4438
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Tuesday 21 November 2006 ______
Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.
Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.
Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them for their custodianship of country.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Mr SPEAKER: I welcome to the public gallery His Excellency Mr Kabir, the High Commissioner of Bangladesh, and Mrs Kabir, and Mr Anthony Khouri, the Consul-General of Bangladesh, who are guests of the honourable m embers for Macquarie Fields.
FIRE BANS
Ministerial Statement
Mr MORRIS IEMMA (Lakemba—Premier, Minister for State Development, and Minister for Citizenship) [2.17 p.m.]: Total fire bans are again in place across most of the State today as firefighters battle a number of bushfires in the Blue Mountains, the Hunter Valley, Forbes, Oberon and the South Coast. Hot, dry and windy conditions have resulted in very high to extreme fire danger in many districts. Emergency declarations have been made for a number of the fires now burning. About 900 volunteer firefighters from the Rural Fire Service have been deployed, along with their colleagues from New South Wales Fire Brigades, Forests NSW and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I acknowledge the employers of all of our volunteers for their ongoing support in allowing them to leave their workplaces to protect the community.
The most serious of the fires are those currently burning in the Blue Mountains, where firefighters have been battling two bushfires in the Grose Valley for the past nine days. These two fires have now joined and cover almost 7,000 hectares. The fire escaped its containment lines on the eastern flank last night, confirming firefighters' concerns that it will be more difficult to control in extreme weather conditions this week. About 400 firefighters are working on the mountains blaze today, with aerial support from about 15 water-bombing aircraft, including three air cranes. Firefighters have also been brought in from other districts to assist local brigades with five fires in the Wollemi and Goulburn River national parks in the Hunter Valley.
A fire north of Lake Cowal, 40 kilometres south of Forbes, has burnt 2,200 hectares of private property. In addition, more than 100 Rural Fire Service firefighters and Forests NSW crews are working on a fire that has burnt out more than 200 hectares of private forest plantation and pasture land at Essington, north of Oberon. A fire ignited in Morton National Park on the State's South Coast on Sunday has also burnt out 65 hectares. We know we are facing a protracted and severe bushfire season. Our emergency service volunteers have a long summer ahead of them. I extend the thanks of the Government to them for their willingness to undertake difficult and dangerous work to help protect the community.
Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse—Leader of the Opposition) [2.23 p.m.]: I join with the Premier in saying that all members of the Parliament acknowledge that this is going to be a very difficult summer so far as bushfires are concerned. We need to ensure not only that our bush fire fighters have the full support of all government resources, but also that they have the total backing of the Parliament and the community. I would say to everyone else: During this summer, please be careful. It is that careless cigarette butt thrown away that will start one of these bushfires that could lead to loss of life or property. Please be careful. We fully endorse the words of the Premier in backing our firefighters.
PETITIONS
Rural and Regional Police Resources
Petition calling upon the Iemma Government to allocate more police resources to rural and regional communities throughout New South Wales, received from Mr Steve Cansdell. 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4439
Bus Services 326 and 327
Petition asking that the Government urgently reinstate the former timetables of bus services 326 and 327, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Police Resources
Petition requesting increased police resources for New South Wales, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
Forster-Tuncurry Policing
Petition requesting a permanent 24-hour police station at Forster-Tuncurry, received from Mr John Turner.
Rouse Hill High School Construction
Petition requesting funding for the immediate construction of the Rouse Hill High School, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
Breast Screening Funding
Petitions requesting funding to ensure access to breast screening services for women aged 40 to 79 years and to reverse falling participation rates, received from Mr Steve Cansdell and Mrs Judy Hopwood.
Campbell Hospital, Coraki
Petition opposing the closure of inpatient beds and the reduction in emergency department hours of Campbell Hospital, Coraki, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.
Sunflower House, Wagga Wagga
Petition requesting funding to facilitate the operation of Sunflower House, Wagga Wagga, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.
Wollondilly Shire Health Facilities
Petition requesting increased health facilities within Wollondilly shire, received from Ms Peta Seaton.
Community-based Preschools
Petition requesting increased funding to community-based preschools to maintain parity with preschools administered by the Department of Education and Training, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.
Sow Stall Ban
Petition requesting the total ban of sow stalls, received from Ms Clover Moore.
Rural Lands Protection Boards Funding
Petition requesting funding for the rural lands protection boards, received from Mr Adrian Piccoli.
Lake Mulwala Bridge
Petition requesting funding for a new bridge over Lake Mulwala, received from Mr Greg Aplin.
Grafton Bridge
Petition requesting the construction of a new bridge over the Clarence River at Grafton, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.
Inner City Bicycle Lanes
Petition requesting dedicated bicycle facilities for the entire length of William Street, and on Craigend Street and Kings Cross Road, received from Ms Clover Moore. 4440 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
Alcohol Wet Centres
Petition requesting the establishment of wet centres in the inner city to provide a safe place for chronic drinkers, received from Ms Clover Moore.
CSR Quarry, Hornsby
Petition requesting a public inquiry into Hornsby Shire Council's acquisition of CSR Quarry in Hornsby, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.
Public Housing
Petition requesting that the Government not sell any inner city public housing stock and that it increase funding for public housing maintenance, received from Ms Clover Moore.
COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION
Reports
Mr Paul Lynch, as Chairman, tabled the following reports dated November 2006:
Report No. 12/53, entitled "Phase Two of an Inquiry into Section 10 (5) of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, Together With Transcript of Proceedings and Minutes." Report No. 15/53, entitled "Report on the Inquiry into Scrutiny of New South Wales Police Counter-Terrorism and Other Powers." Report No. 16/53, entitled "Ten Year Review of the Police Oversight System in New South Wales."
Ordered to be printed.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE VALUER-GENERAL
Report
Mr Richard Torbay, on behalf of the Chairman, tabled the report No. 53/05, entitled "Report on the Fourth General Meeting with the Valuer-General, Together with Transcript of Proceedings and Minutes", dated November 2006.
Ordered to be printed.
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Report
Mr Allan Shearan, as Chairman, tabled the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 17 of 2006", dated 21 November 2006, together with minutes extracts regarding "Legislation Review Digest No. 15 of 2006" and "Legislation Review Digest No. 16 of 2006."
Report ordered to be printed.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
MINISTERIAL CONDUCT COMPLAINT
Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question is directed to the Premier. Will he confirm that a complaint was lodged with the Police Integrity Commission during meetings on 23 and 30 January this year about the misuse of ministerial power by the Attorney General in a former portfolio and whether assessment of the complaint was ongoing, or, if it was dismissed, will he tell us when? 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4441
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: There you have it!
[Interruption]
Take a deep breath and relax. Three weeks ago the problem was that nobody knew the Leader of the Opposition. Today people know him only too well.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Willoughby will cease calling out.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Opposition is the one who has questions to answer. In this House last week he said a Minister was under investigation. That was then downgraded to "complaint". Then that was downgraded to "assessment". The Leader of the Opposition has shown in the past week that he has no integrity, no character and no courage. What he should have done just then was get up and apologise.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will cease calling out.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Opposition should have got up, withdrawn his accusations and apologised. He is the only person in this State who is living in denial. He should show some character and some integrity and get up and apologise.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will cease calling out.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The question was very clear. In fact, it is the second time in two weeks it has been asked. I do not think the Premier is in any doubt as to what the question is. I would ask you, in your capacity as the upholder of the standing orders in this House, to direct the Premier to answer the question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee is continuing to display his ignorance of the standing orders. I order him to resume his seat.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Relevance is a very fundamental standing order. You cannot accuse me of being ignorant.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee has been told to resume his seat. The Premier has the call.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: This goes to the Leader of the Opposition's little campaign, the last shred of desperation that he is clinging onto about the questions. Not only have I answered the questions many times in the past, but when the Leader of the Opposition stuck his head up yesterday, after hiding for four days, the media showed him this statement and challenged him at his press conference about these so-called questions. As I said in answer to the first question last week, "No, not to my knowledge"; to the second question, "No"; to the third question, "No"; to the fourth question, "No". Has the Leader of the Opposition any more questions to ask? These are the questions he has not answered. This man has spent the past four days hiding. On the few occasions he has popped his head up, do you know what he has said?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Southern Highlands will cease calling out.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Do you know what he has told the media on the few occasions he has dared to stick his head up? On the few occasions in the past four days he has had the guts to front the media he has said, "No comment", "I will not answer that", or " I will not repeat that outside of the Parliament", because the coward has been waiting for the cowards' castle of parliamentary privilege to continue his smears. His problem is that nobody else believes him. As I said, three weeks ago the problem was nobody knew him.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Southern Highlands will cease calling out.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Today people know him only too well. Because he has not been able to back up anything that he has had to say, today he has the chance to stand up and show some courage, character and integrity. He should withdraw the accusations and apologise. But what does he do? He goes back to the questions. The questions should be directed to the Leader of the Opposition. These are some of the questions for him to answer: What meetings has he had with the convicted child sex offender W26? 4442 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: The Premier has lost the plot.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition obviously has no regard for the standing orders. He will resume his seat. The Premier has the call.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of the Opposition has been reading the Daily Telegraph because on 18 November the editorial said: "Has Peter Debnam completely lost the plot?" There would be 6.9 million people in New South Wales who would say, "Absolutely correct, yes, he has". Let us go back to some questions. How many meetings has the Leader of the Opposition had with the convicted child sex offender W26? When did those meetings take place? Where did those meetings take place? What was discussed at those meetings?
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Orders 138 and 139. Standing Order 138 relates to relevance. Standing Order 139, as you know, does not allow members to debate the answer. Refusing to answer the question put by the Leader of the Opposition and instead posing questions to the Leader of the Opposition is clearly in breach of Standing Order 139.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the Premier will be mindful of the standing orders.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: On behalf of my colleagues I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on his promotion. The last time he managed anything to do with finances was for the Liberal Party— and it went into liquidation! The Leader of the Opposition keeps peddling this line of questioning. In relation to Ministers: to the best of my knowledge, no; in relation to those three other questions, the answers are no, no and no. The Leader of the Opposition was confronted with that again yesterday at his press conference. We have a few more questions here for the Leader of the Opposition. What is the role of Senator Bill Heffernan in bringing these allegations to his attention? What discussions has the Leader of the Opposition had with Senator Heffernan in relation to W26? The Leader of the Opposition has a chance to show some integrity.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Clarence will come to order.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat and cease calling out.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Remember the press conference the Leader of The Nationals held on Thursday?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of The Nationals to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Adam Walters asked the Leader of The Nationals about his knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition's attack on the Attorney General. The Leader of The Nationals said, "Not to my knowledge, I haven't spoken to him. Maybe you should ask the Leader of the Opposition". Interestingly enough, the week before, in his local paper the Macleay Argus, the Leader of The Nationals was quoted as saying that there was another Minister, that there was more to come. Yet last Thursday, in front of the television cameras, he said, "Don't ask me". Good old-fashioned Nationals support from the Leader of The Nationals! It is quite clear the Leader of The Nationals knew something. There is no doubt about that. He was happy to smear Ministers in his local newspaper a week before the Parliament resumed last week, dropping the hint that there is more to come, there is another Minister. Yet when asked a question on Thursday, when it blew up in his face, the Leader of The Nationals said in front of the press cameras, "Don't ask me, I don't know anything, I haven't spoken to the Leader of the Opposition, Perhaps you should direct your questions to him".
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Clarence to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I tell the Leader of the Opposition there is no rabbit to pull out of his grotty hat. What he has got to do in this House is withdraw his allegations and apologise to the Attorney General. I know there are many decent people sitting on the Opposition benches and I feel very sorry for them. 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4443
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order. The Premier will cease inciting his back bench.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I withdraw that comment. I thought it was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's hand that went up. I feel very sorry that members opposite have to sit there in hateful unity and take this from this man. They want him to get up and withdraw. I feel sorry that they have to sit there and cop this from a man who simply will not accept that he is wrong. He will not accept the simple, inescapable truth that his attempt to smear the Attorney and his attempt to traduce the Attorney General's reputation have blown up in his face. He comes into this House with no credibility. His integrity is shot to pieces. We have known for some time that he would get up and say and do anything to get a headline. We found out last week that he would take that even further.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 138. The Premier is desperately trying not to answer the question. It is a simple enough question about the actions of the Police Integrity Commission. The Parliament wants to hear what has happened about that complaint.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question and the House will listen to the answer. The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat. The Premier has the call.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: For his benefit, we can add another "no" to the previous "noes". Are there any more questions about it? No. If the Leader of the Opposition has a problem with the PIC and its process, he should go to the PIC. If there is some evidence of wrongdoing or if he has some information of wrongdoing, he should go to the PIC. If he is not satisfied with the PIC, he should go to the ICAC. Has he gone to the ICAC? Has he gone to the Police Integrity Commission? Does he understand the difference between smear and evidence? No. Does he understand the difference between accusation and allegation? No. Does he understand the difference between innuendo and allegation? No. Does he understand the difference between complaint and allegation? No. Does he understand the difference between complaint and evidence? No. Does he understand the difference between complaint and guilt? No. Why? Because he does not have the strength of character to determine the difference.
We have seen it all in the last week, and that is the fact. Today the Leader of the Opposition continues on. He could have shown that he had the strength and the character to hold office. That is what he could have done, but the inescapable truth is that he has neither. It is this simple: getting rid of him would be a huge political benefit for us, but we do not want that to happen. In the parliamentary sense, it should happen; they should get rid of him, but they will not show the character to do that. They are the questions that he has asked; there are the answers. The Leader of the Opposition should answer questions such as when will he get up, and withdraw and apologise to the Attorney. God help New South Wales if he ever did become Premier. How would he react in a time of crisis? The last thing the State needs is a Premier who would run off with that sort of reckless behaviour in a time of crisis because that would be really dangerous, but that is what he has shown us in the last week.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: He is just too dangerous, too irresponsible but, above all, he is someone lacking in any character or strength to get up and say he was wrong, to say that he smeared the Attorney. He does not have the character or the integrity to get up and say he was wrong. He should just do what they all want him to do. They have all been saying it privately in the corridors and to everybody else who will listen, "We don't understand why he did that. Of course he should withdraw." I feel very sorry for those decent members opposite who have to put up with him and the nonsense that is peddled by him on their behalf.
JAMES HARDIE AND ASBESTOS-RELATED DISEASES LIABILITY
Mr PAUL LYNCH: My question is addressed to the Premier. What is the latest information on the Government's efforts to secure justice and compensation for the victims of James Hardie's asbestos products?
Mr Alan Ashton: Real government at work.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As the honourable member for East Hills said, the Government is at work on real issues that affect the people of this State. I can report that the legal nightmare is over. The finishing line is in sight. This week James Hardie victims finally get the justice they deserve. I can proudly report to the House 4444 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
that earlier this afternoon I signed the final agreement to secure compensation for James Hardie victims. I was proud to do so in the presence of two great Australians, Bernie Banton, who is with us in the gallery, and Greg Combet.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will come to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: It seemed that we were there last December, when I signed the final funding agreement with James Hardie Industries. We would have been there had the Commonwealth got the tax position right. Instead, we have endured a year of frustration. However, subject to legislation passing through the Parliament this week, James Hardie shareholder and lender approvals, the deal will finally be complete. That means the first cheque will be delivered early next year—almost $200 million, instalment number one in a series of payments worth $1.5 billion in today's terms over the next 40 years. Today's agreement is about more than just the dollar figure. The agreement also provides that there will be no overall cap on James Hardie's liabilities or any cap on payments to individuals, in other words, no selling the victims short. The deal also includes $5 million to asbestos disease research and $750,000 for asbestos education because this silent killer is still out there in the homes, workplaces and bodies across New South Wales.
We have waited another year for one simple reason: The Australian Tax Office refused to class the compensation fund as a charity. We have only been able to overcome that obstacle by some complex legal structures, creating both a charitable fund and a discretionary fund to meet the Commonwealth's awkward demands. This adds a level of complexity that we wanted to avoid but the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Treasurer have said that these arrangements will work and we will hold them to that assurance. The amended agreement delivers the same tax outcome that we sought last year. It is not a special deal for James Hardie; just the same treatment given to other asbestos defendants. That means all the money can go to asbestos victims without the Commonwealth Government taking a cut.
Mr Paul McLeay: Grubby.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Indeed. This has been a frustrating year for the Government and the unions, but it has been a harrowing time for the victims. One should not forget that for them the fight for justice may have ended but the battle for survival goes on—decades of illness, pain and countless early deaths. We cannot change the past—those tiny fibres have seen to that—but this agreement delivers the next best thing—dignity, security and financial peace of mind. Having been robbed of their health, we will not let the victims be robbed of justice too.
I commend this agreement to the House, an agreement that only the Australian Labor Party and the labour movement could have secured. It is a stark reminder of how we will stand up for workers and their families. We are the only side of politics that has the guts to stand up for workers and their families and deliver victims the justice that they deserve. The Labor States are the last line of defence against John Howard's WorkChoices and 100 years of fairness torn to shreds. Would Coalition members have backed the victims? No. Would they have tackled James Hardie? No. Would they have fought the Commonwealth on the tax issue? No. Three "noes" to those questions, and that says it all. We are the last line of defence for workers and their families and we will always stand up for them and carry the fight for them to Canberra.
MINISTER FOR ENERGY CONFLICT OF INTEREST ALLEGATION
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Minister for Energy. Given that the Minister has actively supported the rezoning and development of land owned by the Calabria Club, whose directors include his friends, business associates, campaign donors and even his personal staffer Rocco Leonello, who all stand to personally profit from purchasing the land from the club, how can he explain his clear conflict of interest?
