legislative Council, the Deputy-President, and the Chair of Committees. I have discussed this matter with the President, who has taken us through the anomalous situation that prevails currently with respect to the Presiding Officer in this House. Following 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1621
correspondence from the President of the Legislative Council, we are convinced that the step being taken by the Government makes sense. The bill corrects the current anomaly between the positions of the President and Speaker. The proposal has logic. We support the bill.
Dr JOHN KAYE [6.15 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I indicate that we support the Constitution Amendment (Parliamentary Presiding Officers) Bill 2014. This constitutional amendment, as previous speakers have said, fixes an anomaly between the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. As previous speakers have alluded to, in the Legislative Council the positions of the President and Chair of Committees are due to expire on Friday 5 March 2015, which, of course, is the date of expiry of the Legislative Assembly. At that point the Chamber is without a President or Deputy-President. That has consequences for the administrative functions of the President.
In the past five years particularly, but increasingly so over previous decades, the President's role has become one of administration as well as that of a Presiding Officer. The President plays a significant role after the passage of the particular legislation that changed the employment arrangements of parliamentary staff. Not having a President in place could cause significant disadvantage for parliamentary staff and the Parliament. Therefore, it is important that the President's role is ongoing. This bill fixes that problem by continuing the positions of the President, Deputy-President and Chair of Committees until the sitting of a new Legislative Council in 2015 and, of course, in subsequent years. This is a sensible measure. A small cost is associated with the proposal, which is one of increased salaries. That is not a matter of major concern when talking about the functioning of the Parliament. The Greens support the legislation.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [6.17 p.m.]: As a former Presiding Officer, I am aware of the problems that the Constitution Amendment (Parliamentary Presiding Officers) Bill 2014 addresses. This is a sensible way to remedy the problem, and it probably is overdue. I support the legislation. I am pleased that it appears to have bipartisan support in this Chamber. It will ensure that the management of the Legislative Council will be in steady hands during any election period changeover. It also means that the running of the Parliament will not just be the responsibility of the Speaker; it will be shared equally between both Houses.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Freight, Minister for the North Coast, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.18 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their support for the Constitution Amendment (Parliamentary Presiding Officers) Bill 2014 and their comments. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.
Third Reading
Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.
RURAL FIRES AMENDMENT BILL 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.19 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka: I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my second reading speech in Hansard.
Leave granted. 1622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
When a Total Fire Ban is in force no fires can be lit in the open, fire permits are suspended and general purpose work such as welding or grinding cannot be done outdoors.
Holders of a fire permit are contacted by the NSW Rural Fire Service and informed that their permit is suspended until further notice.
I understand that in national parks, rangers routinely visit camping grounds to tell visitors that a Total Fire Ban is in operation.
Camping permits also inform visitors when an open fire cannot be lit.
Furthermore, the message is frequently broadcast in our towns and cities.
The provisions relating to unlawfully lighting a fire are contained at section 100(1) of the Rural Fires Act 1997. The section makes it an offence for a person to set fire or cause a fire to be set on another person's land or property.
The section also makes it an offence for an owner/occupier of a property to allow a fire to escape in a way that endangers other property and people.
While the vast majority of people understand the importance of a Total Fire Ban and comply with its terms, there are unfortunately some within our community who persist in lighting fires and putting innocent lives at risk.
One example is where an individual has a fire permit and is told by the NSW Rural Fire Service not to conduct a hazard reduction burn during a Total Fire Ban, and that advice is ignored.
This has become a key concern for the NSW Rural Fire Service, particularly in certain parts of the State, and it is a concern I think all of us share.
A Total Fire Ban is a serious decision made by the Commissioner of the Rural Fire Service based on such factors as weather conditions, bushfire risk and the amount of "fuel loads"—like leaf litter around a home.
Given how important this declaration is and the work that is involved in letting the public know, from someone changing the Fire Danger Rating sign outside their town to media broadcasts state wide, it is not a step that is taken lightly.
To address this, the bill proposes to introduce an aggravating factor and an aggravated offence for cases where a fire has been lit during a Total Fire Ban.
Our amendments establish a new section 100(1A) of the bill, which enables a court when determining a penalty for unlawfully lighting a fire, to consider as an aggravating factor that the offence was committed at a place where—and when—a Total Fire Ban was in force.
Adding that the aggravating factor must be considered by the court recognises that lighting a fire during a Total Fire Ban is a more serious offence, given the increased risk posed to the community in terms of property and stock losses, injuries and fatalities.
Secondly, we will now have a new aggravated offence aimed at individuals who continually ignore warnings from the NSW Rural Fire Service not to light fires during a Total Fire Ban.
The offence is for a group of people who are not deterred by the existing penalty, and for whom a more severe sentence is appropriate.
Under new section 100(1B) if:
a person, without lawful authority, sets fire or causes a fire to be set … on another person's property, or
if an owner-occupier of land allows a fire to escape in a way that endangers other people and their property
and they know that the place where the fire was lit was subject to a Total Fire Ban, then they may face a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment, or 1,200 penalty units, which is $132,000, or both.
It is important to note that when this is heard in court, the prosecution will be required to show that the person received sufficient information and warning that a Total Fire Ban existed.
If a jury is not satisfied that a person was sufficiently aware a Total Fire Ban was in place, the jury may still find a person guilty of an offence under section 100(1).
The aggravating factor will then also be taken into consideration by the court.
The bill will also strengthen the operation of section 100(1) by expanding the ability for police and NSW Rural Fire Service officers to issue penalty notices in cases where an offence has been committed but no major damage has been caused and the investigating officer decides on the circumstance of the case, it does not warrant prosecution in court.
This will be achieved via an amendment to the Rural Fires Regulation 2013. The penalty notice will be fixed to an amount of not more than $2,200.
This is consistent with the penalty notice amount issued under section 100(2) of the Rural Fires Act 1997.