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: I have been encouraging Fairfield council to complete the Prairiewood master plan because that is what the community wants. The community wants to see this area move ahead, and I have been approached by many local residents, who want to see the matter progress.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will resume his seat.
Mr Ian Armstrong: Point of order— 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4445
Mr Gerard Martin: A last hurrah!
Mr Ian Armstrong: Yes, it is. I am ashamed of the conduct in this place. It is an established protocol that no-one shall stand between the Minister and your good self.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I asked the Premier to resume his seat, and I ask the honourable member for Lachlan to do the same.
Mr Ian Armstrong: Give us a bit of leadership in this place.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lachlan will resume his seat. The Minister for Energy has the call.
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: I support this community club's vision for the site. The Fairfield area needs more recreational opportunities. It is the job of local members to advocate for their communities. That is what I have done, and I will continue to do so. I make no apology for trying to make Fairfield a better place to live and work. Mr Leonello is a policy adviser in my office. He has had substantial experience in the Attorney General's Department. He has advised me that he is on the board of Calabria Community Club and is there in an unpaid, voluntary capacity. Mr Leonello has further advised me that neither he nor any member of his family stands to make any financial gain from his connection with that club.
MINISTERIAL CONDUCT COMPLAINT
Mrs BARBARA PERRY: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General. Is the Attorney aware of previous complaints made by the Wood royal commission informant W26?
Mr BOB DEBUS: It is relevant that the Leader of the Opposition continues, even today, to traffick in false claims in this respect. Every utterance he makes brings his incapacity to lead the State into sharper focus. We do know the Leader of the Opposition's source. There was a time when the Liberal Party wanted paedophiles hung, drawn and quartered, but this hatred is apparently tempered by the hope that such a person might have something with which to smear a Labor politician. The source of the Leader of the Opposition's claim is a compulsive liar and a convicted paedophile. Honourable members need to be clear about who it is that the Leader of the Opposition has taken on as an informant. I am not speaking of Senator Heffernan. These days he is such a profoundly unsteady and discredited figure that all he has left in public life is his near psychotic tendency to raise false claims under privilege.
I am of course talking of the source of these complaints. This is the history of the Leader of the Opposition's real source. In 1980, W26 was convicted of 19 counts of demanding money with menaces. He used to pass female bank tellers notes saying he would "blow their head off". A Corrections Department report submitted in the court proceedings at the time described WT26 as "an inveterate liar". It went on to say that he was "highly unstable emotionally and has no regard for the truth". The report went on to further state:
[His] romantic fantasies and deceitful habits suggest the need for psychiatric assistance in an attempt to assist him to adjust to an acceptable standard of behaviour.
The lead judgment by the Court of Appeal observed:
The innocent bank tellers were menaced and terrified by [his] action. These actions were not single instances but extended over a long period of time, and were deliberate.
W26 was later convicted of sexually assaulting an intellectually handicapped minor and sexual assault of another young boy. The mother of one of his victims said:
He made my whole family's life a misery for 11 years … We feel powerless to deal with him.
That was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 14 April 1998. In a witness statement prepared in 1998 the boy's mother said that W26 had been going around Bathurst gaol and "showing people photos" of her son who was in prison and "my other two sons". So the question is: Whose side is the Leader of the Opposition on? Does he believe the mum, the judge or the paedophile? Another judge who dealt with W26's child sex offending said:
[He] acted in a seductive way. I think it not unfair to say that his behaviour was predatory in that he preyed upon these children, a mentally handicapped fifteen year old boy and a twelve year old boy and, to put it briefly, debauched them.
4446 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
The Governor of one of the prisons that W26 has been in said:
[He] is not only a well-known paedophile but also a very manipulative, coercive, untruthful and [in] persistent denial of his offending behaviour.
A psychologist said of him:
He is in need of long term and intensive psychotherapy to assist him to lead any sort of functional life within the community.
Another psychologist said:
It is difficult to distinguish reality from fantasy in W26's version of his exploits—he appears to have a personality disorder which leads him to embellish the facts to show himself in a more favourable light.
W26 probably displayed these characteristics when he met the staff of the Leader of the Opposition. W26's probation and parole officer said:
He has … a reputation among custodial officers and prisoners as being very manipulative and untrustworthy. He has been described as "The Con Man".
A report by the chairman of the Corrective Services Commission noted:
[He] is described as polite but possessing an ability to use people to his own advantage.
A 1994 Offenders Review Board report noted:
[W26] perceives himself as being superior to most people, and has a tendency to exaggerate his ability, emphasise his past achievements and depreciate those who fail to support his inflated self-image. His narcissism is manufactured in his air of conviction and self-assurance.
Are we getting the picture? W26 has had a few champions in his life—Franca Arena, Charlie Lynn—but now everybody but wild Bill Heffernan and the Leader of the Opposition have walked away from him. I have never met W26 or spoken to him, but I have been the subject of many complaints by him, as many, many other people have been over the years. He is a serial and persistent complainant. He called for my removal as Minister for Corrective Services in January 1998. So what did I do? I referred W26's allegations to the Commissioner of Police and offered co-operation. When other claims surfaced in 2003 I wrote to the Police Integrity Commission [PIC] to offer assistance. Fast forward to three years—same complaint, and again I have written to the PIC to offer assistance.
I have done these things in full knowledge that the allegations were false in their entirety and represented nothing more than the obsessions of an individual who was damaged and sick. W26 has complained about anybody he has perceived to not do his bidding. His claims have always been grounded in fantasy and malice. I sincerely hope that the Leader of the Opposition is never held to the standard that he has applied to me. He has encouraged innuendo, smear and invective, and he has caused hardship to my family and friends. In any other environment W26's claims would have been ignored. If the allegations concerned a Liberal member of Parliament, what would the Leader of the Opposition have done? It is notable that the Coalition's policy called "Protecting our Children: Reducing Child Sex Offending" states:
Sex offending against children is a special type of crime because of:
● The extreme vulnerability of child victims; and ● The pathological nature of child sex offenders.
The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that paedophiles should be named so that the public can keep an eye on them. He has also said that they cannot be rehabilitated. So, are we expected to believe that this class of offender cannot be rehabilitated and are pathological, but that they make very reliable political advisers and informants?
Here is the explanation for what W26 has complained of for almost 10 years. Let us hope to God it is the last time anybody has to make it. Prison authorities, victims and parents of victims 10 years ago wanted this offender moved from one gaol to another so that he could not confront and intimidate a former child sexual assault victim then in the same facility into changing his earlier evidence that had led to one of W26's many convictions for child sexual abuse. I am advised that when prison authorities searched W26's cell they found a photo of the target of his intended intimidation and photos of dozens of other young boys, including the victim's 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4447
brothers. Later I received a letter from the former leader of the New South Wales Coalition, Kerry Chikarovski. She was at the time shadow Minister for corrections, not the leader. In a letter dated 27 April 1998 she mentioned the name of the mother and said:
She is very distressed that her son is being contacted by a fellow inmate, W26.
She said to me:
I would ask you to investigate my concerns and assist this woman in whatever way you can.
Yours sincerely, Kerry Chikarovski.
The former Leader of the Opposition supported the victim's mother; the present Leader of the Opposition has supported the perpetrator.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney General has the call.
Mr BOB DEBUS: The Leader of the Opposition has stepped where Kerry Chikarovski and John Brogden would not go even though they were armed with this same information. He has instead, suggestively and maliciously, held me to account for these questions during the past week. The simple fact is that the mother of one of W26's victims did not want W26 making any more overtures to her son whom W26 had previously abused.
This is my final week in this place. I have been here for nearly 19 years and have been lucky enough to spend a good period of that time on the front bench. I will miss many things: My colleagues, a few on the other side, the pace of Parliament when a policy debate is running, legislating for things like better sexual assault laws and environmental reform. Today in the Blue Mountains my constituents and the men and women of the Rural Fire Service, whom I had the privilege of serving as Minister, are locked in struggle over a tremendously dangerous threat from bushfire. I will miss these things, but I must say I will not miss one thing—the present Leader of the Opposition. He has caused me to defend myself against the worst and unsubstantiated claims when all others had the judgment to ignore them.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Attorney General has call.
Mr BOB DEBUS: The Leader of the Opposition's claims are rotten, and when something is rotten it is rotten to the core.
FORMER PREMIERS EXPENSES ENTITLEMENTS
ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL HOME OXYGEN SERVICE
Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question is directed to the Premier. Given Bob Carr has racked up a record $438,000 expenses bill, including—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Government members will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition's question will be heard in silence.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: Given Bob Carr has racked up a record $438,000 expenses bill, including $10,000 in legal fees, $4,287 on books and $3,000 on telephone calls, why can the Premier not find just $8,000 for Royal North Shore Hospital to provide Judy Cameron the life-saving breathing equipment she needs to stay alive?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: In relation to the second part of a question, I will obtain a report and advice from the Minister for Health, in particular, on the Program of Appliances for Disabled People [PADP] and its guidelines and whether the constituent referred to fits within those.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore will come to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: In relation to the first part of the question I can inform the House that the arrangements in place for former Premiers Greiner, Fahey, Carr and Wran are similar to the arrangements in place for the Commonwealth and other State jurisdictions. For example, former Prime Ministers receive staff members, office, an office budget, car and driver. In New South Wales the entitlements are also provided to 4448 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
other former officeholders including former Leaders of the Opposition, which includes secretarial, transportation and administrative support. That answers the first part of the question.
To the second part of the question I can add some information. The Government provides $3 million to area health services for home oxygen services—that is another program in addition to PADP—and I will obtain advice as to the criteria for the particular constituent. I am advised that medical assessment for the need for home oxygen is in accordance with the guidelines released by the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will get a report and advice from the health Minister. That answers parts one and two of the question. I also invite the Leader of the Opposition, following the answer from the Attorney, to get up, show some courage and show that he has some integrity.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore will cease calling out.
SYDNEY TRANSPORT SERVICES
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I address my question to the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Transport. What is the latest information on the Government's plans to further improve Sydney transport services and related matters?
Mr JOHN WATKINS: Unlike members opposite, the Iemma Government is getting on with the job of developing policy and assisting the people of this State. Yesterday the Premier released the urban transport statement, a $660 million package of new and accelerated initiatives to address Sydney's present and future transport needs. The statement addresses the State Plan, a key priority being the easing of traffic congestion.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier has the call.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: I draw your attention yet again—
Mr SPEAKER: I take it the honourable member for Coffs Harbour intends to refer to Standing Order 63?
Mr Andrew Fraser: No, Standing Order 61. Even though you regard it as non-cardinal, could you please give us a list of all the non-cardinal standing orders so we may act appropriately, or alternatively, rule on Standing Order 61?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I called the Premier to order in relation to the actions to which the member for Coffs Harbour has objected. The Deputy Premier has the call.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: The key parts to the great urban transport statement delivered yesterday are $316 million to duplicate the Richmond line, bringing the north-western line two years forward; $100 million for work on Victoria Road, one of the most important avenues into this city; $100 million on a pinch point strategy to address areas of congestion throughout the Sydney metropolitan area; $100 million to accelerate bus priority works along strategic bus corridors; $45 million to expand our commuter car parking program in Western Sydney; and a suite of initiatives to assist in the central business district.
It was pleasing to learn that yesterday the Property Council of Australia welcomed the statement, acknowledging that it is a positive step to improving Sydney's transport system. We received another pleasing endorsement from the well-known Leader of the Opposition. He welcomed the announcement, saying it included "worthwhile additions to transport infrastructure". We thank the Leader of the Opposition for his endorsement. Whilst we appreciate his praise, the people of New South Wales would like to see from the Opposition transport policies of its own.
Mr Donald Page: Point of order: One of our policies is to reinstate the Casino to Murwillumbah rail service, which the Government took away.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not want to hear the Opposition's policies. I want to hear the point of order. If the honourable member for Ballina cannot state his point of order he should resume his seat. 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4449
Mr JOHN WATKINS: We know that one of the Opposition's main policy positions is to sack 29,000 workers, which will include police, nurses, train drivers and bus drivers. That is one of the Coalition's policies. I am concerned that last weekend's Liberal Party reshuffle was designed to hide the capable, sensible and wise member for Ku-ring-gai, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It was designed to keep him out of the public eye. Why would the Leader of the Opposition hide the Deputy Leader of the Opposition out of sight? Because Barry has been counting, and he looks too good. The Leader of the Opposition simply cannot cop that. He has replaced the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—this able, capable and intelligent man—with a first-term member of Parliament who in her first move as Transport spokesperson simply reaffirmed previous commitments made by the Opposition. The Opposition's only commitment is to whack trams back into the city. That policy will take us back 50 years.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much interjection.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: Yes, there is, Mr Speaker; keep them quiet. I am also surprised and a little saddened that the shadow Minister for Transport, rather than sitting in a senior position, languishes down there next to the honourable member for The Hills. What a horrible thought to have to spend her hours in this House next to the honourable member for The Hills.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Willoughby will stop calling out.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: At least she should take the seat occupied by the honourable member for Upper Hunter—he is not using it. She should come up the front. Whilst the Government is getting on with the business of transport policy, what is the Opposition doing? The Leader of the Opposition is focused solely on internal infighting, dirty preselections, parliamentary smear campaigns, and resisting calls for him to be replaced. That is what is taking up his time.
There is another reason the Leader of the Opposition moved the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the shadow Treasury benches, and it is a key one: the Leader of the Opposition has made $25 billion worth of promises and he needs someone to blame. When the figures do not stack up and people start to ask questions over the next couple of months the Leader of the Opposition will say, "That's Barry's fault. Go and ask Barry." If the Opposition did its job properly for New South Wales it would talk about transport policy; it would not talk rubbish and make vile accusations. The Opposition is offensive in its pathetic behaviour in this place.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee will cease calling out.
Mr JOHN WATKINS: The Opposition should concentrate on policy development and providing for the needs of the people of this State.
MONA VALE HOSPITAL
Mr ALEX McTAGGART: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. Will the Premier, on behalf of the Government, confirm that the Mona Vale Hospital site will remain in public ownership as a hospital?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order. I ask the honourable member for Pittwater to repeat his question so that the Chair can hear it properly.
Mr ALEX McTAGGART: Will the Premier, on behalf of the Government, confirm that the Mona Vale Hospital site will remain in public ownership as a hospital?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I thank the honourable member for Pittwater for his question. At least he asks questions about issues that affect his constituency. I confirm for the honourable member for Pittwater that, firstly, the two-hospital policy of the Government remains intact and, secondly, Mona Vale Hospital will remain in public ownership. I confirm that we will proceed with our plans to provide full extra health services—
[Interruption]
Mr Alex McTaggart: Point of order— 4450 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the second time. The Premier has the call.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I confirm for the honourable member for Pittwater that the Government has consistently been committed to the two-hospital policy for the northern beaches. Earlier this year it was announced that a new high-level acute hospital would be built at Frenchs Forest. I confirm that Mona Vale Hospital will remain on its existing site and will provide a range of complementary services. I also confirm that the future of the Manly site will be determined in consultation with the community. I confirm for the honourable member our commitment to the two-hospital policy for the northern beaches and that Mona Vale Hospital will remain in public ownership. I thank the honourable member for his question and commend him for his advocacy for health services on the northern beaches.
SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE AND NEW SEVEN WONDERS OF THE WORLD NOMINATION
Mr PAUL PEARCE: What is the Government's response to the campaign to have Sydney Opera House listed as one of the New Seven Wonders of the World, and related matters?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Cronulla to order. I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order. The Premier has the call.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I commend the honourable member for Coogee for his interest in supporting the nomination of Sydney Opera House as one of the New Seven Wonders of the World. This morning I had the pleasure of accepting a certificate from the New Seven Wonders Foundation, which recognises Sydney Opera House's nomination as a finalist in the New Seven Wonders of the World competition. This nomination is a resounding tribute to the greatest building of the twentieth century, Sydney's very own Opera House, and to the genius of its creator, Jorn Utzon. Much can be said about the skill and beauty of this building, but I believe its true brilliance comes from the fact that this man-made structure superbly complements the world's finest harbour.
Our Opera House, in its stunning harbour setting, is a truly global wonder, and the Government proudly accepts the nomination. We are committed to securing Sydney Opera House for future generations and we have already invested significant funds in Sydney Opera House's Venue Improvement Program. Since 2002 the Government has provided more than $69 million towards this program. Sydney Opera House will face tough competition from the likes of the Colosseum, the Taj Mahal and the pyramids. All Australians should register their vote for Sydney Opera House, which can be done via the Internet or by SMS.
[Interruption]
In this ballot the honourable member for Lismore and The Nationals should vote, vote early and vote often. All it takes is a tiny text message. Simply send "SOH" to 1977 7717 at a cost of 55¢. I am sure all honourable members will join with me and the rest of the country in urging everyone to get behind and vote for Sydney Opera House—our opera house—as one of the New Seven Wonders of the World to be announced on 7 July 2007. I note that the Leader of the Opposition has issued a press release stating that he will be among the thousands voting for the Opera House in the New Seven Wonders of the World Competition, and I thank him for his support. I wonder whether he will be using David Clarke's mobile to register his vote, just like he does when trying to determine the seven lacklustre wonders of the shadow frontbench. I might add that they are diminishing in number week by week, as the honourable member for Davidson will attest.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lismore will come to order. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee will come to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Settle down, Thomas. Get on the phone and send an SMS to vote for our Opera House.
PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Can he explain to Dixie Gibson's family why the section of the Pacific Highway on which she was killed last Friday remains dangerous today despite the Government announcing its upgrade in 2000? Will he explain to Bradley Connor's family why the 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4451
section of the Pacific Highway on which he was killed remains dangerous when its upgrade was meant to be completed two years ago?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Every death on our State roads is tragic, and I offer my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Ms Gibson. I understand that at this stage the cause of the crash remains under investigation by police.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will stop calling out.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Over the past decade the New South Wales Government has invested $1.6 billion and the Federal Government has invested $660 million in that road.
Mr Andrew Stoner: And you have wasted $900 million.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: And last Friday the honourable member committed potentially $500 million to buy the Vaucluse tunnel. Both governments have committed a further $1.3 billion to 2009. As part of that funding, in June this year both governments committed an extra $300 million to fast-track the Moreland to Herons Creek project, covering the section—
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will stop calling out. He has asked a question; he will listen to the answer in silence.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of The Nationals to order for the second time.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Why does the Leader of The Nationals not explain his role in the W26 affair? Get up!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will stop calling out. The Premier has the call.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: There he was telling the Macleay Argus that he knew something was on. Why not come clean? In June this year both governments committed an extra $300 million to fast-track the Moreland to Herons Creek project, covering the section of road where this tragic crash occurred. This accelerated funding will see that stretch of the highway upgraded to dual carriageway by 2009. I note also that the Deputy Prime Minister this morning welcomed the Government's moves to have the Pacific Highway upgrade declared critical infrastructure. I welcome his support. Making the Pacific Highway critical infrastructure is about getting on with the job and providing as much certainty as possible to North Coast communities and motorists. The Minister for Roads has asked the Minister for Planning to consider the proposal to recognise the remainder of the Pacific Highway upgrade as State significant, bringing the project under part 3A.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will stop calling out and interrupting the proceedings of the House.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Confirming the upgrade of the Pacific Highway as critical infrastructure will ensure a rigorous assessment of the planning issues for the road. The completed Pacific Highway upgrade will mean 664 kilometres of dual carriageway from the F3 near Hexham to the Tugun bypass on the Queensland border. Already 243 kilometres of dual carriageway is open to traffic. The Government remains committed to working with the Commonwealth Government to get the upgrade finished as quickly as possible.
MENTAL HEALTH INTERAGENCY ACTION PLAN
Mr MATT BROWN: My question without notice is to the Minister assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health). Will the Minister update the House on the Iemma Government's interagency action plan for mental health, and related matters?
Mr Donald Page: Point of order: I could not hear the question because of the interruption from the Premier. Mr Speaker, will you ask the honourable member to ask the question again? 4452 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will resume his seat. The question was perfectly audible. The Minister has the call.
Miss CHERIE BURTON: I thank the honourable member for his continued interest in this important issue, particularly in his electorate of Kiama. A compassionate society like ours should take care of those most in need.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There will be no more interjections across the Chamber. The Minister has the call.
Miss CHERIE BURTON: We all know that one in five Australians will experience a mental illness in their lifetime. That is why this year's budget confirmed the Iemma Government's commitment to take the delivery of mental health services in a new direction. This year alone it will invest $946 million. That is more than twice what the Coalition spent the last time it was in office. The Interagency Action Plan for Better Mental Health was released in July 2005.
[Interruption]
The honourable member is not worthy of recognising. It is a requirement of the interagency plan for progress to be monitored in yearly progress reports. It gives me great pleasure to release the first of these yearly reports today. The plan identified three key areas where agencies could work together to improve the delivery of mental health services. Much has been achieved in these areas: first, preventing and intervening early in the onset of mental illness; second, improving community support; and, third, improving responses to mental health emergencies. Under this action plan the Government has expanded mental health first aid training, established psychiatric emergency care centres, and expanded the successful Housing and Support Initiative Program, delivering support into the home to those who suffer from a mental illness 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Miss CHERIE BURTON: Let us not go down the path of talking about the honourable member for North Shore's mental health policies. The honourable member exploits people. The Coalition has no policies; it has nothing.
[Interruption]
We do not want to go down that path. We do not want to open that closet.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore will cease interjecting.
Miss CHERIE BURTON: We do not want to open that skeleton closet, do we? When the Premier was elected he identified mental health as a key priority, and this progress report again confirms that commitment.
Mrs Jillian Skinner: Point of order: I take exception to the remark made by the Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is not the time for taking exception. What is your point of order?
Mrs Jillian Skinner: If the Minister wishes—
Mr SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mrs Jillian Skinner: Just listen and let me tell you!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore may put on an act of being indignant, but there are standing orders to be upheld. If she wants to make a personal explanation there are proper ways of doing so. She will either take her point of order or resume her seat. The Minister has the call.
Mrs Jillian Skinner: Point of order: When a Minister wishes to cast aspersions, there is a proper process to attack a member of this House. She should be moving a motion accordingly, not attacking me 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4453
through a question. I ask you to ask her to either withdraw that statement or move a motion so I have the opportunity to reply.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister was responding to the question. If the honourable member for North Shore wants to make a personal explanation, she can do so at the appropriate time. The honourable member for North Shore will resume her seat.
Mrs Jillian Skinner: You're a disgrace!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for North Shore to order. The Minister has the call.
Miss CHERIE BURTON: I am happy to explain. I was talking about the honourable member's lack of policies. I do not know what she is worried about.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will address the Chair and the honourable member for North Shore will cease interjecting.
Miss CHERIE BURTON: As I said, it is this Government that is investing almost $1 billion in better delivery of mental health services, ensuring that people who suffer from a mental illness are getting the care they need when they need it. It is supporting carers and their families. It is also supporting the hardworking mental health workers, and it will continue to do so. The release of this report demonstrates that the Government is serious about delivering mental health services and about its commitment to improving services for people who suffer from a mental illness.
Questions without notice concluded.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Bill: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Motion by Mr David Campbell agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit:
(1) the introduction without notice of the James Hardie Former Subsidiaries (Winding up and Administration) Amendment (Trust Funds) Bill; and
(2) the resumption at a later hour of the adjourned debate and passage through all remaining stages at this sitting of the James Hardie Former Subsidiaries (Winding up and Administration) Amendment (Trust Funds) Bill.
HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR BURRINJUCK
Privilege
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [3.30 p.m.]: I raise a point of privilege.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of privilege, which is different from a personal explanation, must relate to a matter that has arisen suddenly, as a result of which the member believes that her privilege as a member has been impugned. Is that the case? Has a matter suddenly arisen which has led the member to believe her privilege has been impugned?
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: Yes.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the honourable member for Burrinjuck briefly on the point of privilege so I can decide whether a matter of privilege is involved. What is the point of privilege?
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: During question time today the honourable member for Wollongong held up a poster of a man with a gun pointed to his head—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no way that could be regarded as a point of privilege. There is no point of privilege. The honourable member for Burrinjuck will resume her seat. 4454 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
JAMES HARDIE FORMER SUBSIDIARIES (WINDING UP AND ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT (TRUST FUNDS) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr MORRIS IEMMA (Lakemba—Premier, Minister for State Development, and Minister for Citizenship) [3.31 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It is nearly two years since the New South Wales Government joined the Australian Council of Trade Unions [ACTU], Unions New South Wales and Bernie Banton in signing the non-binding heads of agreement with James Hardie Industries for compensation for the victims of James Hardie asbestos. On 1 December last year I signed the historic 40-year final funding agreement to secure compensation for asbestos victims. Today it seems the last significant hurdle to the funding payments commencing has been overcome. Earlier today, accompanied by Bernie Banton, Greg Combet and Mark Lennon of Unions New South Wales—
Mr Thomas George: Mark Latham or Mark Lennon?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Mark Lennon. I signed the amended and restated final funding agreement with James Hardie.
[Interruption]
Thomas, give your leader some advice: tell him to get up and apologise. Last year, in his second reading speech on the James Hardie Former Subsidiaries (Winding up and Administration) Bill 2005 and cognate bills, my distinguished colleague the Attorney General said that he did not wish to dwell on the history of this matter because the bills were about the future. That is also true of this bill. I do, however, wish to make some remarks about what has occurred since the final funding agreement was signed in December 2005. That agreement was conditional upon a number of matters, including the passage of the bill, a part of the deal this Parliament upheld. Importantly, it was also conditional on neither James Hardie's funding contributions nor the income of the special purpose fund being taxed.
We were not seeking a special deal for James Hardie; we were simply seeking the same taxation position as other Australian asbestos defendants. This tax outcome was essential to the affordability of the arrangements because there would not be enough money to pay asbestos victims if the Commonwealth taxed the funds. In June this year the Australian Taxation Office [ATO] ruled that James Hardie could claim tax deductions for its funding contributions under the so-called "black hole" legislation. However, the Australian Taxation Office also ruled that the special purpose fund was not a charity, a ruling that put the entire agreement in jeopardy. The New South Wales Government does not accept the correctness of that ruling. The fund's application for charitable status was supported by the unqualified advice of the Hon. Roderick Meagher, QC, a former judge of the New South Wales Court of Appeal and one of Australia's foremost legal authorities on charities and trusts.
The Australian Taxation Office's ruling could only be described as a triumph of form over substance. It did not accept that paying compensation to asbestos victims is for the public benefit. It did not even accept that paying compensation to asbestos victims is for the benefit of the victims themselves—truly a remarkable interpretation. Nor did it accept that the fund should pay the amount of damages determined by the courts— another remarkable determination. Instead, the Australian Taxation Office thought that the victims should have to prove all over again to the fund what loss and damage they have suffered. Nobody with even the smallest sense of justice could accept those propositions—and we did not. Instead we have spent the past five months seeking an alternative legal structure that would meet the ATO's concerns, while still delivering justice for the victims.
On 8 November this year the Australian Taxation Office issued a series of private, binding rulings in relation to an amended structure for the fund, achieving the same tax outcome as under the charity structure. Unfortunately, however, those rulings are considerably more complex. What was one relatively simple issue under the original final funding agreement has now become eight complex issues, involving months of 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4455
additional uncertainty and considerable extra cost for New South Wales taxpayers. Thankfully, this unhappy story is now at an end, with the Prime Minister and the Federal Treasurer finally giving their support to the private, binding rulings issued on 8 November this year, an assurance to which we will certainly hold the Commonwealth.
I turn now to the bill itself. As a preliminary matter, I note that the Act defines the final funding agreement to be the agreement entered into on 1 December 2005, as in force from that time. The amended and restated final funding agreement that I signed earlier today is therefore now the final funding agreement for the purposes of the Act and the bill. The amendments in the bill can be grouped into four areas. First, most of the provisions are designed to support the implementation of the amended structure agreed upon today. That amended structure involves maintaining the current charitable fund and creating a discretionary trust in respect of the income of the charitable fund. The bill therefore confirms that the existing trust deed establishing the special purpose fund may be amended to establish the discretionary trust fund.
The bill confirms that the special purpose fund continues to be a validly constituted charitable trust and that the trustee of the special purpose fund will also be the trustee of the discretionary fund. The bill then makes a number of consequential amendments to part 4 of the Act arising from the fact that there will now be both the special purpose fund and the discretionary fund. The second area addressed by the bill is confirmation that certain provisions in part 3 of the Act take effect despite anything to the contrary in the constitution of the relevant company or liable entity. These amendments are made for completeness only and are in the nature of statute law revision. The third area addressed by the bill is a transitional provision to support the interim funding deed.
The Government negotiated the interim funding deed with James Hardie to secure interim funding for Amaca Pty Limited so it could continue to pay claims. The transitional provision will ensure that the interim funding deed is not affected by the winding up and administration provisions of the Act. It will also ensure that the deed is not affected by the administration provisions that currently apply to Amaca Pty Limited under the James Hardie Former Subsidiaries (Special Provisions) Act 2005. The fourth, and final, area addressed by the bill is the issue of dealing with the remaining research funds held by the Medical Research and Compensation Foundation.
Honourable members may recall that when it set up the foundation James Hardie contributed $3 million to fund medical research into asbestos-related diseases. Most of that funding is still held by the foundation. However, once today's agreement is fully implemented there will be no other work for the foundation to do. It will no longer own the liable entities and it will have no management or oversight role in respect of them. In these circumstances it does not seem appropriate to maintain the foundation only to distribute medical research funding. The bill therefore provides for the trust administered by the foundation to be terminated. The foundation will need to pay any of its creditors first, including any remaining grants that have already been awarded. The bill then requires the balance of the trust assets to be transferred to one or more asbestos medical research providers prescribed by the regulations.
There are at least two important initiatives under way currently in this area: the Asbestos Diseases Research Foundation, established at Concord with funding from the New South Wales Government and James Hardie; and the National Research Centre for Asbestos-Related Diseases in Perth. They are the sorts of bodies that might be suitable recipients of the remaining trust funds in the foundation, and the New South Wales Government wants to ensure that all research funding is put to the best and most productive use possible. One of the next steps for the Government is to nominate its two directors to serve on the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund board. James Hardie will appoint three directors to the board, including the chairperson, who will form the majority directors. The Government's directors will participate in the decision making of the board as minority directors.
It only remains for me to pay tribute to those who have made this historic achievement possible. I thank my colleagues Bob Carr, the Attorney General and the Hon. John Della Bosca. I thank the Government's team, led by one of the State's most outstanding public servants, Leigh Sanderson, Deputy Director General of The Cabinet Office. I thank Brian Wilson, Managing Director of Lazard, who provided excellent financial advice to the New South Wales Government. I thank Gilbert and Tobin for its equally excellent legal advice, particularly Tony Tobin, Mark Goldsmith, James Lewis, Elizabeth Grinston and Shirley Logan. I thank Ken Fowlie of Slater and Gordon, who very capably advised Greg Combet and Bernie Banton.
Above all, I pay tribute to the victims' groups and the union movement, and in particular two extraordinary Australians—Bernie Banton and Greg Combet. They never wavered, even when James Hardie seemed to have made good its escape. With today's agreement the last significant hurdle to the implementation 4456 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
of these arrangements will be overcome and the passage of this bill will fulfil one of the conditions to commence the Final Funding Agreement. It has been a long and difficult journey. But we kept faith with the victims and together we have been able to right a monstrous injustice. This is a bill of the utmost importance and I thank the House for giving it the priority it deserves. The James Hardie victims have waited long enough and the time for justice has arrived. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Barry O'Farrell.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Routine of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [3.43 p.m.]: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended at this or any subsequent sitting to:
(1) provide for motions relating to the following matters to be moved without notice at this or any subsequent sitting:
(a) approval of the new standing orders,
(b) an amendment to the sessional order relating to citizens' right of reply,
(c) Christmas felicitations,
(d) the tabling of the Legislative Assembly and Joint Parliamentary Services annual reports, and
(2) allow members to make valedictory speeches of up to 15 minutes duration with an extension available of five minutes when there is no other business before the House.
The intention of the suspension is to provide, most importantly, that members from both sides of the House have an opportunity to contribute to the modernisation of the standing orders and also to provide those members who have indicated their intention to retire from this place and from this phase of their public service to address the Chamber in a bipartisan way. Included in the business of the House this week will be Government bills and there will be an opportunity perhaps to consider amendments that might come from another place.
Motion agreed to.
CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS
Central Coast and Hunter Water Supply
Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast) [3.45 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because the people of the Central Coast and the Hunter want to know that their region's water supply will be secure into the future. It is urgent because residents need to know that this House and this Parliament support them in finding practical solutions during this time of need. Currently there is no issue more important than that of securing a water supply for my local constituents on the Central Coast. The motion is urgent because I am concerned by comments from certain members of the Opposition that could put our water supply at risk.
The motion is urgent because residents of the Central Coast are currently working hard to do their bit under level four water restrictions. Central Coast residents are faced with tough water restrictions, which include a ban on all outdoor use of water. Residents are no longer able to water their plants or wash their cars. Whilst the Government has announced a clear and decisive plan to secure the region's water supply, I am yet to see or hear of a comprehensive plan from members opposite. This is a pressing issue as the current water levels on the Central Coast have fallen to just 14.9 per cent, compared with 23 per cent in November last year. In the past month alone, total water storage on the Central Coast has fallen by almost 1 per cent.
Mr George Souris: Point of order: The Minister should be attempting to establish the urgency of his motion. All he has done so far is explain 12 years of neglect and failure to provide for water infrastructure on the Central Coast. 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4457
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The shadow Minister for State Development should consult with his colleague, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, about the standing orders.
Mr GRANT McBRIDE: That comment from the shadow Minister shows total ignorance of the situation on the Central Coast and the management of water on the Central Coast. That is why the motion is urgent: because the Opposition has no understanding of the situation on the Central Coast. The motion is urgent because it is much appreciated that at this time of drought we are now in a critical situation. As was recently stated at the Water Summit on Melbourne Cup Day—I do not know what that says about the Prime Minister's interest in sport—Australia is now in the worst drought in 1,000 years. If that is not urgent, when does it become urgent?
The New South Wales Government has promised not to leave the residents of the Central Coast in the lurch when it comes to providing water—a service provided by the two local councils on the Central Coast. It is urgent because as the Government works to finish the new pipeline to the Central Coast and improve water recycling in locations such as Vale's Point power station, it is clear there is more to do in the medium and long term to secure our water supply. So far from the Opposition there has been silence and criticism, and avoidance from members of The Nationals. The motion is urgent because the community deserves to know whether the Coalition supports a new dam to secure our water supply or whether it will risk the water supply for future generations on the Central Coast and the Hunter.