22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1623
In addition to these offences we are also proposing changes to the way fire permits are issued. These changes will give agencies greater flexibility to do their work, and will reduce red tape.
Under section 89 of the Rural Fires Act 1997, fire permits can be issued to allow a person to light a fire on their land for certain purposes such as hazard reduction.
Fire permits impose safety conditions for any burning that is done during a Bush Fire Danger Period.
Bush Fire Danger Periods restrict the lighting of fires by the use of fire permits. However, when a Total Fire Ban is declared all permits are suspended and the permit holder is informed.
Total Fire Bans may be declared and undeclared throughout the Bush Fire Danger Period.
A fire permit imposes conditions on the way a fire is lit and maintained, and helps ensure agencies such as the NSW Rural Fire Service know when and where land holders intend to burn.
Standard conditions include requirements for a permit holder to remain on site while the fire is lit and until it is extinguished, and the ability for the permit to be varied, cancelled or suspended depending on weather conditions.
At present, section 89 prevents the NSW Rural Fire Service or Fire and Rescue New South Wales from issuing a permit unless a bush fire hazard reduction certificate, or other approval such those found under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, is given.
In practice, there are activities such as agricultural burns that may not require an environmental approval or a bushfire hazard reduction certificate as they do not adversely impact on the environment.
There are also some activities that have existing exemptions in place.
Yet if an environmental approval or bushfire hazard reduction certificate is not obtained, though not specifically required, this could render the fire permit invalid.
The mandatory requirement to have a bush fire hazard reduction certificate, when another consent or approval is in place, represents an additional layer in terms of resourcing and red tape.
To address this, it is proposed that section 89(2) be amended to state that an appropriate authority such as the NSW Rural Fire Service may issue a fire permit for a purpose such as hazard reduction; only if lighting that fire is:
already authorised to be carried out under another approval, or
does not require authorisation to be carried out under the Rural Fires Act 1997 or any other Act.
The amendment maintains the requirement for an environmental approval or bushfire hazard reduction certificate to be obtained where necessary.
The final proposed amendment establishes arrangements to enable owners and drivers of motor vehicles to nominate individuals who commit offences under section 99A of the Rural Fires Act 1997.
Section 99A covers cases where a person throws lit cigarettes or matches out of a vehicle thereby creating an increased risk of fire.
There is already under section 99A(b) an aggravated version of the offence to cover cases where the littering occurs during a Total Fire Ban.
The need for these changes was clearly demonstrated as recently as last year, when a fire at Homebush Bay destroyed dozens of vehicles, showing how devastating this type of mindless behaviour can be.
In most cases the offence will be dealt with by penalty notice once the registered owner of the motor vehicle has been identified.
However, if the registered owner is not in the vehicle at the time the offence is committed, this amendment will allow for the person actually responsible for the offence to be held accountable, as is the case currently with traffic offences such as speeding infringements or red light offences.
To address this, the bill will introduce an amendment to the Rural Fires Act 1997 to provide that if a "fire risk object" is discarded from a motor vehicle or trailer, the driver or owner will be deemed guilty unless, in the case of the owner:
he or she was not in the motor vehicle, including the motor vehicle which the trailer was attached to at the relevant time and
they provide the name and address of the person who was in charge of the motor vehicle at the time the offence occurred.
The inclusion of the broader term "fire risk object" will ensure this important provision captures indiscriminate and dangerous throwing of all lit objects from a vehicle—not just cigarettes. These may include objects such as firecrackers.
If they cannot do this, the owner must satisfy the officer who issued the penalty notice or the court dealing with the offence that they did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence find out the name and address of the alleged offender.
1624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
In the case of the driver, he or she will be required to provide the name and address of the passenger who discarded the object while they were in the motor vehicle.
The same provisions that apply to owners will apply to a driver if they cannot provide the passenger's name and address.
The driver or the owner of the motor vehicle will be required to provide this evidence in the form of a statutory declaration to the court or to the officer who issued the penalty notice:
within 28 days after the penalty notice has been issued, or
within 28 days after a summons or court attendance notice has been served.
I note that there are a number of exceptions to this provision. The section will not apply:
if the fire risk object was discarded by a passenger on a bus, taxi or other form of public transport,
to cases where the object has been discarded from a motor vehicle or trailer that has been stolen.
Fires have a devastating effect on lives, properties and our communities' prosperity.
Our emergency services do a great job of keeping us safe; their professionalism and commitment is recognised across the globe. They are there when we need them, and we thank them for it.
The measures contained in the bill will enhance the ability of the NSW Rural Fire Service to get on with the job of protecting our communities and sends a strong message to those who ignore their advice that their actions will not be tolerated.
I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. STEVE WHAN [6.20 p.m.]: Madam Deputy-President—
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Oh, good of him to turn up.
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I hear the Government Whip's interjection. It would have been good to know the Rural Fires Amendment Bill 2014 was being called on for debate today. The program that I have does not have it on there. However, it is a relatively non-controversial bill. The amendments to the Rural Fires Act 1997 make further provisions for fire-related offences and fire permits. The bill creates an amendment to section 99A of the Act, which currently states:
A person must not, without lawful authority, discard a lighted tobacco product or match or any incandescent material on any land.
Schedule 1 [4] extends this section in the Act and deems that the owner and driver of a motor vehicle from which an object which is considered to be a fire risk is discarded—including cigarettes, matches, firecrackers, et cetera—is responsible and will be guilty of the offence unless the owner was not in the vehicle and can give the details of the person who was in charge of the vehicle at the time; satisfactory evidence can be provided that the owner did not know of the offence and cannot ascertain the details of the offender; the owner can provide the details of the passenger in the motor vehicle who discarded the fire object; and the owner can provide satisfactory evidence that the driver did not discard the fire-risk object and cannot ascertain the details of the passenger who discarded the object.