Ministerial Conduct Complaint
Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse—Leader of the Opposition) [3.48 p.m.]: My urgent motion calls on the Premier to acknowledge his failure to hold his Ministers to account. If he will not do it, we will. It is a point I will make continually: that the people of New South Wales want this Government to be held to account. And I will continue to ask the hard questions. That is what Parliament is for, and I will continue to ask those hard questions. It might not be convenient to the Government when I do it and it might not be politically convenient to me, but I will keep doing it because it is the right thing to do.
Mr Gerard Martin: Point of order: The Leader of the Opposition talks about doing the right thing. The right thing for him is to apologise to the Attorney General.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: The people of New South Wales expect me to keep asking the difficult questions because they want the Government held to account after 12 years.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House will come to order.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: This State is in a mess because the Premier has failed to hold his Ministers and members to account.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Heffron will come to order.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: Let us just go backwards. The Premier again refuses to answer questions about a Police Integrity Commission complaint. Let me go back a little further. The Premier refuses to hold to account members who knew of allegations about Milton Orkopoulos and did nothing about it—the honourable member for Wallsend, the honourable member for Newcastle—
Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: Perhaps if the Leader of the Opposition studied the standing orders rather than cavorted with paedophiles, he would know that under Standing Order 82 imputations of improper motives against members of either House are inappropriate other than by way of substantive motion. He was casting aspersions on the motives of the Premier.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard sufficient on the point of order. At this stage I do not uphold the point of order. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he must comply with the standing orders and provide reasons why his motion should be afforded priority. 4458 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
Mr PETER DEBNAM: My motion should be given priority because the people of New South Wales want this Government, these Ministers, and these members of Parliament held to account. John Della Bosca used taxpayer funds to pay for a parking fine. I refer also to John Della Bosca's unanswered questions about his contact with Milton Orkopoulos.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bathurst will come to order.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: The Premier refuses to hold the Minister for Local Government to account for his dangerous driving and for using taxpayer funds to pay for parking fines.
Ms Linda Burney: Point of order: The Leader of the Opposition is not seeking to establish priority. He is merely rubbishing people. Say sorry, Peter. What is it with you Liberals? You cannot say sorry.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Canterbury will resume her seat.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: My motion is a priority because the people of New South Wales want Labor members of Parliament held to account. Tony Stewart was Parliamentary Secretary for Police—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition must show why his notice of motion should be afforded priority. He should not embark upon dealing with the substance of the motion he intends to move.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: It is a priority because after 12 long years the people of New South Wales want the Government held to account. It is four months until the State election. We will hold the Government to account. We will ask the difficult questions, whether they are about the Minister for Local Government, the honourable member for Bankstown, the honourable member for Smithfield, or the Hon. Peter Breen, who joined the Labor Party and left it after a couple of days.
Mr David Campbell: Point of order: It is the same point of order that has been taken by my colleagues and that you have already ruled on. The Leader of the Opposition is debating the substance of the motion; he is not seeking to establish priority.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard sufficient on the point of order. I uphold the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is debating the substance of the motion rather than showing why his motion should be given priority.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: My matter should be given priority because after 12 long years the people of New South Wales simply want to clean this Government out of town. [Time expired.]
Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: Mr Speaker, Standing Order 120 (4) (a) states:
The Members giving the notices shall each be permitted to make statements of up to 5 minutes so the House may establish the priority of such matters.
It says nothing about not debating the motion. It says that they may make a statement. Your rulings are not in accord with Standing Order 120 (4) (a), which allows a member to make a statement of five minutes uninterrupted.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It does not say that. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour has taken similar points of order previously and I have ruled on the matter. I will not entertain a further point of order.
Mr Andrew Fraser: You are wrong. Read the standing orders.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat. I call him to order.
Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for The Entrance be proceeded with—put.
The House divided. 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4459
Ayes, 47
Ms Allan Mr Gibson Mrs Paluzzano Mr Amery Mr Greene Mr Pearce Ms Andrews Ms Hay Mrs Perry Ms Beamer Mr Hickey Mr Price Mr Black Mr Hunter Ms Saliba Mr Brown Ms Judge Mr Sartor Ms Burney Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Mr Campbell Mr Lynch Mr Stewart Mr Chaytor Mr McBride Ms Tebbutt Mr Collier Mr McLeay Mr Tripodi Mr Corrigan Ms Meagher Mr Watkins Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr Whan Mr Daley Mr Mills Mr Yeadon Ms D'Amore Mr Morris Tellers, Ms Gadiel Mr Newell Mr Ashton Mr Gaudry Ms Nori Mr Martin
Noes, 36
Mr Aplin Mrs Hopwood Ms Seaton Mr Barr Mr Humpherson Mrs Skinner Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr McTaggart Mr Stoner Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Debnam Ms Moore Mr Torbay Mr Draper Mr Oakeshott Mr J. H. Turner Mrs Fardell Mr O'Farrell Mr R. W. Turner Mr Fraser Mr Page Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Mr Hartcher Mr Pringle Tellers, Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Mr George Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr Maguire
Pairs
Mr Bartlett Mr Armstrong Mr West Mr Slack-Smith
Question resolved in the affirmative.
CENTRAL COAST AND HUNTER WATER SUPPLY
Urgent Motion
Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast) [4.03 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) supports the State Government on its decision to pick Tillegra as the site for a 450 billion litre dam which will secure the water supply for the Central Coast and Hunter regions, and
(2) condemns the Opposition for its failure to support this important initiative.
There is no issue of greater concern to the residents of the Central Coast than our current water crisis. The crisis, which should have been managed by Gosford and Wyong councillors, has been left unresolved. The Iemma Government will not allow that situation to continue. We have developed a comprehensive plan to drought-proof the Central Coast and the Hunter not only for the next 30 years but for the next 60 years. The heart of the plan is the $342 million Tillegra Dam project. That will not only secure supply for Hunter families but also ensure that the crisis on the Central Coast will not happen again. 4460 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
The Iemma Government's dam and water grid plan includes a new 450 billion litre dam at Tillegra, north of Dungog, to be constructed on cleared grazing land on the upper Williams River; four new pumps at Balickera, north of Newcastle, to extract an additional 650 million litres of flood flows a day from the Williams River; a $25 million recycled water plant for Kooragang Island to reuse three billion litres of treated effluent a year in heavy industry around Newcastle Harbour; and increasing the capacity of the pipeline between Newcastle and the Central Coast from 27 million litres to 35 million litres a day—35 million litres a day is about half of the Central Coast's current daily use. Tillegra Dam will more than double the Hunter's current water storage capacity.
With the Central Coast's total supply at less than 15 per cent and no relief in sight, now is the time for bold and far-sighted action. The dam and water grid is a massive investment in infrastructure to ensure that as the population of the Central Coast and Hunter grows we will have ample water for families, industry and businesses. This plan eases the pressure now and means that the people of the Central Coast can look forward to a secure water supply for the future. The community would like a united approach on this most pressing issue.
It would have been pleasing to see members opposite put politics aside and think of the residents of the Hunter and the Central Coast, and support the plan. The Opposition has failed to support the Tillegra Dam proposal. It is clear that the Coalition would put the water supply of the Central Coast at risk. Central Coast residents know how important new infrastructure is and how an increased water supply is necessary for the future. I was astounded to hear the comments of the honourable member for Upper Hunter on ABC radio Newcastle on 17 November. On this issue he said:
I don't think it's fair that any region should sacrifice for another region.
Is that The Nationals' policy? Does that mean that all our drought-stricken farmers across New South Wales who are battling the worst drought on record do not deserve any support from Sydney and other coastal regions? That is an appalling thing to say. I am sure many farmers in seats held by The Nationals are relying on assistance from other regions to get through this very difficult time. But perhaps I should not be so surprised by the honourable member's comments, given the tick-tacking and log jumping done by the Leader of The Nationals over the past few days—and over the past few years, for that matter.
Over the past week during various media interviews the Leader of The Nationals has said that a Coalition Government would never build the dam. Then he changed his mind and said he would consider the dam; then he changed his mind again and said he would look at other measures. I have yet to see any comments from the Liberal member for Gosford in relation to Tillegra Dam. As usual, with no plans and no policies of its own, the Opposition has simply made foolish political statements and shown no leadership to the community. Such indecision is what got the Central Coast in the mess it is in now, and it is what we have come to expect from many of the councillors who are responsible for managing the water supply on the Central Coast.
Too often Wyong councillors disagree with Gosford councillors, who then disagree with the Joint Water Authority, and vice versa. What we have seen from the Coalition is more of that same indecision as the crisis grows. I reiterate that the Central Coast and the Hunter need a bold vision for the future. We need long-term planning and infrastructure. We need a secure water supply. The Central Coast community made this very clear to the Deputy Premier and me during the State Plan community consultation at Wamberal in August this year. The Government has listened to the community and, most importantly, has now acted.
The Iemma Government's final State Plan contains a clear commitment to securing the Central Coast's water supply, and it is delivering. Construction of the dam is expected to begin in 2008, subject to environmental assessment and approvals. The Tillegra catchment receives large, regular flood flows which would allow the dam to fill in six to 10 years, with the first water expected to be available in 2013. The site was first proposed for a dam in the 1970s because of its large catchment, good rainfall, and low environmental impact. Hunter Water had planned to start building Tillegra Dam in 2016. But the Iemma Government has shown leadership and, working with Hunter Water, we have decided it is important to build a dam sooner. The evidence of climate change is growing every day, as has recently been acknowledged by our Prime Minister.
Mr Chris Hartcher: A great man!
Mr GRANT McBRIDE: It is good to know that the Prime Minister is now learning what everybody else in Australia knows, that climate change is an issue that needs to be dealt with. The current prolonged drought means we must fast track the project. The project announcement has met with overwhelming support from the Central Coast community. Many residents are excited by the proposal and have welcomed the fact that 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4461
the Iemma Government is getting on with the job of delivering this water supply solution. Both councils appear to welcome the move. The mayor of Wyong shire has taken two points of view in one week. The first opposed the announcement, but in the Daily Telegraph Central Coast Extra on 14 November he was quoted as saying that the announcement was very pleasing and would ensure the security of water for our children and our grandchildren. In the same article, the mayor of Gosford City described it as being like "Christmas come early" to the Central Coast.
They recognise that the Iemma Government is helping them out of a terrible situation. Even though councils receive water rates and run the system, the Premier has kept his word that he would not leave Central Coast residents in the lurch. The problems are patently obvious. In June this year the Environment Centre and Community and Environment Network wrote that it had "serious concerns regarding the management of urban water supply by Gosford and Wyong Councils." The Iemma Government has not only acted to provide a long-term water supply for the area with a $342 million package which was announced last week, it has also acted to overcome the flawed decision-making structure of the Joint Water Authority by putting in place a new governance structure.
Last week this House passed the Central Coast Water Corporation Bill, which will provide a new direction in water management on the Central Coast. The new legislation will allow Gosford and Wyong councils to merge their water businesses, provide a far more efficient decision-making process and improve governance through a new corporate structure. The bill is about empowering good decision making and implementing a much-improved structure. Central Coast residents have told me that is what they want, and I am delighted that the Minister for Water Utilities has listened to the representations that all Labor members on the Central Coast have made on this issue. I commend him for that.
Again the Iemma Government has acted in the best interests of Central Coast residents. The new structure will help the hardworking water and sewerage staff on the Central Coast—workers who do a great job on the front line of service delivery—to do their jobs with certainty. I congratulate the United Services Union, especially Ben Kruse and Stephen Hughes, who have worked with the Government and both councils to ensure the protection of workers' interests. Instead of crying crocodile tears, the question the honourable member for Gosford has to answer is this: Should he ever become Minister for Industrial Relations would he transfer the rights, awards and conditions enjoyed by council workers and State Government employees across New South Wales to the Federal WorkChoices system?
Mr Chris Hartcher: Is the Minister asking me a question?
Mr GRANT McBRIDE: It was a rhetorical question. The honourable member will have an opportunity to answer it when he speaks in this debate. I do not think the honourable member will ever become Minister, but that is another matter. He will be moving on to another career after the election, and I welcome that. Members opposite should be embarrassed by their dithering over this issue. They will not commit to building Tillegra Dam and they have shown no interest in securing the water supply for residents of the Central Coast. Never has there been a clearer choice for the residents of the Central Coast. On the one hand, the Iemma Government is offering a clear, long-term plan for securing the region's water needs for the next 60 years. On the other hand, the Coalition is risky. It is a rabble with no plans, ideas or vision for the Central Coast.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.13 p.m.]: I move:
That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That" with a view to inserting instead:
"this House
(1) notes the failure of the Government over the last 12 years to plan for urban water provision to the Central Coast; and
(2) notes the failure of the Labor members from the Central Coast to advocate a water plan for the Central Coast for the last 12 years."
The Labor Party has been in office for 12 years and now, four months from the election in March 2007, it suddenly produces a so-called water initiative. The Central Coast has been affected by the drought for six years. The dam level has been falling steadily and has now hit 15.3 per cent. Wake-up calls have been screamed from every rooftop on the Central Coast as water restrictions moved from level 1 to level 4. We now have an announcement by the Premier that we will be saved in 10 years. According to the Premier, if he builds his dam, in 10 years it will be full and we will have water, but for the next 10 years we will simply wither on the vine. The Minister for the Central Coast, the Minister for registered clubs—and much loved he is by the registered clubs movement—claimed the problem is what the Coalition said in the past 24 hours. 4462 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
The problem for the Central Coast is what the Labor Party has not done in the past 12 years. That is the essence of what we are debating here today: 12 years of inaction and now, four months before polling day, a sudden spate of announcements. Four months before the 1999 election, full-page advertisements were taken out by the honourable member for Peats and the honourable member for The Entrance about a $800 million fast train link from the Central Coast to Sydney. The honourable member for Peats was in those advertisements. What happened to the $800 million train? It disappeared off the radar screen. This promise has as much credibility as the honourable member for Peats' credibility on the high-speed rail link. That meant nothing. She deliberately deceived the people of the Central Coast, and she is deliberately deceiving them now.
Ms Marie Andrews: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The motion is about the water supply on the Central Coast and the honourable member for Gosford is talking about a train.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I have heard sufficient on the point of order. I uphold the point of order. It is unreasonable to talk about trains in the middle of a debate about water.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I am not talking about trains. I am talking about the credibility of the honourable member.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will return to the substance of the motion.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I am on the motion.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is not. I will direct him to resume his seat if he does not return to the motion.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I am speaking to the amendment, which condemns the Labor members for their inaction and their lack of credibility because they made big promises four months before the 1999 election and never delivered. Now, four months before the 2007 election, they are doing the same thing. They have no credibility at all, neither the Minister for the Central Coast nor the honourable member for Peats. I exempt the honourable member for Wyong from criticism because he is retiring—and he is retiring because he knows that nothing is ever delivered by those two members. The Central Coast is in water crisis and has been begging for action. What did we get? According to the Minister, last week we got the Central Coast water board.
We did not get one single extra litre of water and we will not get one single extra litre of water from this so-called plan for at least 10 years, if it ever happens. The plan has no credibility at all. It has the same lack of credibility as the high-speed rail link the Minister for the Central Coast and the honourable member for Peats announced in 1998. Those members will see those advertisements again. They should not think that people have forgotten what they promised in 1998. They will be reminded of them between now and March, and they will be reminded that they have made an empty promise on the dam.
Ms Marie Andrews: Point of order: Again I draw your attention to the fact that the honourable member for Gosford is talking about anything but the motion before the Chair. He keeps talking about every other issue except the motion before the Chair.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the member Gosford wishes to return to the motion and to his amendment.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I am speaking to the amendment and the lack of action by the Labor members on the Central Coast on water. The honourable member for Peats has not said a thing about water for the past 12 years and it is her lack of action that the amendment seeks to condemn. She is the one to be judged by the people of the Central Coast.
Ms Marie Andrews: Point of order: I draw attention to the fact that the honourable member for Gosford is addressing his remarks to me, not to the Chair.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Peats make a personal explanation at the conclusion of the debate. The honourable member for Gosford has the call.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I am happy to address my remarks through the Chair. As the amendment states, Labor members have represented Central Coast electorates for 12 years. The drought has been going on 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4463
for six years, yet they have had no plans and taken no action. The Minister for the Central Coast has been invited to produce the representations he has made to the Minister for Water Utilities. I invite him now to table them. What has he done over the past 12 years in his role as the Minister for the Central Coast to address the Central Coast water crisis? He has not announced a single plan; he has not done a single thing.
Both he and the honourable member for Peats were cut out of the Premier's announcement last week. The Premier travelled by helicopter over the Central Coast but did not bother to call in on either of them, because at no stage have they come up with a solution to the Central Coast water crisis. They have not announced a plan for recycling or harvesting stormwater. They have not announced anything. Then out of the blue the Premier, desperate to divert media attention away from Milton Orkopoulos and the failures of the Australian Labor Party, suddenly plucks a dam out of the air. In June 2004 former Premier Bob Carr announced that the dam would never be built.
The first paragraph of our amendment condemns the Government for its inaction. In June 2004 the Sydney Morning Herald wrote that Bob Carr, Premier of New South Wales, said, "No more dams in New South Wales." As late as 2004 the Labor Party made it clear that it would not be building dams. Bob Carr went on the record committing a Labor Government to no dams. Now four months before the election, when all is in chaos—Milton Orkopoulos has had to resign, there is a desperate need for diversionary tactics in the Hunter, there has been no action by the Labor members for The Entrance and Peats for 12 years—a dam is suddenly plucked out of the air offering us latter-day salvation. That salvation will not come about until 2016, if it ever happens at all. It is 10 years away. All that Labor has to offer is a board, a new bureaucratic structure, and a dam 10 that is years away, but not a single extra litre of water.