This is a reasonable provision. Under the previous provision it was difficult to identify the person who might have been responsible for discarding a cigarette or lighted object from the car. Exceptions are also provided if the motor vehicle from which the fire-risk object is discarded is a bus, taxi or other public transport vehicle and the object was discarded by a passenger, and likewise if the motor vehicle or trailer was, at the time, stolen or illegally used.
As the Minister in the other place has said, fires that are started by lighted objects discarded from vehicles are a serious problem in this State, particularly during high fire danger periods. We would all join in strongly condemning people who irresponsibly discard lighted cigarettes from vehicles. In some cases it is difficult to ascertain who is responsible for discarding the cigarette because people deny responsibility. This offence will be dealt with in the way that many other traffic offences are dealt with whereby the owner of the vehicle is sent the infringement notice and they then have to provide proof or a declaration that somebody else had control of the vehicle. The Parliamentary Secretary and other members who live in regional New South Wales know that when we are following a vehicle from which a cigarette is discarded we sometimes feel like expressing our displeasure. 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1625
The bill allows for a penalty notice to be served on a person who sets fire to another person's land or property or permits fire to escape from land but where no major damage has been caused and the investigating officer deems that the circumstances of the case do not warrant a prosecution in court. The maximum amount for this penalty notice will be $2,200 and can be issued by NSW Police Force and NSW Rural Fire Service officers. The bill sets out offences if a person sets fire to another person's land or property or permits fire to escape from land when a total fire ban is in force, which is important. A court must take the total fire ban into account as an aggravating factor when deciding the penalty.
The same offence is created if the person knows that a total fire ban is in force. This aggravating factor is applied as an additional factor by the court under section 21A (2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The prosecution for this offence must prove a fire total ban was in force where the fire was set or escaped and that the accused knew that the total fire ban was in force. If the prosecution cannot prove that a total fire ban was in force and that the accused knew of the ban, the accused may still be found guilty of the offence under the existing section 100 (1) of the Rural Fires Act 1997, which carries a maximum penalty of 1,000 penalty units or imprisonment for five years, or both.
The bill expands the circumstances in which the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service or the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW can issue a fire permit by making a minor amendment. It provides for a permit to be issued if lighting of the fire does not contravene any act or law. In his second reading speech the Minister said this means that an appropriate authority can issue a fire permit for a purpose such as hazard reduction only if lighting the fire is already authorised to be carried out under another approval or does not require authorisation to be carried out under the Rural Fires Act 1997.
The Opposition is happy to support the legislation brought forward by the Government, particularly as we are coming to the start of another fire season. Over the past 12 months there has been significant growth of fire fuel in many parts of New South Wales, but certainly not north-west New South Wales. The fire fuel dries out and becomes crisp. I suspect that in January, February and March it will pose a serious threat in some parts of the State. It is always the Government's responsibility to keep its eye on this legislation to ensure that it is operating effectively and to make amendments where it can be more effective to ensure that those people who do the wrong thing are held to account. Recently the 10/50 legislation was passed and the Opposition took the Government at face value that the law would be applied appropriately. I am deeply disappointed by people who are abusing that law and we hope that the Government is taking action to control the abuse of the well-intentioned legislation. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.26 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I am pleased to speak in support of the Rural Fires Amendment Bill 2014. The bill provides that if a person commits the offence of discarding a lighted tobacco product or match from a motor vehicle under section 99A of the Act, the owner of the vehicle will be found guilty of the offence unless the driver of the vehicle gives notice of the name and address of the passenger who discarded the lighted tobacco product. The bill makes provision for a penalty for people who set fire to another person's land or property, or permit fire to escape from the land where a total fire ban is in force. The court must take the total fire ban into account as an aggravating factor in deciding the penalty to be imposed for the offence.
I am pleased to support the bill. It reminds me of my bill that was passed by the House that prohibited smoking in motor vehicles. I made a strong argument for that ban because of the number of bushfires that were started by people throwing cigarette butts out of cars. We have evidence that is how a number of fires in country New South Wales occurred. The Government, in its wisdom, agreed to make amendments so the law applied only when children were in the car, which then became a health matter so that children are protected from passive smoke.
My main argument was to stop people smoking in cars to prevent them from throwing out a lighted match or tobacco product that has the potential to start a bushfire. I am pleased that the Government has recognised that point with this legislation. Perhaps my bill should be amended to remove the requirement for children to be in the car. This bill would then become fire-proof, so to speak. If smoking in cars is banned people will not be throwing a lighted tobacco product or match out of the vehicle because they would be breaking the law by smoking in the first instance. The Christian Democratic Party supports the legislation and supports 100 per cent the campaign of the NSW Rural Fire Service for people in bushfire prone areas to have a bushfire survival plan.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [6.30 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I make a contribution to debate on the Rural Fires Amendment Bill 2014 and indicate at the outset that The Greens will support the bill. In doing 1626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
so, I note that The Greens were the only party to oppose the Government's reckless 10/50 clearing laws, which the same Minister was responsible for introducing. I only hope that this time the Minister is watching what he is signing and ushering through Cabinet. Hopefully, the rest of Cabinet have not been asleep while considering this bill, as they were with the 10/50 bill.
The Hon. Niall Blair: If you have nothing else to add, sit down.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: The Parliamentary Secretary is a little fresh at this. He is a bit excited, but that is alright. No doubt he is deeply embarrassed by what the Government did with 10/50. The Greens understand that the Government is backpedalling and trying to do something to unscramble the appalling omelette the Opposition helped them to make by ushering through 10/50—awful stuff. The Rural Fires Amendment Bill 2014 proposes a number of measures, all of which are of reasonably tight compass. Indeed, they all seem focused on doing something sensible to address the fire risk as we approach the fire season, unlike the utterly ill thought out 10/50 bill that was introduced earlier this year. The objects of the bill are to amend the Rural Fires Act 1997 and some related legislation to do a number of things. The first is:
(a) to provide that if a person commits the offence of discarding a lighted tobacco product or match from a motor vehicle under section 99A of the Act:
(i) the owner of the vehicle is taken to be guilty of the offence unless the owner gives notice of the name and address of the person in charge of the vehicle at the relevant time—
I understand that that is to be done by way of statutory declaration—
(ii) the driver of the vehicle is taken to be guilty of the offence unless the driver gives notice of the name and address of the passenger who discarded the lighted tobacco product or match …
There are two levels of deeming: The owner is pinged unless they say they were not the driver, and the driver is pinged unless the driver says it was some third party who was in the vehicle at the time. We are told, and I readily accept, that this deeming provision is required because otherwise it is next to impossible to prove whether there is more than one person in a vehicle and who threw the lighted tobacco product or match. In those circumstances who would know? The driver or the other occupants of the vehicle would know. Whilst there are some concerns about there being a reverse onus on a penalty provision, given the serious harm that can be caused by lighted tobacco products that are thrown from motor vehicles and given that the occupants are in the distinct and unique position of being able to identify who did it, The Greens believe this is a sensible provision. Paragraph (b) provides that a further object of the bill is:
(b) to make the offence under section 100 (1) of the Act of setting fire to another person's land or property, or permitting fire to escape from land, an offence for which a penalty notice may be served.
This is intended to allow for the less egregious breaches of that law to be dealt with through the penalty notice system, which is a quicker and more summary process. The Greens support that flexibility in the law. Paragraph (c) states the bill is:
(c) to provide that if a person sets fire to another person's land or property, or permits fire to escape from land, where a total fire ban is in force a court must take the total fire ban into account as an aggravating factor in deciding the penalty to be imposed for the offence.
That seems to be entirely sensible. Indeed, I would be surprised if, in reality, sentencing judges were not already doing that when considering a matter. Paragraph (d) states the bill is:
(d) to create an aggravated offence of setting fire to another person's land or property, or permitting fire to escape from land, knowing that a total fire ban is in force.
New section 100 proposes a very serious penalty for this offence. New section 100 (1B) provides:
(1B) A person who, without lawful authority:
(a) sets fire or causes fire to be set to the land or property of another person, the Crown or any public authority, or
(b) being the owner or occupier of any land, permits a fire to escape from that land under such circumstances as to cause or be likely to cause injury or damage to the person, land or property of another person or the land or property of the Crown or a public authority,
Knowing that a total fire ban … is in force in the part of the State in which the fire is set or permitted to escape, is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: 1,200 penalty units—
22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1627
which is in excess of $120,000—
or imprisonment for 7 years, or both.
They are very serious penalties for very serious offences, given the damage that can be caused by setting a fire while knowing that a total fire ban is in force. In the terrible Blue Mountains bushfires that occurred this time last year the Army recklessly set off explosives on a day when there was a total fire ban, which resulted in appalling damage to native vegetation and property and came very close to taking the lives of Blue Mountains residents—utter stupidity at best. If anyone does such a thing when a total fire ban is place they should know that they will face a particularly serious penalty.
Some people might question whether setting fire to something that may escape without their knowledge should have a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. Anyone who sets a fire on a day when there is a total fire ban ought to know that his or her stupid act can cause gross loss of property and, in the worse instances, loss of life. I think a penalty in the order of seven years imprisonment is appropriate. I ask the Minister to indicate in his speech in reply how new section 100 is meant to interact with section 203E of the Crimes Act. That section already provides for a very serious maximum penalty—a maximum penalty double that proposed in this bill through new section 100. Section 203E of the Crimes Act provides:
(1) A person:
(a) who intentionally causes a fire, and
(b) who is reckless as to the spread of the fire to vegetation on any public land or on land belonging to another
… is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 14 years.
I do not understand why the drafters of these amendments have set the culpability at a higher level for intentionally setting a fire—and have required not only the intention but also the knowledge that it was on a total fire ban day—yet have set the penalty at half what it is under section 203E of the Crimes Act. Under the Crimes Act the intentional causing of a fire and being reckless as to the spread of that fire carries a maximum penalty twice what is proposed in the these amendments to the Rural Fires Act.
It appears that whoever drafted these amendments did not look at the existing legal regime under the Crimes Act that applies to exactly the same conduct. As I said, under that Act the moral culpability is only recklessness and one does not have to prove that there was a total fire ban. But it does not seem that an effort has been made to ensure parity with the existing provisions in the Crimes Act. We examined this issue more closely in my office and it has the appearance of the Minister being told by a bunch of bureaucrats who do not know the existing regime that, by making these changes to the Rural Fires Act, he was doing something. Those bureaucrats apparently did not know that there is already on the statute books a penalty that is twice as severe as the penalty the Minister is seeking to impose in this legislation.
I find it troubling that the Rural Fire Service is seemingly giving advice to the Minister without understanding the full statutory background to what it is doing. It is very much like the Rural Fire Service is playing catch-up. I am troubled by what appears to be a failure to address the existing statutory arrangements. I am further troubled that the Minister does not appear to have staff who are adequately skilled to ask the most basic questions about how this new legislation marries with existing criminal penalties. It looks as though, as with 10/50, the blind are leading the blind in the Minister's office and the Rural Fire Service. Nevertheless the proposals are not offensive. They probably double up on existing arrangements and impose half the penalty that currently exists, but we do not oppose them. Yet, again, warning lights are flashing. It looks as though a very amateur Minister is receiving very amateur briefings.
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.39 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to debate on the Rural Fires Amendment Bill 2014, including the Hon. Steve Whan, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and Mr David Shoebridge. I start my reply to the debate by addressing the issue raised by Mr David Shoebridge in his contribution regarding the different offences. I am advised that the different offences available to the NSW Police Force and the courts ensure there is a distinction between acts of criminal arson, or the intent to cause harm, and bushfire protection.