The Central Coast water crisis can be ascribed to one political entity, that is, the New South Wales State Government. The Government has been aware of the drought for six years, but the Central Coast is represented by three of the most inactive, supine, lazy members who have not made a single representation. I again challenge the Minister for the Central Coast to table in the House or produce to Parliament the representations he has made on water to the Minister for Water Utilities. I challenge him to do so because he has not done a single thing. He has been the Minister for the Central Coast for four years and the honourable member for Peats has sat there for 12 years. Yet neither of them has done a single thing.
The people of the Central Coast remember—and they will be reminded between now and 24 March 2007—the promises that were made to them four months before the 1999 election. They were promised an $800 million high-speed rail link, which disappeared as soon as the election was over. This dam will disappear as soon as the election is over because Labor has no serious intent at all. The Government talks about a plan for a dam that is 10 years away, when the Central Coast faces a water crisis now. Now is the time for action; not to make an announcement about a project that will not be completed for 10 years. The Premier made the announcement on a hastily organised helicopter trip. He did not dare land on the Central Coast. If the Premier came up to the Central Coast and talked about water, people would laugh at him. The Labor Government has had 12 years to do something, but it has done nothing.
Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Peats) [4.23 p.m.]: The Iemma Government has demonstrated a long-term commitment to the Central Coast when it comes to helping overcome the current water crisis. With dam levels this week dropping below 15 per cent the Iemma Government's leadership on this issue has never been more important. The Iemma Government's $342 million plan for the Hunter and the Central Coast, which my colleague the Minister for the Central Coast has outlined, is the latest in a series of measures to secure the Central Coast's water supply. As well as the upgraded pipeline, the Tillegra dam, the Balickera pumping station works and the new recycling plant at Newcastle, the Iemma Government has already committed to more than $10 million in works.
As announced by the Premier in May, those works include initial assistance for the construction of a $5 million pre-treatment plant to enable more water to be transferred from the Williams River to the Central Coast, with Hunter Water providing $2.5 million; construction of the $30 million transfer pipeline between the Hunter and the Central Coast, with Hunter Water providing $8 million for the project; the temporary reduction of environmental flows in Ourimbah Creek, which will provide up to an additional four million litres of water for the Central Coast every day; and the extension of Sydney's highly successful Water Savings Fund to the Central Coast to assist industry and other large water users to introduce innovative recycling and stormwater harvesting schemes.
In addition, last month the Minister for Water Utilities announced that the New South Wales government-owned power generator Delta Electricity would build a large-scale recycling plant at its Vales Point 4464 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
power station, which will slash its drinking water consumption by 464 million litres a year. Tenders will be called before Christmas for a recycling plant to initially supply 230 million litres a year. The plant will also replace drinking water used in cooling systems with seawater, which will save a further 234 million litres a year. Further, operators will implement water efficiency measures, such as retrofitting showers and taps with water-saving devices, thereby saving up to 10 million litres a year. With the Central Coast in the grip of a terrible drought, all of those measures, driven by the Iemma Government, demonstrate our clear commitment to ensuring the region does not run out of water.
While the Iemma Government has a long-term plan and vision to look after the Central Coast, the people of Gosford are incensed by the behaviour of Gosford City Council and its inaction on our water crisis. In my 11 years as a member of this House no issue has raised the ire of my constituents more then the failure of the council to plan for the future supply of our water. On the Central Coast responsibility for water is shared between Wyong Shire Council and Gosford City Council. The story of our current crisis is a tale of mismanagement, buck-passing and inaction. Chris Holstein of Niagara Park has been a Gosford City councillor for over 15 years. During his years as a councillor and mayor of Gosford he has done nothing to solve the Central Coast's dwindling water supply. While Chris Holstein's inaction has been disappointing, his mismanagement has been downright alarming.
While mayor of Gosford in 2001 Chris Holstein spent a startling $3.7 million of Gosford City Council's water and sewerage operation money to pay for a blow-out in the construction of North Power Stadium at Gosford. The reason for raiding ratepayers' water and sewerage money was simple: he had financially mismanaged building the stadium and needed water and sewerage money to cover the shortfall. Only this year he was involved in spending $7 million of council funds to tell us what we already know: that the council has mismanaged water, and tough decisions should have been made when he was mayor five years ago.
Chris Holstein has not publicly supported the State Government decision to build a new dam at Tillegra. The Leader of The Nationals has said that he sees no evidence to support the construction of a dam at Tillegra in the short term. Dam levels are at less than 15 per cent. That is a very frightening fact. What further evidence does the Leader of The Nationals need? What further evidence does the Liberal Party's candidate for the new seat of Gosford, Chris Holstein, need to support this project? As councillor and mayor, he was responsible for the mess we are in. Now he will not support a solution. Like Emperor Nero who played the fiddle while Rome burned, Chris Holstein watched idly as we plunged into this water crisis.
When I doorknock and hold street meetings, all the complaints I receive are about the water crisis. Local residents elect councillors and mayors to manage their budgets and plan for future water needs, not to pay for stadium blow-outs. As the local member I am committed to making sure residents' concerns are heard and acted upon. I will continue to do so. The ratepayers of Gosford deserve better. The Iemma Government will deliver what Central Coast residents need and demand. We will deliver water security for the Central Coast for the next 60 years. [Time expired.]
Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [4.28 p.m.]: There are two sides to the tale about Tillegra Dam. On the one hand, it is about the mismanagement of urban water supplies on the Central Coast. I point out that it is a Central Coast issue; it is not a Hunter issue. Hunter water is perfectly secure. On the other hand, the dam project was a surprise announcement. There is not much value in the Minister for the Central Coast dumping on local government. That does not absolve the Government of 12 years of neglect. There has been no courtesy briefing for the honourable member for Maitland, the Deputy Speaker, the prospective new member, or the elected mayor of Dungog shire.
There has been no consultation whatsoever with the local community or affected landholders who fought off the dam in the early 1990s. They were given a 30-year-plus reprieve, not 15 years. This has cut their future to the quick, and uncertainty and apprehension have replaced the certainty that freehold property tenure ordinarily provides in this country. Those people will now enter the world of compulsory government acquisition and the attendant uncertainty. The Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act is the only avenue of relief available, and it was introduced by a Coalition government in the early 1990s. It is the only hope for market-value compensation in the face of the dam proposal. There are also major environmental concerns about depriving river flows in favour of storage and pipeline bypass of the river itself, not to mention the downstream impact of the loss of this water on fish stocks and other environmental issues. I hope a fresh environmental assessment in the light of current environmental science and practice and the latest cumulative environmental impacts in the intervening period will address the other environmental issues that have been raised. 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4465
The Premier has timed this ambush announcement as part of his desperate re-election campaign. It is a desperate bid to save the hapless Minister for the Central Coast. The New South Wales Government has been in office for 12 years, and it is the New South Wales Government alone that is to blame for the lack of amplification of water storage and infrastructure despite rampant, unchecked urban expansion on the Central Coast. The members who have already spoken referred to a fast-track process. I hope the Government does not intend to abrogate its responsibility to undertake an environmental assessment, to prepare a proper environmental statement and to address the acquisition of the relevant properties. The construction phase will be at least three to four years and the water storage phase will be about 10 years.
The Government is hoodwinking the people of the Central Coast by promising them that this project will provide a short-term amplification of urban water supplies. That is a myth. Several elections will pass before that happens. I am not—nor are The Nationals or the Coalition—prima facie opposed to the dam, and I have never said anything to that effect in the past or since last week's announcement. Likewise, the Leader of The Nationals has never said anything to that effect. He has been completely misquoted and misinterpreted in the Maitland Mercury, on 2HD and, no doubt, in other media.
I am concerned about the future of affected property owners and the loss of prime agriculture land and productive economic activity. I am also concerned about the environmental and other impacts. Those other impacts include the loss of dairy production following the losses already caused by dairy industry deregulation, which was forced on the industry by the New South Wales Labor Government, and the loss of the forestry industry, which has led to a loss of economic production and jobs. It has also advanced the Labor Party's march towards forest unsustainability. The loss of $300,000 in local rates must be compensated. The loss of existing road infrastructure and the investment made by Dungog Shire Council must also be compensated. There will be a marginal positive impact during the three-year to four-year construction period, but only one or two long-term jobs will be created. That is a very high price for the local community to pay for this infrastructure.
It is vital for the tourism industry that recreational facilities such as a camping ground, a boat ramp, electricity supply and all the amenities required to encourage tourism in the area are considered and fully funded by the Government. It is also important that any such recreation area is not exposed to the prevailing winds. I urge the Government to consider such a development as part of the cost of this dam. The Coalition is not opposed to the dam, but it has legitimate concerns. The Coalition cares for these landholders, environmental issues and the community. As far as I can see, the Labor Government's undue haste in making this announcement on the eve of an election proves that it does not care about those vital issues.
Mr JOHN PRICE (Maitland) [4.33 p.m.]: I would like to correct one comment made by the honourable member for Upper Hunter. Dairy deregulation was requested by the New South Wales Dairy Farmers (Industrial) Organisation. I was present at the meeting and it all tumbled together as a result of the Federal Government's offer to compensate those who wanted to get out of the industry. Honourable members need only look at Victoria to see the result of its acceptance. There is no danger about the—
Mr George Souris: That is no excuse. It is State legislation that did it.
Mr JOHN PRICE: Of course it was State legislation, but it was introduced at the request of the industry. I would hate any member to claim that I am not speaking to the leave of the motion so I will turn to it. We must understand that the Hunter community's long-term needs are being served, as are those of the residents of the Central Coast, by the establishment of the Tillegra Dam. This project has been on the drawing board since about 1970. It was taken off the drawing board as a result of the controversial decision to charge water fees in the Hunter Water region. Water consumption quickly dropped by about 30 per cent. Of course, that has now been extended to the Sydney Water region and it has been very successful in making us all aware of the need to conserve water.
To claim that the Government is acting because of the upcoming election is ridiculous. The construction of a pipeline to supply water to the Central Coast is already well advanced. As usual, the Opposition is clutching at straws. The Leader of The Nationals has compromised himself. He was violently against the project originally, but he has subsequently modified his comments. On radio this morning he did not rule it out: perhaps it was worth considering after all. Given that Hunter Water has progressively purchased the Tillegra Dam site from the community—more than 10 per cent of the land mass required is already in public hands and owned by the corporation—the comments of the Leader of The Nationals today are, at the very best, fraudulent. I hesitate to say "fallacious."
The problem in the Hunter is that we have a good water supply. It is the envy of many; we are extremely fortunate. I live within sight of Barrington Tops and when the clouds come from the coast inland, 4466 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
they hit the mountain and we get good rain. Even the little Allen River, which I live near, overtopped my bridge two weeks ago. It has gone down now; it goes very quickly in the hot winds and the warmth of the day. Nevertheless, we need that additional capacity. The upgrading of the Balickera pumping station will allow it to take in more than 65 million litres of water every time the river floods, and that will be put into Grahamstown Dam. The upgrade of the artesian supplies in the Tomago and Stockton area will also be a great advantage as a result of supplementation. From memory, the Tillegra Dam will provide water capacity well in excess of double the capacity of the Chichester Dam. We will be able to provide water to the Hunter region and the Central Coast for a minimum of 60 years. That is not what I call a hip-shot reaction to the current crisis. This is the worst drought we have had in 1,000 years. That has been widely acknowledged; even the Prime Minister mumbles about it.
However, to develop a plan, to reinstate a suspended program, to use the purchased land and to extend those purchases is a sensible way for the Government to proceed. I applaud the Premier and his team for the decisions they have made in that regard and I look forward to the construction of the dam. It may be 2013 before water can be drawn, but the design phase, the construction phase and the dam itself, which will be concrete faced and rock reinforced, will be tremendous. It will guarantee the future for my children and grandchildren for at least 60 years. If we learn to conserve water as a community, which we must do, this situation will only improve. It will be a shining light in a country that has extreme difficulty retaining and reusing water. A massive recycling plant will also be established on Kooragang Island which will service local industry. The Government is doing far more than was originally anticipated. I compliment the Premier and the Government for its actions.
Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast) [4.38 p.m.], in reply: I acknowledge the contributions of the honourable member for Gosford, the honourable member for Peats, the honourable member for Upper Hunter, and the honourable member for Maitland, whose contributions are always sound, solid and well reasoned and who puts forward a great argument. With regard to the comments made by Opposition speakers I repeat the point made by the honourable member for Maitland towards the conclusion of his remarks: At the Water Summit, chaired by the Prime Minister, John Howard, on Melbourne Cup Day, it was stated that Australia is in the throes of a 1,000-year drought. That is the situation we face in this country.
Regardless of how one looks at it, the action of the New South Wales Government in bringing forward the Tillegra Dam project is a responsible action and acknowledges the circumstances that exist today. The honourable member for Gosford was, once again, talk, talk and more talk—but no plans, no ideas, no action. The honourable member has ignored the fact that the management and ownership of Central Coast Water is entirely in the hands of Gosford and Wyong councils. That is the way it is structured. Since day one the management and ownership of Central Coast Water has been entirely in the hands of Gosford and Wyong councils. They have been the managers of it; they have been the stewards.
[Interruption]
As my colleague the honourable member for Peats interjects, one could say those councils have been the mismanagers of Central Coast Water. The Government introduced the legislation because it was requested by both councils to deal with the functionality of the decision-making process, which, during the times when we had real pressure on the system, proved to be unworkable. The councils required a new system of governance. The Government consulted the councils. They requested the legislation, and we went through it carefully with the councils so they understood all the issues associated with it.
The councils supported the proposal, but when the legislation was introduced into this House the Opposition failed to support it. In contrast to the contribution made by the honourable member for Upper Hunter, the honourable member for Gosford opposed the legislation. The question for the honourable member for Gosford is this: Does he or does he not support the suite of initiatives proposed by the Government? If not, was his contribution today simply hot air? I was interested to hear the honourable member for Upper Hunter indicate that the Coalition was supporting the Tillegra Dam proposal. Is that correct? Does the Coalition support it?
Mr George Souris: I don't answer questions from you. Get on with your speech!
Mr GRANT McBRIDE: I thought the honourable member said that in his comments. I will have to refer to Hansard. I was listening to radio 2HD this morning when I heard an interview with the Leader of The Nationals in which he equivocated. He said other initiatives should be looked at first. He did not say he 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4467
supported this proposal at all. So I do not know what the Coalition's policy is. I can only say what I heard this morning on radio 2HD, what the Leader of The Nationals has been quoted previously as having said, and other sources, which all indicate that he does not have a consistent policy in regard to this proposal. I am stating in this House today that the honourable member for Upper Hunter should support this legislation. If he supports the Tillegra Dam proposal, he should support this legislation. The legislation is urgent because of the uncertainty caused by the lack of decision by honourable members opposite. If the Coalition made a clear decision, and relayed that decision through the media, everyone would know that it supports the Tillegra Dam proposal.
It is important for the people of the Central Coast to know that those opposite support the proposal. I commend the honourable member for Upper Hunter for looking after his electorate, and for acting as a good steward and considering the issues of compensation and other related matters. But what a contrast that is to the policies of his party and the Coalition, and the views of the honourable member for Gosford. None of those three entities is prepared to make a commitment to the people of the Central Coast, which is what they want.
The Central Coast community wants a resolution to disfunctionality and the lack of decision making associated with the water supply authority on the Central Coast. They want to know, in regard to the legislation, that the Opposition will encourage the two councils to adopt the legislation. Everyone on the Central Coast knows how important the legislation is, and everyone wants something done, but we need the support of the Opposition. Members of the Opposition should state clearly to the people of the Central Coast and the Hunter that they support the Government's water initiatives both on the Central Coast and in the Hunter.
Question—That the words stand—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 45
Ms Allan Mr Greene Mrs Perry Mr Amery Ms Hay Mr Price Ms Andrews Mr Hickey Ms Saliba Ms Beamer Mr Hunter Mr Sartor Mr Black Ms Judge Mr Shearan Mr Brown Ms Keneally Mr Stewart Ms Burney Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Mr Campbell Mr McBride Mr Tripodi Mr Chaytor Mr McLeay Mr Watkins Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr Whan Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr Yeadon Mr Daley Mr Mills Ms D'Amore Mr Morris Ms Gadiel Mr Newell Tellers, Mr Gaudry Mrs Paluzzano Mr Ashton Mr Gibson Mr Pearce Mr Corrigan
Noes, 34
Mr Aplin Mrs Hopwood Mr Roberts Mr Barr Mr Humpherson Mrs Skinner Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Slack-Smith Mr Cansdell Mr McTaggart Mr Souris Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Draper Ms Moore Mr Torbay Mrs Fardell Mr Oakeshott Mr J. H. Turner Mr Fraser Mr O'Farrell Mr R. W. Turner Mrs Hancock Mr Page Mr Hartcher Mr Piccoli Tellers, Mr Hazzard Mr Pringle Mr George Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Mr Maguire 4468 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
Pairs
Mr Bartlett Mr Debnam Mr West Mr Stoner
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Mr SPEAKER: I welcome to the public gallery Mr Teng Weiping, Vice Governor of the Liaoning Provincial People's Government, and his delegation, guests of the honourable member for Wagga Wagga.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORATES AND ELECTIONS AMENDMENT (CHILD SEXUAL OFFENCES DISCLOSURES) BILL
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.