The New South Wales Government takes the protection of the community very seriously. Many natural disasters rage out of control, like floods or storms; but bushfires that are started intentionally can be even more 1628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
damaging. Knowing that a fire has occurred because someone has ignored advice and lit a fire during a total fire ban just adds an extra layer of cruelty to the suffering that a natural disaster already brings. We tell our community to prepare for natural disasters. Good preparations can help, and we have seen many advertising campaigns about making sure that everyone has bushfire and evacuation plans in place for their family. When an emergency strikes families cope better and make better decisions thanks to such preparation.
This bill makes those who irresponsibly discard lit objects from a vehicle answerable to the courts. On the one hand, it ensures that those who wish to conduct hazard reduction safely and responsibly can do so with minimal red tape. On the other hand, this bill also ensures that those who foolishly start fires on days with total fire bans are punished for doing so. We will not stand by and let perpetrators go unpunished when they destroy what others have worked for many years to build. I thank our emergency services agencies for all the wonderful work they do when the safety of the community is on the line. I wish them all the best during the upcoming bushfire season. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.
Third Reading
Motion by the Hon. Niall Blair, on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [6.42 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
BLUE MOUNTAINS BUSHFIRES
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [6.42 p.m.]: Last Wednesday parts of the Blue Mountains were blanketed in centimetres of snow, yet at this time last year the Blue Mountains were covered in smoke from raging bushfires. I wish to speak about the vast resilience, strength and camaraderie of the Blue Mountains community following last year's devastating bushfires. The Blue Mountains is a unique World Heritage area and also one of the most bushfire-prone areas in the world. The population of 80,000 live in or in the vicinity of 27 towns and villages across the mountains. It covers 143,000 hectares of land, and approximately 70 per cent of the area is incorporated into the World Heritage-listed Blue Mountains National Park.
On 16 October 2013 the State Mine fire was started near Lithgow by an Australian Defence Force training exercise. As a consequence, thousands of residents and businesses evacuated as the fire blazed and headed towards the communities of Bell, Mount Wilson and Bilpin. Five homes and a business were destroyed. The next day another fire broke out at Mount Victoria. It destroyed 13 homes. That day another fire, known as the Linksview fire, ignited near powerlines at Springwood. This fire quickly spread to the communities of Winmalee and Yellow Rock, fanned by fierce, dry winds. On this day 486 homes were destroyed or seriously damaged.
Local emergency services workers and volunteers were severely stretched and did a magnificent job to contain these fires that were burning broadly over three fronts in the mountains. They battled for 10 days straight to save homes, property, pets and lives. It was a disaster that sent the community into a 10-day battle against fires, fear, anxiety, despair and total physical exhaustion. Around 200 Blue Mountains families lost absolutely everything. Everyone in that community knew someone who was impacted directly. It was not until mid-November that the fires were officially declared extinguished. 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1629
Between 13 October and 26 October 2013 more than 600 fires across New South Wales burnt out over 160,000 hectares. The commitment to the emergency was considerable, with up to 2,000 firefighters being deployed per day—from the NSW Rural Fire Service [RFS], Fire and Rescue NSW, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and forestry. Some 1,400 emergency services workers and volunteers from interstate agencies also provided assistance. I believe it was as a direct result of this effort that no human life was lost during this time. Whilst there was no loss of human life, many families lost their much-loved pets and a substantial loss of wildlife occurred. I acknowledge that today. People generously came forward to volunteer and to offer food, clothing and general household items. The response was overwhelming. Even if they could not fight a fire, they came to make a weary firey a cuppa or to hand out a cool drink.
The Salvation Army estimates that more than 10,000 meals were served during the bushfire response, with 3,296 volunteer hours spent staffing 24 operational sites. This was an outstanding demonstration of community. While we celebrate the recovery and resilience of spirit of all those involved, we as legislators and community leaders need to recognise and learn from the issues that added to residents' and communities' distresses. It was particularly frustrating that sites were not cleared promptly and residents were delayed in returning to their homes because of the danger from falling trees and asbestos. In New South Wales we could have responded so much faster by adopting the Victorian-Tasmanian model of clean-up to expedite the process for residents.
Former NSW Rural Fire Service Commissioner Phil Koperberg was appointed as the recovery coordinator the day after the worst of the fires struck, on 18 October 2013. In a recent interview he identified some of the main issues he had to deal with once on the job: insurance, the clearing of blocks, the danger of asbestos, other health risks and logistical issues. He argued for the need to have one not several registration databases for bushfire survivors. Mr Koperberg has done a great job and his report is due to be released soon. The community and local business have well and truly started to recover. At this stage it appears that one-third of the victims have rebuilt, one-third are building or planning to build, and the other third may never attempt it. In Mount Victoria, sadly, most have chosen not to return or cannot afford to return.
The Blue Mountains City Council estimates that more than $100 million in revenue was lost due to the decline in tourism to the region in the wake of the fires. During times of disaster communities need strong leadership, and I congratulate Blue Mountains Mayor Mark Greenhill on his leadership over this difficult period and also on establishing the Mayoral Relief Fund. A total of $3.37 million has been received in individual donations and in contributions from the Red Cross, Anglicare and the St Vincent de Paul Society. The fund has successfully disbursed grant payments to bushfire-affected residents to the value of $3.07 million. The remaining $300,000 is allocated to contingency for special cases and for those residents who are yet to submit applications.
I also acknowledge the tireless efforts of Trish Doyle and Susan Templeman. They have also played a crucial role in the community's recovery. At the same time, Susan and her husband, Ron Fuller, have been rebuilding their lives after losing their home in the fires last year. Despite the very worst of nature being on display last year, we have witnessed the very best of humanity, as thousands of Australians gave generous support and financial assistance to Blue Mountains communities.
SPECIAL RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.47 p.m.]: I speak tonight about the importance of scripture classes, or special religious education [SRE], in our State schools. Today in New South Wales there are almost 2,200 public schools, with 72 per cent being primary schools and 28 per cent being high schools. Special religious education is required by law to operate in all New South Wales schools. It is a legal requirement; it is not left up to the principal or to the teachers to decide whether they want to have scripture. Obviously, there must be volunteer scripture teachers available to take the classes. I use the word "scripture" because that was the original term used to describe these classes. The main role of the scripture teachers was to teach the scripture— scripture meaning The Bible, particularly the New Testament—to the children.
Back in the 1800s the Government was busy managing the business of running a penal colony and it was actually the churches that took up the role of educating children. Reverend Richard Johnson, the Chaplain of the First Fleet, started the first school in Australia in what today is Bligh Street, Sydney. As members know, the colony began with strong Church of England roots because Reverend Richard Johnson was an Anglican clergyman. Later, Bishop Broughton also played a major role. As time went on the colony grew to include 1630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics and members of other denominations that also began to run their own schools. By the 1840s there were no government-run schools in New South Wales and the churches began to struggle to run their many schools because of the heavy financial burden.
In 1880 the Education Act was passed. It allowed the Government, by agreement with the churches, to take over church schools. It also established general religious education to be taught by schoolteachers and special religious education to be taught by the clergy and volunteers authorised by the clergy. SRE has been called "scripture class" because of its emphasis on teaching the Holy Bible, especially the New Testament. In the original legislation, up to one hour a day was set aside to allow Christian teachers to present their denomination's teaching based on The Bible. As I said, volunteers had to be approved by their local minister. Australia was still a developing pioneering society. By 1910 there were problems with staffing SRE classes and so the staffing needed to be reviewed.
Following the Second World War, a delegation of leaders of the Christian churches sought the retention of scripture and the opportunity for worship in public schools. That was the beginning of the formation of the NSW Council for Christian Education in Schools, which in 1972 expanded to include the Catholic and Orthodox churches to become the Inter-Church Commission on Religious Education in Schools. That organisation has been very effective in promoting, supervising and organising religious education, SRE and scripture classes in schools. In 1975 an extensive inquiry into SRE began and in 1980 the final report, which is known as the Rawlinson report, was presented. It proposed a number of recommendations for SRE and many were implemented. Throughout the 1990s and into the new millennium SRE continued, and updated legislation confirmed the requirement for SRE in State schools for one hour a week—which became one period a week. Those classes were to be offered to all children.
In 2010 some parents requested that there be different classes in place of scripture, which led to a pilot program of ethics classes in New South Wales. The Education Act was amended to allow Special Education and Ethics [SEE] to be offered to those who had opted out of scripture classes. The system provides that all students attend scripture unless their parents exercise their right to request that their child not attend scripture for any reason, which could be because they are atheist or because the religion to which they belong is so small that a teacher cannot be provided. As members know, I moved a private member's bill to repeal ethics classes. That led to an inquiry, which led to recommendations that SEE continue. I am pleased that scripture is such a prominent part of our society. We need to maintain it and support it in every way we can.
EDUCATION REFORMS
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL [6.52 p.m.]: Since the 2011 election fantastic initiatives and important education reforms have been implemented in New South Wales. Reforms in the New South Wales education sector were long overdue. Through the Local Schools, Local Decisions action plan this Government is giving teachers and principals the authority and freedom to manage their schools and adapt their budgets based on local needs. In short, we are empowering those with the greatest knowledge about their local school to make decisions about how they use the money we spend on public education. The Government's policy is widely praised and supported in regional communities. Schools in New South Wales are already reaping the benefits of the reforms, with the phased implementation of the resource allocation model allowing schools to manage at least 70 per cent of the total public school education budget, compared with 10 per cent in 2011.
I believe this Government has struck the right balance between local authority and preserving the important benefits of collaboration and shared information that comes from being connected as one of the world's largest school systems. This Government has also not been afraid to make the tough decisions. The feedback we received in opposition and during our campaign made it abundantly clear that changes were required to improve the quality of teaching and learning in New South Wales schools. I am sure most of us can remember that one teacher in our school lives who inspired us to work even harder and strive for our best results.
Mr David Shoebridge: Miss Wilson.
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: I acknowledge that interjection. As a Government, we believe this should be the benchmark for every classroom. In order to achieve this end we introduced the Great Teaching, Inspired Learning reform to lift the quality of entrants in teacher education, strengthen the standard of teacher training and provide better support for teachers in their early years. Members are aware of another important aspect of these reforms—namely, the teach. Rural Scholarships Program which seeks out talented students who 22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1631
have a commitment to teach at rural and remote schools. Each scholarship provides $6,000 for every year of full-time study plus an additional $5,000 after graduation. The new teacher is then guaranteed permanent full-time employment in a rural or remote location.
The Minister for Education, Adrian Piccoli, has made it his priority to boost results in rural and remote schools. To that end, we have provided $80 million over four years to improve student learning by strengthening early childhood education; giving students access to a broad range of curriculum opportunities, including for gifted and talented students; providing new incentives to attract and retain quality teachers and school leaders; and supporting the needs of school communities by establishing 15 specialist centres to offer coordinated interagency health and wellbeing services.
Since 2011 this Government has committed almost $3.2 billion to school infrastructure and maintenance, and 18 new or relocated public schools and 44 major upgrade projects have been announced. We are also improving our schools by investing $400 million this financial year to upgrade and improve public schools. A great example of this investment is the G S Kidd Memorial School in my hometown of Gunnedah. In September this year the school's new $6.5 million state-of-the-art learning facilities were opened. It is one of 19 Schools for Specific Purposes that the Government has upgraded using $94 million of residual Building the Education Revolution funding.
G S Kidd Memorial School now has four modern classrooms with purpose-built facilities, including a special programs room, hydrotherapy pool and new library. A new hall, a covered outdoor learning area, new administrative facilities and undercover drop-off areas were also part of the upgrade. It is heartening to have an education Minister who understands the important role that these sorts of schools play in delivering quality teaching and learning programs for students with special needs in regional communities. I have not visited the new G S Kidd Memorial School campus in an official capacity but I take my daughter to its pool for swimming lessons. The wider community gets a lot of use out of the hydrotherapy pool and it is great that this state-of-the-art facility is benefiting not only students with special needs but also all members of the community.