REGIONAL ROADS FUNDING
Matter of Public Importance
Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.55 p.m.]: The New South Wales Government's record on investing in country roads is very strong. This year's budget allocated a record $1.84 billion to be spent on rural and regional roads across New South Wales. This includes a massive $440 million being invested on three critical highways connecting our State—the Great Western Highway, the Princes Highway and the Pacific Highway. We are also investing more than $141 million across the State under the REPAIR Program and the Block Grant Scheme. This money goes to councils in rural and regional areas for the upkeep of their local roads. In all, the breakdown for road spending favours areas outside the city by a ratio of 2:1. As a regional member I am very pleased that the calls from regional and country areas have been heard by the New South Wales Government. That is why the Government spends two-thirds of the Roads budget in those areas.
Some of the specific projects being funded in rural and regional areas across New South Wales out of the Iemma Government's record Roads budget include $360 million towards the new three-year, $1.3 billion State-Federal Pacific Highway program; $49.7 million towards the Princes Highway upgrade program, including $15 million to start the extension of the Northern Distributor from Bellambi Lane to the Princes Highway at Bulli; $8.2 million to start the four-lane divided carriageway deviation of the Princes Highway from Oak Flats to Dunmore; $5 million to start construction of the Kiama ramps; $32 million to continue the $460 million program to upgrade the Great Western Highway between Penrith and Orange, including $9.5 million for continued construction between Winbourne Road and Ferguson Avenue, Hazelbrook; $8.5 million to continue planning and to start preconstruction works on Lawson section two between Honour Avenue and Ridge Street; $6.5 million to start stage two of Leura to Katoomba between East View Avenue and Bowling Green Avenue; and $3.5 million to construct overtaking lanes at Lucknow, near Orange.
It is not just in relation to the big-ticket items like these three highways where we are working hard. The Government is also introducing a new $60 million, three-year program to help councils upgrade their timber bridges on regional roads. The Timber Bridges Partnership was announced last month by the Premier, with funding provided on a 50:50 matching basis with councils. The new partnership provides further help to allow State and local governments to work together to upgrade timber bridges on regional roads. A total of 285 timber bridges on council-managed regional roads will be eligible for upgrading under the new program. While we already direct two-thirds of the Roads budget to rural and regional areas—and support other funding programs for councils—the Government recognised that more needed to be done about timber bridges across the State.
The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] has received considerable feedback from regional communities and councils on this issue. The feedback is, "Thank you, Premier, and thank you, Country Labor, for pushing to get this funding." In many cases, these bridges are located on vital transport links for local people 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4469
and industry. The cost of some maintenance and repairs can be significant. Timber has a high maintenance demand when used for permanent outdoor structures. A timber structure more than 50 years old is likely to have had all timber elements replaced at least once, while the decking is likely to have been replaced as many as four times. As a result, many of the timber bridges are of heritage significance and are listed on the State Heritage Register. For that reason these bridges are familiar, and in some cases iconic, local landmarks. This is why timber bridges have generated so much feedback, and why the New South Wales Government announced a new funding program.
This $60 million commitment comes on top of the more than $141 million given by the RTA to councils this year to maintain their regional roads and bridges under the REPAIR Program and the Block Grant Scheme. This year alone the RTA will spend a further $35 million on State road timber bridges under its care— part of the Government's overall bridge maintenance program. The New South Wales Government upgraded or replaced 140 timber bridges, mainly on arterial roads, between 1998 and 2004, at a cost of $163 million. Our new Timber Bridges Partnership will boost rural economies, improve safety for road users, and reduce maintenance costs for councils. The partnership is being funded by an increase in the RTA's existing allocation.
We are already moving forward with the new partnership and have identified a first round of bridges as eligible for upgrade. They include the bridge over Turallo Creek on the Tarago Road at Bungendore; the bridge over Spring Creek on the Sofala to Mudgee Road; the bridge over Gunderman Creek on the Wisemans Ferry to Kariong Road; flood channel bridge No. 1 over the Neimer River floodplain on the Barham to Maude Road in Wakool shire; the bridge over Perch Creek on the Lismore to Murwillumbah Road; the bridge over the Peel River at Nundle; the bridge over Merri Merri Creek on the Warren to Carinda Road in Warren shire; Bean Creek Bridge on Woodenbong Road, near Tabulam; and the bridge over Gum Creek on the Parkes to Canowindra Road.
Each of these bridges has been identified on the basis of sound criteria, including safety, strategic importance for freight or tourism to the local economy, bridge condition, and level of use by heavy vehicles. This is a clear example of a strong and detailed plan. The policy identifies dangerous areas and bridges that need to be replaced, with the Government providing the necessary funding. This is in contrast to the hot air from the Opposition, which has no policies or plans. It merely makes statements of no strategic sense regarding the way roads are funded and built. The RTA is contacting councils to identify further priority bridges that will be eligible for inclusion in the program. But the critical issue for the Opposition today is that it must inform the people of New South Wales of its plans for country road funding if it were to somehow find itself in government after the election in March. This issue has taken on new significance following the declaration by Leader of The Nationals that he plans to invest over $500 million of the Roads budget for the benefit of city-based motorists.
I nearly fell off my chair last week when I heard the Leader of The Nationals suggest that the Government should purchase the Cross City Tunnel, even at the bargain price of $500 million. Opposition members need to tell regional communities the roads that will not be funded if they take away funding from the bush to buy the tunnel to Vaucluse. Last week the Leader of The Nationals was on Sydney radio criticising the Government for not buying the tunnel "even at a bargain price". But the question for the Leader of The Nationals, and every Nationals and Liberal Party member in regional areas is: Which local country road project would they scrap to fund this reckless spending pledge? They have an obligation to tell the people of country New South Wales how they would fund the plan to buy the Cross City Tunnel—which, after all, mainly services the electorate of their Coalition leader, the leader of the conservatives in this place. They should use this debate as an opportunity to explain to people outside of Sydney why they want to spend more than a quarter of the country roads budget to buy a tunnel in Sydney.
I am having trouble understanding this concept; perhaps those opposite can provide more detail on it. Is it just the ramblings of the Leader of The Nationals, desperate for some media coverage? Is he operating under instructions from the Leader of the Opposition, whose electorate would gain the most from the tunnel's purchase? Why are those opposite sitting silently while this secret plan unfolds under their noses? Let them state clearly today whether they would spend more than $500 million to buy the Cross City Tunnel, and what projects they would walk away from in country areas to fund this buyout. Or are they too gutless to answer that question?
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [5.05 p.m.]: I ask the honourable member for Kiama not to leave the Chamber because I want to read onto the record his correspondence to me. I am amazed at his hypocrisy today in talking about the Iemma Labor Government's support for country roads. I wonder whether he read yesterday's newspaper, because the girl photographed on the front page is Dixie Gibson. She has eaten at 4470 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
my table, she has stayed in my home, and she is now dead. She was killed in a car accident on a section of the Pacific Highway on which improvements were to commence in 2000. I can list a litany of names of people who have died on sections of road that the Government has failed to fund over the past 12 years. There have been 13 deaths at Pine Creek in three years—13 needless deaths on a section of road that should have been completed in 2003. Yet the honourable member for Kiama has said that the Government is looking after country roads.
The honourable member for Bega interjected and said that more than 50 deaths have occurred on the Princes Highway this year. There have been more than 50 deaths on the Pacific Highway, with the local media carrying headlines such as "Coffs P-plater highway death", "Another fatality but no explanation as to why", "Road minister promises", "Highway toll 54 … continuing", "Father bans daughter from highway drive", "Well-known Grafton man dies after head-on smash", and "Grieving dad sends message of support". For the honourable member for Kiama to read a speech that was obviously prepared by the Minister's office is the utmost hypocrisy.
I seek to place on record a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary for Roads, Matt Brown, in response to representations I made to the Minister for Roads in March this year on behalf of the Repton Rural Fire Service. It concerns the intersection of Keevers Drive and the Pacific Highway, south of Pine Creek, where 13 people have died in the past three years. The speed limit goes from 80 kilometres straight to 100 kilometres an hour. Rural Fire Service officers and others use that road to access the highway in times of emergency. I asked the Minister for Roads to extend the speed limit of 80 kilometres an hour for another 300 metres, to allow safe ingress to and egress from Keevers Drive. On 6 July 2006 the Parliamentary Secretary stated:
Simply lowering the speed limit to 60km/h would not necessarily mean travel speeds would change if the road environment suggests to motorists that a higher travel speed is appropriate.
It amazes me that Minister Tripodi approved the installation of speed cameras at a point 400 metres north of that intersection but only a few weeks ago there was an almost fatal accident there. Speed cameras do not slow motorists down or prevent accidents; they merely raise revenue. On the other hand the honourable member for Kiama is telling us that if we reduce the speed limit in an area people will ignore it. I cannot understand how the honourable member, having signed that letter, can hold up his head in this place and read a speech written for him by a ministerial department in which he compliments the Government on its attention to country roads.
The $60 billion bridge project that the honourable member lauded is purely a copy of a Coalition program we put in place three or four months before. The Government saw the damage that that program would do to Labor's electoral chances in regional areas, so it copied the program. Indeed, the Government's copy of the Coalition's program is far inferior to what we put out for public dissemination. I would like the honourable member for Kiama to join me on Friday and visit Coffs Harbour and talk to the people who will gather at Dixie's funeral. He should tell them why his Government—
Mr Michael Daley: That is absolute gutter politics from you.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: The honourable member for Kiama should tell the people at Dixie's funeral why the Government has not spent Federal funding of $500 million, which is already in the Government's bank account, on the Pacific Highway. Federal funding of $500 million remains unspent on the Pacific Highway by the Iemma Government. Some sections of the Pacific Highway were authorised for upgrading in 2000. The section of road where Dixie was killed was finalised for upgrading in 2000. This young lady could have been alive today—six years later—if the upgrade had been completed after the planning approval process in 2000. If the honourable member for Kiama does not believe me he should look at the hundreds of plans on the web site showing all the road upgrades that have been approved. Yet nothing has been done. The question I ask is: Why?
Last week on the mid North Coast, road maintenance workers came to me and said, "We are now being instructed by this Government to erect 'rough surface' signs on sections of the Pacific Highway where the surface is breaking up. We are trained professionals whose job it is to repair road surfaces but there is no money to repair these surfaces." They came to me because it is schoolies week on the Gold Coast this week and many young people are travelling on extremely dangerous sections of the Pacific Highway, together with 3,000 to 4,000 B-doubles and semitrailers per day. These road maintenance workers are government employees.
When people are dying on our roads daily, the honourable member for Kiama has the hide to crow about the money the Government is spending on roads. On Saturday week ago a police officer was killed north of Woolgoolga. Last week a person from Sapphire in Queensland who was travelling on a motorbike had a head-on collision with a car just north of Coffs Harbour. Thank goodness he did not die. These people died on 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4471
sections of road for which black spot and road maintenance funding has been withdrawn. The hypocrisy of Government members to blow their own trumpets in that regard is unbelievable. For the honourable member for Maroubra to suggest by way of interjection that this is politicisation—
Mr Michael Daley: Cheap politicisation. Make sure you throw in the word "cheap"!
Mr ANDREW FRASER: The honourable member for Maroubra should tell Dixie Gibson's parents that, because I will. I will ensure that the honourable member's interjection is circulated to every house in his electorate. He is nothing but a bovver boy who ignores these deaths. When his friends die on the highway he should look me in the eye and tell me that what I am saying about Dixie's death is cheap. This beautiful young girl died needlessly because of the inaction of members opposite, who are sloths. The honourable member for Tweed, who is sitting there laughing about young people dying, should tell his electorate about his inaction.
When I see people and the media in Labor electorates, I will tell them about the Parliamentary Secretary's inane letter stating that if we reduce speed limits people will ignore them. In terms of what the Government has done in relation to country roads on the North Coast and the South Coast, there have been more than 100 deaths on the Princess Highway and the Pacific Highway in the past 12 months. If the honourable member for Kiama wants to pat himself on the back about that, he should go for it. I thought he had brains and empathy, but he has shown that he is nothing more than a political animal who wants to make political points out of young people, our future, dying on these roads. I will remind the honourable member for Tweed about it as well. [Time expired.]
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motions
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! It being 5.15 p.m. the discussion is interrupted to allow the House to deal with General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices).
General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
______
NUCLEAR FUSION
Mr JOHN MILLS (Wallsend) [5.17 p.m.]: In February this year Professor John O'Connor of the Department of Science and Mathematics at the University of Newcastle gave the occasional address at the presentation evening for Lambton High School, and he offered hope to young adults for a future sustainable energy supply. He spoke of nuclear fusion. He said:
The first power station based on nuclear fusion should be in operation in less than 45 years. At a time when there is much doom and gloom about the long-term future of fossil fuel burning for electric power and transport, especially the adverse impact on climate around our precious planet, and fear about the dangers of power from nuclear fission becoming more widespread, a message of hope from my generation to young people is welcome.
We know that the unchecked and ever-expanding creation of greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels will eventually lead to adverse man-made effects on our climate. We know with certainty the dangers of an unchecked and ever-expanding nuclear fission power industry. The first danger is the manufacture of plutonium as a by-product, ready for use in nuclear bombs—a grave danger to human life. The second danger is the generation of much high-level radioactive waste, the most dangerous of which has a half life of 125,000 years.
It is incomprehensible that we frail and fallible humans can guard this dangerous stuff so far into the future. Nuclear fission is the science of splitting the atom, the atoms of heavy elements like uranium, atomic number 92. The reaction is violent and produces dangerous ionising radiation, and heat and other radioactive lighter elements. Whatever the Zwitkowski report might say about it, nuclear fission is not green and clean. It is dangerous to human life and rotten filthy. 4472 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
There is an alternative sustainable source of energy. It is called nuclear fusion. The fusion reaction was discovered in 1934 by Mark Oliphant in collaboration with Rutherford and Hartek. Fusion is the energy source of the stars. Instead of splitting the heavy atom—that is, fission—fusion joins together light atoms. The reaction is D + T = 4He + n + energy, and takes place in a plasma. D is deuterium, which is available from sea water. T is tritium, which needs to be made in a breeding reaction in a plasma from deuterium and lithium. The product helium is an inert gas. Product energy heats the steam cycle of a power station to make electricity.
In August at the University of Newcastle I attended an address by the Australian scientist Barry Green, the Research Program Officer for Fusion Association Agreements at the European Commission. He described the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project as the next step to a sustainable future. Fusion can provide the 24-hour-per-day base load energy for security of electricity supply. It is safe because there is no chain reaction. It is environmentally acceptable. The fuels are geographically widespread and almost inexhaustible. Australia has abundant reserves of sea water, lithium and the metals vanadium, niobium, titanium and tantalum, which are used in super-conductor manufacture. There is waste in minor quantities. There is no radioactive emission but there is activation of the reactor structure by the neutron flux. The waste is low-level, suitable for near-surface storage, and the danger passes after less than 100 years. Fusion is weapon-proliferation resistant. To give an example, 45 litres of sea water plus the lithium from one laptop battery would give 30 years of fusion electricity for one person.
There are roadblocks. The physics is solved; science knows how to do it. Materials problems need to be solved, especially excessive erosion. There is a lack of political will to support the research program, and for dollars per kilowatt the challenge is how to make a power plant big enough to ensure economic competitiveness. The ITER project needs increased international collaboration for success, to build a demonstration electrical generation power plant. Australia does not yet participate in the project. Russia, the United States of America, Japan, the European Union, India, China and Korea, representing more than half of the world's population, initialled the agreement in May this year to start building the project in France. They aim to have the first plasma in 2016 and complete the project in 35 years.
ITER seeks participation from other countries such as Brazil and Australia. Participation by Australia would give us access to the technology and know-how, and access to the overseas facilities. Our participation enables us to exploit our strategic resources. The cost for Australia to join the ITER project is only $A5 million. There is an Australian ITER forum, including the University of Newcastle, which is putting the case to the Federal Government this month. I urge the Australian Government to agree to the ITER proposal and join up. It is especially important for Australia to be involved to maintain the high level of our scientific research, and we could be involved, for example, in testing materials for resistance to the neutron flux.
Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.22 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Wallsend and Professor John O'Connor. He has raised some very important points for us, for the Federal Parliament and for the people of Australia. Nuclear energy is simply another dog whistle piece of politics from the Prime Minister, and whatever Ziggy Switkowski's report says today, it will not be the full story. Another important point the honourable member made is that the waste from the fusion process lasts only 100 years, not the 125,000 years that the Prime Minister suggests. I thank the honourable member for Wallsend for bringing this important issue to the House.
CHATSWOOD RAILWAY STATION UPGRADE
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [5.23 p.m.]: A few short weeks ago Dr Brendan Nelson, the Federal member for Bradfield, and I held a community forum in the Chatswood Community Docherty Centre to gauge community feedback on many issues concerning the broader community. A number of issues were raised that day, but one State Government issue in particular that was repeatedly raised during the meeting was accessibility to Chatswood railway station. I have raised the issue in this place before but recent developments have caused me to raise it again.
As Parliament well knows, Chatswood railway station is currently in the midst of an upgrade and various transitional arrangements are in place pending its finalisation. My concerns are that many members of the community at that forum, in addition to many people who have contacted my office, who have sent me emails, and who have written to me have highlighted their difficulty in accessing the platforms at Chatswood railway station. The many concerns raised include the steep stairs that all commuters have to negotiate. On Sunday I was following a lady who was not very mobile and she needed to stop every four steps before she reached the top of the stairs. 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4473
The one lift at the station is consistently out of order and even when it is working it is very slow and takes quite a while to go from street level to the platform and back down again. The escalators at the station, particularly those on the western side, are consistently out of order as well. When the lift and the escalators are out of order, commuters have no option but to use the stairs, which are very steep, and for many people are too steep. Once commuters have gone from street level to level one they have to negotiate through a maze to get to the platforms.