Encouraging work is also being done in the area of Aboriginal education. Connected Communities is a new approach that works in partnership with Aboriginal leaders in the local community to address the education and social aspirations of Aboriginal children and young people. The strategy positions schools as community hubs that will deliver a range of services from birth through school and on to further training and employment. It is encouraging to see schools such as Boggabilla Central School, Moree East Public School, Moree Secondary College and Toomelah Public School participate in the program. In March this year the Minister also announced a $100,000 investment in breakfast programs at the 15 Connected Community schools across the State in order to ensure students have a good start to the day. I thank the Minister for Education for his tireless work in his first term as Minister. He is taking a modern approach to a modern schools system.
MOTOR ACCIDENTS SCHEME
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [6.57 p.m.]: The Motor Accident Injuries Amendment Bill 2013 was passed by the lower House on 22 May 2013. It was introduced in the upper House on 23 May but the Government chose not to proceed with the bill and it was never debated or voted upon. The Government then withdrew it from the Notice Paper. Nevertheless, if the Government had allowed the bill to proceed Labor would have voted against it, as would the majority of other upper House parties.
One of the many reasons is that the bill proposed to introduce a no-fault system, which would have meant that thousands more people would be able to make claims regardless of whether or not they had caused the accident. Consequently, either the benefits available to everyone who was injured, including those who were not at fault, would have had to be dramatically reduced, or the cost of green slips would have skyrocketed to cover the fact that so many extra people could now make a claim. It had to be one or the other. If thousands more people could claim, either benefits had to be savagely cut or the costs of green slips would have had to be dramatically increased.
The real reason that the cost of green slips keeps going up under the Government's existing system is the super profits being made by private insurance companies who issue green slips. There are seven insurers in the Motor Accidents Scheme owned by five insurance groups. The Motor Accidents Authority estimates between 2000 and 2013 that the realised profit of the private insurers that issue green slips was an extraordinary $3,600 million. Each and every year, insurance companies project profit margins of around 8 per cent, but in 1632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
reality they end up making profits as high as 19 per cent. This difference has led to insurers receiving $2,123 million in super profit above the prospective profit they originally estimated when recommending the cost of their premiums to the Motor Accident Authority.
What the insurance companies have been able to do year after year is convince the Motor Accident Authority to agree to large prudential margins that have been very generous to the insurers, and usually based on fears that the scheme may not work out as predicted. Prudential margins are the amount of capital that insurers must hold to ensure that they have enough money to pay claims, regardless of future uncertainties. But the scheme always has worked as predicted and the insurance companies have just pocketed the difference. This is where the Labor Opposition believes we should and will be focusing our efforts by better regulating and putting pressure on insurance companies to make sure that green slips become more affordable for everyone.
That is why in its review of the exercise of the functions of the Motor Accidents Authority, which was tabled in July this year, the Standing Committee on Law and Justice of this House recommended that the Minister for Finance and Services ensure there is a prompt review of the high level of insurer profits and that all relevant stakeholders are consulted as part of that review. The committee also recommended:
That the Motor Accidents Authority provide a report annually to the committee by 30 April that includes a comprehensive review of scheme performance in the most recent accident year, including an analysis of the drivers of high levels of insurer profits.
In addition, the committee recommended a number of other initiatives to both reduce costs to those required to purchase green slips and improve the quality service provided to claimants. We are still waiting for the Government's response to the report. In the meantime the cost of green slips keeps increasing. This is not a voluntary scheme. Every owner who is seeking to register a motor vehicle in New South Wales is required by law to pay for a green slip. We owe it to them to keep the price of green slips down by making sure that the scheme is working in their interests, and not simply being used as a cash cow.
CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AND OPERATION PROTEA
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [7.02 p.m.]: Last week the Police Integrity Commission [PIC] held public hearings for Operation Protea, which is an inquiry considering the role of a police officer on the Catholic Church's Professional Standards Resource Group [PSRG]. The PSRG, as it is known, is an internal church body that is responsible for advising the church's Professional Standards Office on how to respond to complaints of child sexual abuse by clergy. Operation Protea is a long overdue opportunity to take an independent look at the arrangements that led to a New South Wales police officer, a sworn officer, being involved on an internal and highly controversial Catholic Church body and the circumstances in which that police officer was giving advice to that internal church body.
The existence of the arrangements between the police and the church that resulted in that police officer sitting on the internal church body was revealed by my office under a Government Information (Public Access) Act [GIPA] application which delivered a memorandum of understanding between the church and the police. It is now apparent that indeed that memorandum of understanding initially was drafted by the police. These documents show how Elizabeth Cullen, a senior police officer, was a full member of the Professional Standards Resource Group from 1998 to 2005 and that for much of that period the church believed that having her on that body satisfied its obligations under section 316 of the Crimes Act to report the serial and appalling indictable crimes that had been committed by members of the clergy, of which the church had full knowledge.
Those materials were of course provided by my office to both the Federal Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse and to the Special Commission of Inquiry into Matters Relating to the Police Investigation of Certain Child Sexual Abuse Allegations in the Catholic Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle, which is also known as the Cunneen inquiry. At the core of the concerns in the memorandum of understanding and in the materials I provided to the Cunneen inquiry was the practice of blind reporting whereby the church would provide a blind report of the existence of known instances of appalling criminal sexual acts against children but not provide the police with the names of the victims or with important details about the crimes. That was called blind reporting and was actually codified and allowed for under the memorandum of understanding between the police and the church.
It is absolutely remarkable that the Cunneen inquiry, which was considering Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox's concerns about improper relationships between the police and the church, refused to look at the matter. Indeed, counsel assisting the commission, when indicating why the Cunneen inquiry said it would not look into it, stated on 24 June:
It is the understanding of the staff who assist you that the Professional Standards Resource Group, which was the subject of that particular Lateline report—
22 October 2014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1633
the report that included the materials my office had provided—
was and is an advisory body and not involved in the exchange of information between the Catholic Church and the police. There's presently no evidence that any Professional Standards Resource Group meeting or body dealt with any matter involving Fletcher or McAlinden.