The residents of Chatswood, the broader Willoughby electorate and the lower North Shore are desperate to have the new railway station upgrade completed but it is concerning that the plight of commuters seems not to have been regarded during the transitional arrangements put in place while the upgrade is being completed. It is not appropriate that the concerns of commuters be totally disregarded. If there were a competition to decide the worst scenario for transitional arrangements at railway stations, many commuters would think those at Chatswood would win.
I held a street stall in Chatswood mall shortly after the afternoon tea that Dr Nelson and I co-chaired. I was approached by an elderly resident who said that due to accessibility problems at Chatswood and Artarmon stations—Artarmon does not have any disability access or ramps for elderly people—she was forced to catch a taxi to St Leonards station, where she then caught the train. People in her situation should not have to put up with that. For some people, even catching a taxi for part of a trip is not affordable or sustainable.
People in the Willoughby electorate have always been ready and willing to catch public transport when it is reliable, safe and consistent, but regrettably the railway station upgrade at Chatswood is preventing many people from utilising the rail service. On 10 September the State Government slashed 140 bus services in and around the Chatswood interchange in the Willoughby electorate, thereby limiting people's ability to get to Chatswood railway station and other destinations and thereby limiting people's ability to use public transport at all.
This is a serious issue. If people are not catching public transport in the Willoughby electorate, which is only a few kilometres from the Sydney central business district, we have real problems. For many members of my community, especially those less mobile, those who rely on off-peak services to attend work on a casual basis in the big retail sector in Chatswood, and those who are studying, the only way they can get around is by public transport. Because of the State Government's decision and because commuters have been largely ignored at the Chatswood railway interchange, many people who otherwise would catch public transport are being forced into their cars or, worse still, being prevented from getting out and about. [Time expired.]
PENRITH AND LOWER BLUE MOUNTAINS INFRASTRUCTURE
Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [5.28 p.m.]: Tonight I discuss the relationship I have had with Penrith and the lower Blue Mountains for the past 3½ years. I have been proud to work with and support working families of Penrith and the lower Blue Mountains. I will give a snapshot of what we have been able to do together in key areas. Glenbrook Primary School, Penrith infants school and Penrith High School have had multi-million dollar upgrades. Emu Heights Public School and Lapstone Primary School have received new school halls.
The new school hall at Lapstone is an innovatively designed covered outdoor learning area. Two classrooms have been refurbished with an electronic wall that goes up and down like windows so the school band performances can be held there. The Lapstone Primary School band is very good and has won many awards at eisteddfods, and its performance space is very valued. Being a former student of that school, for me to formally open that covered outdoor learning area was quite an achievement. Kingswood Park, an area of high need within the Penrith electorate, now has a school-based preschool—part of the 22 preschools that were rolled out at the beginning of last year. Its opening was a significant achievement for the community and has assisted young people's learning. Kingswood Park Public School also has a new security fence, which we actively fought for and achieved.
A new after-hours general practice [GP] clinic will soon be established at Nepean Hospital. That was a great win for the community. For many years representatives of the Nepean Division of General Practice met with me at my office to ask me for support and to lobby the Federal Minister for Health, Tony Abbott, to tick off on an after-hours GP clinic at Nepean. Although similar clinics had been established in other areas, Nepean hospital did not have one. It was the Iemma Government that agreed to the clinic being situated at Nepean Hospital and allocated funding in the last budget. Lo and behold, two days later, and following many petitions 4474 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
from my office, Tony Abbott announced an after-hours GP clinic at Nepean. Also, Nepean Hospital has a new $8 million purpose-built emergency department, which includes a fast-track unit. I commend the nurses and doctors who work in the fast-track unit, where my son received great treatment about three weeks ago.
The Nepean Hospital emergency department also includes a virtual intensive care unit. This New South Wales Government initiative means that intensive care specialists at Nepean can treat patients at a hospital in the Blue Mountains in real time. The Nepean Cancer Care Centre has been upgraded and now has cancer clinical nurse specialists. Those specialists are partly funded by the Cancer Institute, which is an initiative of the Iemma Government, and the Cancer Council of New South Wales. Further, the interventional cardiac service and laboratory have been upgraded to level 5. That facility provides great support to cardiac services in the Nepean and Western Sydney areas. In the last budget the Government allocated funding for an additional neonatal intensive care cot, bringing to eight the number of cots in this top-class facility.
A $60 million State office building has been announced for Penrith. The building will house 400 staff, and the construction of the building will create hundreds of jobs. It is a great initiative for the people of Penrith, who have spoken to me about employment issues when I have been out and about polling in the parks every fortnight for the past 3½ years. This issue has also been raised by the Penrith Youth Forum, which consists of youth from local high schools. The forum holds meetings in my office. I have also advocated for Office of Fair Trading positions to be based at Penrith.
The Government has provided funding for a weed harvester to clean up the Nepean River and the formation of a scientific committee. On Roads, $6 million has been provided for safety improvements to the Great Western Highway. The electorate has three new fire stations and 10 new community fire units. I have been working with the Premier, who understands the issues faced by families and wants to see improvements in key areas, such as, transport, health and education. A rail timetable includes more stops at Emu Plains and Penrith. All but one u-stop has been removed from the old timetable, which means extra stops at Penrith and Emu Plains. That initiative is important for people who work and live in the area. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier will stand up against John Howard and the Federal Government on family support, the GST rip-off, WorkChoices et cetera. [Time expired.]
Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.33 p.m.]: I compliment the honourable member for Penrith on her representation of her electorate. I attended Penrith High School and lived in Penrith for several years. Until recently I had relatives living in Penrith. The honourable member for Penrith is an active and hard-working member. Her speech highlights the achievements in her electorate, and I congratulate her on her excellent representation over the past 3½ to 4 years.
GRAFTON BASE HOSPITAL
Mr STEVE CANSDELL (Clarence) [5.33 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House concerns that have been raised with me about the suggested downgrading of Grafton Base Hospital by the North Coast Area Health Service and the Government. Recently I met with Dr Alan Tyson, Chairman of the Grafton Base Hospital Medical Staff Council, and Dr Hal Leaver, Secretary of the Medical Staff Council, to discuss their concerns about the proposal. Generally they do not speak out publicly, but in this case they went to the media because they believe that the actions of the North Coast Area Health Service will be detrimental to the health and safety of the people in the Clarence electorate.
Dr Alan Tyson said that plans to improve facilities at Grafton Base Hospital have been ignored by the North Coast Area Health Service and the New South Wales Labor Government. In a letter he wrote to the North Coast Area Health Service's Chief Executive, Chris Crawford, Dr Tyson said Mr Crawford had decided to progressively allow Grafton Base Hospital to become a cottage hospital attached to a renal dialysis unit. In his letter Dr Tyson outlined a string of broken promises, including undelivered operating theatres and orthopaedic services.
I recall before the last election the then Minister for Health, Craig Knowles, dressed up in an operating theatre gown and hat with his hapless local Labor candidate standing by his side, promising a $7 million upgrade to the operating theatres. An upgrade would relieve the pressure on orthopaedic surgery at Lismore Base Hospital, reduce the need for people in the Clarence to travel for treatment, and provide better treatment for local people. Not only did the Government promise operating theatres and an orthopaedic service, but following the closure of Aruma nursing home, the $400,000 recurrent funding the North Coast Area Health Service contributed to that facility was to go towards the orthopaedic service. That funding has disappeared into 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4475
the mire of other funding options. One of the main issues that Dr Tyson raised is the Grafton hospital emergency and casualty department. Dr Tyson said that this facility is at crisis point and clinically unsafe. It is a very busy accident emergency service and staff are always run off their feet.
Mr Thomas George: It is near the Pacific Highway.
Mr STEVE CANSDELL: People involved in incidents on the Pacific Highway are sent to Grafton before being transferred to Lismore or Brisbane. As I said, the Government has made a string of broken promises, including the operating theatres and an orthopaedic service. In his letter to Mr Crawford, Dr Tyson listed a number of North Coast Area Health Service directives that he claimed would have a detrimental effect on specialist medical staff and patients. Dr Tyson said:
All the promises you have made so far to improve facilities within Grafton Base Hospital have either been shelved or reneged upon.
We are now being asked to progressively decrease the amount of theatre time allowed to the visiting surgeons next financial year.
Dr Tyson said the Medical Staff Council opposed proposals to reduce general surgical cases from 733 to 680, endoscopies from 762 to 626, gynaecology from 401 to 372, and ophthalmology from 443 to 275. Dr Tyson also referred to other issues. In March I asked a question in the House about the Northern Rivers pathology service at Grafton Base Hospital losing its national assessment testing authority accreditation because of the withholding of adequate funding from the hospital.
In 1990 a rally attended by 5,000 people was held at Grafton to discuss these problems. I am told today that Clarence Valley Council, out of sheer frustration with the inaction of the North Coast Area Health Service and the Government, has organised a major rally to discuss health services in the Clarence Valley, including Grafton Base Hospital, Maclean District Hospital and the urgently needed health facility at Yamba. The Minister for Health will be invited to the rally. We hope to see him there to address these important issues.
GLASS HOUSE TELEVISION PROGRAM
Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield) [5.38 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House a matter that would cause every Australian a great deal of anxiety and concern. I am particularly concerned as I take a great interest in all aspects of the creative industry—film, writing, art and music. On 31 October the ABC announced its decision to scrap the Glass House. The announcement was made after the current running of the program. The ABC said the program would not be continued next year and the last episode would go to air on 29 November. Ours is the oldest Parliament in the country and it is the seat of democracy. The show had been enjoying its highest ratings ever with average audiences of 728,000 and the program regularly out-rated commercial programs in the same timeslot. This year it won a peak audience of about 860,000 viewers. In a media release dated 3 November, ABC director Mark Scott said the show had had a good run and that the ABC wanted to extend the same opportunity to other comedy shows. He stated:
We place a very high premium on finding the new talent, creating the programs, creating the new opportunities.
And that's why you can't keep doing everything you've always done and you have to grab the opportunity to try and do some new things.
It is clear to most people that this has been a political decision designed to stifle any criticism of the Howard Government, even if it is in a humorous, satirical style. In fact, since the decision there has been an outcry. The targets of satire are often the Government of the day and political leaders. That is a vital part of free speech in a vibrant and healthy democracy. Even Paul Keating said that he enjoyed the Rubbery Figures show. Numerous comedy programs have focused on leading government figures. That is one of the great things about Aussies and our values: We can take the micky out of ourselves; we can laugh at ourselves. That is a unique part of Aussie humour.
About 3½ years ago in one of my first speeches in this place I referred to the potential impact of the Free Trade Agreement [FTA]; I was treading on thin ice because it was a Federal issue. That was yet another instance when Australia was trading away its future. The FTA means fewer Australian productions and fewer jobs for Australian actors, writers and producers. We have some of the best television productions in the world. What will we get instead? We will get dumbed down American culture in our lounge rooms. That is very sad. Some of the feedback put on the ABC's web site states:
I'm not happy with the axeing of the Glasshouse!!! You are pretty much the only TV program I watch these days. 4476 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
Am soooo sad about The Glass House coming to an end, it has been my favourite show for years ... where else can you find a show where the hosts and guests say just what everyone else is thinking??
So much other crap on the other channels and especially the other crap from OS. Why can't you support good Australian shows???
Dump the only decent show on your channel for some other crime scene/death inspired CSI clone, or God forbid, another pointless "manufactured reality" show. Brilliant idea ABC management!!!!! How about you replace it with political propaganda for the Howard Govt in the lead up to the next election, hmmm.
What a big mistake ABC I cannot believe u will take this great show off the air. This is the best show on tv. My son and I watch every week and will miss it terribly. shame shame shame.
Cutting the Glass House smacks of CENSORSHIP. Our pleasure from laughing at the stupidity of our system is being deprived because the Establishment is the butt of the jokes.
The most maddening thing is, if you look carefully, The Glasshouse aren't promoting Labour either. As with most comedy, it is about pushing at the dominant paradigm.
The last Glasshouse will be a very dispiriting day in our household ... where is Aunty heading? What's next? Triple J being closed down for inciting young people to care about issues?
Let us hope the ABC does not axe The Chaser. If it does there will be war! [Time expired.]
BEGA ELECTORATE HEALTH SERVICES
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [5.43 p.m.]: As we head towards the end of the life of this parliamentary term I take the opportunity to spell out my vision and plan for the delivery of health services in the electorate of Bega. Over the past four years I have been working with various community organisations and groups within the electorate to deliver a number of key outcomes. That includes the delivery of a new operating theatre at the hospital, the placement of a $100 million regional base facility on the five-year capital works program, the establishment of the new emergency department at Bateman's Bay District Hospital and the delivery of dialysis at Moruya District Hospital. They are the achievements of the past four years, but we must now look to the future.
My constituents have ongoing concerns about the way health services are provided. They have utmost confidence in and high praise for the local health service staff—the specialists, doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, who all do a wonderful job servicing the far South Coast in a system that needs urgent reform. I cannot adequately express my disgust at the level of New South Wales Government funding provided to the Australian Capital Territory health system. That funding could be better used to provide new health infrastructure on the South Coast. The Government has spent more than $240 million on health services in Canberra over the past five years. I am the first to agree that some South Coast patients need to travel to Canberra for specialist services.
However, the fact that patients who should be treated in South Coast hospitals are travelling to Canberra to have broken limbs set or other basic procedures performed and for the State to be paying a premium for that service is outrageous. The Bega valley community has demonstrated very clearly its desire to have one regional facility. Likewise, the Eurobodalla shire is making it very clear that it wants more specialist services provided at a new regional facility. I will continue to work hard in the years ahead to get that new facility on the capital works program. That said, while the Bega valley facility, the site of which is yet to be determined, is on the five-year capital works program, it is important that the Government engages with the medical work force and community about the Eurobodalla situation.
One of the key pillars of the Coalition's health policy heading into the next election is the scrapping of Greater Southern Area Health Service. That highly centralised bureaucracy has failed to deliver front-line resources to our front-line staff. There are ongoing problems with the organisation's financial management and its decision-making processes. Only last month small businesses reported that they were not being paid by the service. The Coalition's plan is to scrap the service and to replace it with district health boards. Those boards will be organised to ensure that comprehensive services and expertise are available within each district. That will include non-acute, community-based health services and providers as well as hospitals.
Narooma has a community health centre. I have met with the local health group, which has been formed to achieve a wider range of services, and its members believe that the area will be better served by a district health board than a bureaucracy which is miles away and which does not know what is going on. The 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4477
Narooma health group is advocating greater use of the health centre. It wants public dental services, physiotherapy, podiatry and many other services. District health boards will be ably assisted by clinical institutes, which will support local health care activity. That is an exciting development. The Coalition also has a policy to assist nurses, who are the backbone of the health system. That is my plan and vision for the far South Coast and I intend to fight for it tooth and nail after the next election. [Time expired.]
EAST HILLS ELECTORATE SPECIAL SCHOOLS FUNDING
Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [5.48 p.m.]: Today I want to refer to the need for a more equitable funding arrangement to be put in place for special schools in my electorate, Caroline Chisholm school at Padstow and Broderick Gillawarna school at Revesby. I should point out that these schools take students with severe physical and emotional disabilities—and obviously those with an educational disability as well—and students are drawn from much of the southern and western parts of Sydney. The students do not all live in my electorate. I note that the honourable member for Auburn is present in the Chamber and I am aware that students from her electorate also attend those schools. I note that the Parliamentary Secretary assisting the Minister for Education and Training is at the table, and she may want to comment briefly at the conclusion of my contribution.
I recently met with parents, carers and staff at Caroline Chisholm school to listen to their concerns about some aspects of the funding resources made available to special schools. I acknowledge that the Iemma Government has strengthened special education services for those schools by way of providing a teacher's aide for each special class. In the past 18 months the Government has employed an extra 650 such aides and is very much on the right track. It is the Government's intention to have an aide for every special class in each special school next year. At Caroline Chisholm and Broderick Gillawarna schools every class will have a teacher's aide next year, but teachers, staff, students and parents at both schools have genuine grievances that need to be addressed.
One issue raised by both schools relates to the inadequate behaviour funding support for the extra attention many badly behaved students require. No-one would suggest that schools generally do not have behaviour challenging students, but in special schools the problem is exacerbated. I appreciate that teachers are dealing with fewer students and with a teacher's aide, but it must be recognised that those students have many disadvantages and the need to try to educate and socialise them—and just deal with them—is a great emotional and physical challenge for staff as well as for parents, carers and the children concerned. There is a fund available to tap into, but I am asking for funding to these schools to be made available more regularly so they do not have to continually go back to the region and ask for a topping up of funding to be able to deal with these students.
The principals of both schools are loath to suspend any student for bad behaviour, as I and other members of this House might understand it, because that only exacerbates the problem. The students need massive amounts of care and their parents cannot take time off work to look after them. They are, after all, in special schools and students get there only because they have special needs and problems. Over the years I have visited both schools on many occasions, and one thing that was pointed out to me was that many parents do not feel confident enough to have their children properly assessed as to whether they suffer from a degree of autism. Therefore the behaviour of those students is put down as challenging, or the level of their intellectual disability is deemed to be milder than it in fact is.