Fletcher and McAlinden are the names of the two notorious paedophile priests who are being investigated as part of the Cunneen inquiry. McAlinden, in particular, spent decades abusing his position, to the knowledge of the church, and abusing countless children. He was moved from diocese to diocese by the church, including to vulnerable remote Aboriginal communities and overseas communities—appalling behaviour. But what do we learn when we see the material that was considered by the PIC? The PIC's own investigative unit found quite a different answer. Rather than saying that McAlinden was not the subject of the Professional Standards Resource Group, this is what counsel assisting the PIC stated:
One example of such a blind report— a report to the Professional Standards Resource Group—
arose in relation to a Father Denis McAlinden. The blind report form contained a statement that the victims had accused Father McAlinden of sexual assault of children and that they believed there might be other victims apart from the identified victims. They have not indicated at this stage any wish to take the matter to police. It is not clear whether or not this was a case which was brought to Cullen's attention at the time through her involvement with the [Professional Standards Resource Group] PSRG, but one matter for the Commission to consider is whether or not such a statement could properly form the basis for a proper failure by police to seek further information from Mr Davoren [of the church] of the [Professional Standards Office] PSO who was identified in the blind report form as the notifying person, and whether any steps further to investigate this report were in fact taken.
The Cunneen inquiry rejected the key evidence about the culpable arrangements between the police and the church. In rejecting that, it rejected Detective Chief Inspector Fox's conclusions. The report is fundamentally flawed.
LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA SEVENTIETH ANNIVERSARY
The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES [7.07 p.m.]: Thursday 16 October 2014 marked 70 years since the formation of the Liberal Party of Australia. The Liberal Party was born in the wake of the failed 1944 referendum by the failing Federal Labor Government—a referendum result that demonstrated, according to Sir Robert Menzies, that the Australian people were "not prepared to accept socialism as a pathway to human happiness". Menzies sought to establish a new and comprehensive political movement to unite non-Labor forces to stand for liberal policies and to oppose the bureaucratic administration of socialism and restrictions upon personal freedom. In early September 1944 Menzies wrote a letter to the leaders of various non-Labor organisations across Australia, inviting them to a conference in Canberra and to participate in the full and frank discussion of how non-Labor forces might unite to match Labor's organisation with an Australian organisation of their own. In his letter, Menzies contended, "A successful outcome to such discussions might quickly and completely alter the current of Australian politics"—and it did.
In October 1944, 80 delegates met in a small hall near Parliament House in Canberra. These 80 men and women represented 18 individual political organisations, none of whom had interstate or Federal affiliations but all of whom were united in their rejection of the Australian Labor Party and its socialist policies. In his opening speech to the Canberra conference, Menzies expressed a great hope for the outcome of the conference—that the delegates express their common commitment to bring about a true revival of liberal thought and would ultimately declare their common belief that one Australia-wide organisation should be set up. Non-Labor forces united at the Canberra conference in October 1944, inspired by their common beliefs and their shared vision for the future of Australia. Menzies hoped that such an organisation would "work for social justice and security, for national power and national progress, and for the full development of the individual citizen, though not through the dull and deadening process of Socialism."
The name "Liberal Party of Australia" was agreed upon after much discussion because the associations of "liberal" with progressive nineteenth century free enterprise and social equality were important to the delegates. When they spoke of "private enterprise" or "free enterprise" they were emphasising a fundamental liberal belief: that the great dynamic of human progress is to reward individual initiative. In the hope and belief that the new organisation would have in it, as Menzies described, "the foundation upon which a new generation can really hope to build a new Australia", the Canberra conference resolved to hold a further meeting two months later. 1634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 October 2014
They met again in Albury, on the border of New South Wales and Victoria, to continue to lay the organisational and constitutional foundations for the Liberal Party of Australia. The fundamental foundations of the Liberal Party's structure can be traced back to the Albury conference in December 1944. The Albury conference, attended by delegates from all States, formally agreed on the structure of the party, adopted a provisional Federal Constitution, and appointed an interim Federal Executive. The Liberal Party fought its first election in 1946 with some success, and in 1947 won State government in Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria. In 1949 the Liberals, in coalition with the Country Party, were first elected to national government. Sir Robert Menzies went on to lead Australia and the Liberal Party for 17 years, before he retired from politics in 1966.
This year, the New South Wales Liberal Party headed back to Albury, where the initial foundations were laid, to celebrate its origins and to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the Liberal Party of Australia. Eighty delegates from across the Liberal Party's New South Wales division, from Tweed-Moree in the north, to Queanbeyan-Wagga Wagga in the south, from Sydney, Dubbo and Bathurst, all gathered in Albury for part of the Liberal Party Country Conference and to take the opportunity to discuss issues affecting rural and regional New South Wales. The foundation that Menzies laid 70 years ago is still strong. The Liberal Party has been Australia's most successful post-war party and continues to deliver for the forgotten people of Australia, the mainstream individuals whose goals, needs and aspirations are ignored by successive Labor governments and their big-government agendas. The Liberal Party's fundamental beliefs are summed up no better than by our founder, Sir Robert Menzies, when he said:
To us, Australia is not eighteen million people to be thought about and ordered about as a mere mass. To us, Australia is eighteen million individuals, the progress of each of whom is a priceless asset to Australia, and the honest contribution of each of whom is the essential foundation of all good community life.
As Menzies espoused at the inaugural Federal Council of the Liberal Party of Australia in August 1945, the Liberal Party believes in fuller and better lives for every citizen. We have been advocating for this for 70 years, and we will continue to do so, for the benefit of our nation and for the benefit of our citizens.
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 7.12 p.m. until Thursday 23 October 2014 at 9.30 a.m.
______