The department and other authorities, in consultation with the parents, should arrange for the students to be regularly tested to ascertain whether they may be exhibiting autistic behaviour. That would make it easier for staff to deal with them and possibly also increase potential funding outcomes. Staff have also referred to the fact that these issues raise occupational health and safety concerns. I understand that recently one teacher at Caroline Chisholm school has been away from the school for quite some time with a badly injured arm resulting from an incident at the school. It can happen that a big boy can be upset and lash out at some poor young person in a wheelchair. It is not fair, but I am merely attempting to bring it to the attention of the House.
Both schools suffer as a result of being funded on the primary student allocation. While the majority of students are of secondary school age—and secondary school age students generally receive a greater allocation—these schools are funded mostly on primary allocations. Moreover, release time away from classes is not as much as it should be, compared to the time teachers have in other primary and secondary schools. On my many visits to the schools I have come to appreciate that the teachers, Mr Stephen Milroy and Mrs Elizabeth McCartan and the staff at Caroline Chisholm and Broderick Gillawarna special schools are doing all they can. 4478 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
Their requests are not selfish and not based simply on the attitude: What can we get? They are genuine requests based on how they can better perform for the students under their care. [Time expired.]
Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.53 p.m.]: I am happy to reply to the representations of the honourable member for East Hills and to thank him for bringing the issues relating to Caroline Chisholm and Broderick Gillawarna schools to the attention of the House. They are very real issues and his acknowledgement of the problems for children, parents, carers and teachers involved in special education is spot on. The honourable member has a strong background in education. We need to remember— and he has brought this to our attention—that every child has a right to an education, particularly children in the category he has referred to. The honourable member raised several issues in relation to concerns of parents and teachers and I give a very firm commitment to follow them up. I know that the honourable member will have taken up those issues with the Minister, and I will endeavour to do the same. However, the honourable member also recognises that in the past few years the Government has implemented the most advanced and socially just initiatives ever seen in this area.
DIXIE GIBSON FATAL ROAD ACCIDENT
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [5.55 p.m.]: I appreciate that I spoke about this matter in the House earlier today but, for the benefit of the honourable member for Maroubra, the honourable member for Tweed and the honourable member for Kiama, I will read two letters about Dixie Gibson. The first letter is from one of her schoolteachers, and I believe it is self-explanatory:
Andrew, Dixie was in my yr 11 and yr 12 Maths class in 2003/2004, she was probably my favourite and most frustrating student at any moment in time. She had everything brains, looks, personality, the lot, what a waste, I've cried daily since last Friday. She was also good friends outside of school with my daughter Hannah.
As I see it right now we are living in a war zone, forget Iraq, any parent on the North Coast with a teenage child and a driving license should be scared, very scared. All margin of error that once existed on the highway is know gone, the state of the road, volume of truck traffic and small margins of error that are left by so-called professional drivers makes Iraq look like a safer option than getting your P-plates.
With 5 children of my own (three teenagers) I'm seriously considering moving back to Sydney before tragedy befalls my family. As you know I write for a national fishing magazine … and as a result I spend lots of late night hours on the highway coming back from and going on trips.
I realise the truck driver involved in Dixie's accident was not at fault, but some of the stunts I've seen truck drivers pull defy belief.
Last week I followed a B-double back from a bass fishing trip at Bello and he went through three red lights in town, not orange, full red. A month before that coming back from another bello-bass trip a B-double pulled out from the McDonalds side street and ripped the front off a car that was waiting at the same intersection. The B-double driver then refused to acknowledge the accident by stopping and the driver of the car that had no front end, chased him back through town but to no avail.
Andrew I've got a stack more stories, close calls etc that I've experienced first hand. I had the both side mirrors on my 100 series Landcruiser hit and almost ripped off by a wide load that flew over the Macksville bridge a few months back. The truck had no pilot car with him, was speeding and to avoid collision I had to stop, run the car into the side of the bridge and basically jump into Mike Colless's lap in the front passenger seat.
Anyhow mate, if there is anything I can do to help put some pressure on let me know, I'm more than willing.
The second letter was from Dixie's dad and it reads it part:
It is my turn to endure the loss of the most beautiful child in the world—my own daughter.
Luckily for me she has two older sisters to help me reflect on a daughter's life.
Dixie was full of laughter and happiness, had just completed her first year at university, and was going to become a primary school teacher.
She loved fashion and she often modelled for local charity events and keenly raised money for the Westpac helicopter.
Her love of and for people is reflected by the amazing support that I am receiving.
Dixie simply moved over onto the left-hand shoulder of the road, 'over corrected' and found herself in the path of an oncoming truck. She died trying to get back onto the correct side of the road.
The poor truck driver reacted quickly and braked heavily but did not have enough room to escape the impact. The road was a simple two lanes south of Kew, built and planned many years ago with no centre wire or dual carriageway.
21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4479
There is dual carriageway not far from the accident site but not where Dixie was killed.
As I go through my grieving emotions, I am amazed at the flood of Dixie's friends, who are often doing the hardest thing in their lives, to come out and visit a very sad situation.
I ask myself if I had given her advanced driver training to improve her skills on correcting a car, or what if she had left five minutes earlier that day, or what if the road was simply divided with a wire rope - would she still be with us today?
I will bury my daughter later this week and if just one positive can come from this tragedy I hope it is that whoever has any influence in completing the Pacific Highway can make it entirely dual carriageway or simply put a wire divider fence up the centre to prevent vehicles from colliding head on - this is my wish.
Right now I want to go and build the bloody fence myself. How hard can it be?
As I said before, maintenance funding has been cut back. Maintenance workers are putting up signs rather than putting up barriers. I make the plea on behalf of Phil Atkinson, Dixie's maths teacher; Peter Gibson, her dad; stepmother Kerryn, and sisters Erica and Eleanor. Get on with the bloody job now!
AUBURN WEST PUBLIC SCHOOL
Mrs BARBARA PERRY (Auburn) [6.00 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to Auburn West Public School and its fantastic spirit that runs right through all facets of school life. Recently, I had the pleasure of assisting in the official opening of the school's new facilities. Also present on the day was my parliamentary colleague and Federal member for Reid, Mr Laurie Ferguson, who is a great supporter of all the schools in our community, and the Federal Parliamentary Secretary for Education, Mr Pat Farmer. The school's new facilities include 16 new classrooms, a hall, a covered outdoor learning area, a canteen, toilets, a refurbished library and administration area, facilities for the disabled, including a lift providing access to upstairs classrooms and the library, a games court, two car parks, information technology cabling and landscaping. Those facilities are an excellent addition to a school that has been educating and nurturing young people in our community since 1934, and I am sure that they will go a long way towards enhancing the future achievements of students and teachers.
What stood out on the day—and on every visit I make to the school—is the strong sense of school pride from teachers, students and parents. It is very clear that the entire Auburn West Public School [AWPS] community plays a significant role in the support, growth and education of those students. That community effort was definitely on show at the official ceremony. The staff and students put on an amazing show, with the drum group, choir, dance group performances and the presentation showing the progressive changes at the school. There was great parental support as well as support from the wider community.
The AWPS parents play a big role in the harmonious and supportive environment of the school. They help to make AWPS a great place to learn and teach and to be a part of. Local businesses that had supported the school's new facilities, as well as members of the police, were there to join in the celebrations. It was topped off by a stirring, whole-school rendition of You're the Voice. It was truly special and something I will remember always. The strength of this school lies not only in the supportive and dynamic environment but also in the way students are inspired to reach for the stars, instilling self-belief for a world full of opportunities. It is so heart warming to see a whole school united in a belief that if students work hard and follow their dreams, they will achieve.
On hand to inspire the kids were a couple of former students who played a significant part in the new school. As a grade 4 student many years ago, Mohammed Chebib delivered a speech to our learned Speaker when he was Minister for Education, after which he was assured he would get his new school. Mr Chebib has now returned to the school on practice teaching as an undergraduate student in primary teaching. It is great to know that the dedication of Auburn West teachers and the AWPS experience has inspired Mr Chebib to embark on a teaching career. Also on hand was former student and artist Michelle Tran. Michelle designed a mural that encapsulated not only her talents but also the spirit of Auburn West.
Current students are filled with the confidence and knowledge that they can achieve great things if they follow their passion, just as Michelle and Mohammed have. Like a fragile seed, the mural symbolises the growth of the young people at the school. It also celebrates the cultural diversity of the school and the need to work together to combine all strengths and talents to grow and to achieve. One of the panels in the mural states "Aim High". That is exactly what Auburn West instils in its students through every facet of school life. The teachers inspire ambition and personal drive in the students to see things through, guided by self-belief. 4480 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
It is testament to the fantastic teaching staff at the school, led by its principal, Barbara Reynolds, who has given 14 years service to the school and to the Auburn community and who will retire from teaching at the end of the year. I was delighted to be a part of this ceremony to celebrate and open the new facilities at Auburn West Public School. This was truly a community effort—from the support of the New South Wales Government, to the local support of businesses, parents and the wider community. And it is Auburn and the wider community that will reap the benefits of the hard work of a great many people.
SOUTH COAST COMMUNITY
Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK (South Coast) [6.05 p.m.]: This is the final opportunity I will have before the State election in March 2007 to sincerely thank some of the individuals and groups with whom I have become associated over the past four years and to pay tribute to their commitment to the community and their assistance to me throughout my first four years as the member for South Coast. Time constraints do not allow me to mention everyone who has assisted me, but the following is a snapshot of the fantastic community and individuals I have been honoured to represent.
Sylvia Marshall has worked tirelessly to collect thousands of signatures on petitions lobbying against further cuts to the South Coast rail line. Jo Ball's personal experiences with mental health issues led her to strongly campaign with others for dedicated mental health beds at Shoalhaven Hospital. I also commend John Strang and The Junction mental health team. Darryl Cook is a relentless campaigner for a stroke recovery unit at Shoalhaven Hospital. There is good news on that front. Margaret Bourke is a fierce fighter for additional police numbers for the Shoalhaven area command. I commend the hardworking volunteers in policing, as well as local policemen and policewomen, who daily face danger to protect our community.
Bill Carter, David Jones, John Lipman and all the members of the local coastal patrols volunteer their services for the boating community of the South Coast. All members of the local Rural Fire Service face the threat each year of bushfires, particularly on the South Coast, and their courage and commitment are almost unequalled. I particularly acknowledge the Central Catering crew led by Donna King, who took the reins from our beloved Mary Reeves. She has been sensational. Each year Bill McInnes, Ian Borrowdale and the local State Emergency Service members are called to emergencies, not only in the Shoalhaven but also throughout the State: Well done for all their quiet commitment to duty.
Steve Jones is an unbelievable worker for the South Coast surf lifesaving community and I commend all the volunteers in all the clubs who give their time to ensure the safety of swimmers and surfers in summer. Barry Mitchell and Pat Barkley are strong advocates for those suffering from Parkinson's Disease. The Shoalhaven Women's Health Centre provides invaluable services for women of the Shoalhaven. They are wonderful people—and happy birthday! The many members of the war veterans community support each other and they have supported me also in many ways over the past four years. Bob Morris and Rod Coupland fight on to achieve recognition for Korean war veterans, and I acknowledge their wives, of course, Janet and Mavis. Clyde Poulton represents and leads the Vietnam veterans community. Rod Simpson from the Huskisson RSL represents veterans throughout our community. I commend Rick Coster, who works with Legacy; the ladies of the War Widows Guild; Bob Ganderton, who has helped me and others in so many ways, not to mention his advocacy on behalf of national servicemen.
Joe Yatras has an unbelievable understanding of disability issues and he has fought an ongoing battle for increased respite care. He is a hero. In the area of disadvantage and disability I refer to Ginger O'Brien and the staff of Noah's Ark, and Julie Ashby and the staff of Havenlee Special School. I also commend all members—there are too many to mention—of the Lions, Rotary and Apex clubs, who continue to work for their community through fundraising efforts. It has been a privilege to know them and it has been my absolute pleasure to attend their many functions each year.
I acknowledge Dee Carrington and the committee of the Milton Ulladulla Cancer Outpatients Appeal. That project will soon become a reality as a result of their fundraising efforts. I believe the fundraising target has nearly been reached: the community has raised about $500,000. I commend John Bennett for his work with the Nowra Show Society and for his advocacy generally of country shows. The Milton and Nowra shows continue to grow and prosper and become even more popular. I thank the general manager, directors and staff of Shoalhaven City Council for their professional assistance and advice to me over the past four years. Jan Shalhoub and Glenda Staniford have a tireless commitment to changing government policy in respect of seatbelts on school buses. I congratulate all the community forums, which operate in nearly every village and 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4481
town and which strongly represent their communities in liaising with all levels of government. I have enjoyed the many, many meetings I have attended.
I thank John Dale, one of the powerful voices of Currarong, John Morgan of Culburra Neighbourhood Watch, Charlie Weir, Terry Barrat, Mark Corrigan, Jan King, and the thousands of people who continue to fight against increased water extraction from the Shoalhaven River. Last but not least, I thank my electorate staff, Lynne Arnold and Rick Machin, who have been committed and hardworking throughout my first term in Parliament. I give thanks to my long-suffering but totally supportive family—my husband, Ossie, my three wonderful children, David, Kate and Rachel, and my new son-in-law, Ryan. In conclusion, I could not possibly mention all the wonderful people whom I have met and been associated with over the last four years. However, I have been blessed to represent the South Coast electorate and look forward to another term in State Parliament should electors decide to give me this chance in March next year.
DUBBO ELECTORATE
Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [6.10 p.m.]: Today I speak about various issues I need to address as the member for Dubbo. Many constituents in my electorate, and indeed the remainder of New South Wales, daily face difficult and unresolved conflicts about which they turn to their elected representatives. Many elected representatives such as local government councillors, and State and Federal members of Parliament, regardless of their political leanings, certainly are not single-minded. As an Independent member, if I were to be accused by certain media of having a single issue, it would be for rural and regional New South Wales to be acknowledged and treated as importantly as major coastal cities where the majority of votes are held. For too many decades rural electorates have not received the same attention as Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong.
Recently State and Federal governments dismissed a proposal regarding funding and forward planning for a crossing through the Blue Mountains, to meet not the demands of the future but the demands of yesterday. The estimated cost at the time was only $3 billion. All regional shires and councils from the sandstone curtain and beyond were in Parliament to show their support to the honourable member for Lachlan and the honourable member for Bathurst in their direction on this project. As an Independent member of this House I take exception to being labelled a single-issue oncer, a main chancer and a desk hopper. It is my duty to knock on the doors of whoever is in government. If I have knocked on the doors of Ministers in this State Labor Government, I make no apology for that. It is my role to do that, and achievements have been realised.
This is certainly not jargon used by rural journalists when referring to their members of Parliament. It may amuse some city slickers that rural and regional communities such as Dubbo have the same issues as metropolitan areas, although not always in the same pigeonhole. We have skills shortages and inadequate State and Federal funding for public education and TAFE courses. At present 300,000 people want to enrol in TAFE and university courses. For example, a hairdresser in my electorate has just finished her four-year apprenticeship and she now wants to enrol in a beauty course. Unfortunately, because funding for the course requires an enrolment of 10 people and only six students are enrolled, the course cannot continue. That is unacceptable.
The Federal Government is undermining the New South Wales TAFE system by introducing Australian technical colleges. Why reinvent the wheel when we have a perfectly good system? Funding for the Australian technical colleges should be redirected into our TAFE system so that people such as this young hairdresser can continue their careers. Inadequate funding for health, medical treatment, clinical services and transport, and a lack of specialists and a shortage of nurses are all statewide issues.
We are experiencing extreme drought. While city dwellers whinge about not being able to water their gardens, our producers do not have adequate water to maintain their farming properties and they have no sustainable income. They receive bills for nil use of their water allocation. I believe Burrendong Dam will be reduced to 1 per cent capacity by the end of January, which is most unsatisfactory. Support for our volunteer rescue services, police service and ambulance services are a State issues, not local issues. Assisting those who seek housing, either public or emergency, is also a State issue. Department of Community Services issues, domestic violence, mental health issues, sustainable communities, environmental projects, liquor accords, and gaming and racing are all State issues, not local issues. The maternity allowance, known as the baby bonus, is a great Federal initiative that was recently achieved by a so-called local Independent.
Transport issues, including weights and loads, are State issues. Passenger rail and freight are also State issues. Other State issues include regional roads and the Newell Highway, more traffic on the Pacific Highway, the outstanding sealing of roads to be continued, young drivers, grey nomads from Victoria. Small business and 4482 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
regional and urban development are also State issues. When was the last time Australian Business Limited met with any Independents? The company was today quoted as saying that the Independents need to deal with issues other than local issues. Other lobby groups can find their way to our doors, so I am sure that Australian Business Limited can do the same. Perhaps there is only one door it is going to: the Liberal Party's door.
I started working for my area from the days when I attended playgroup, long before I became a member of Parliament. Any person who is in touch with his or her community can make decisions for the betterment of all. Rural and regional New South Wales used to have a voice with the National Party. Unfortunately, The Nationals are now fighting for their survival and not for their communities. Over the past 18 months my constituents, under the guidance of the Premier's Department, have held whole-of-government meetings attended by representatives from all government departments, non-government agencies and Federal government agencies. As a result of this positive discussion and planning, progress is taking place throughout the entire electorate to provide a safe and secure environment for the future. It is a great role model for all electorates.
New South Wales needs constructive, major and sensible reform, not time wasted in Parliament on innuendo, vilification and muckraking. We need people who earnestly wish to represent the New South Wales community, not those who aspire to the political glory of leadership before they have earned their stripes. It has been two years since the Dubbo by-election, and in the intervening time I have had the great pleasure of representing the Dubbo community. I hope to continue to do so for a further four years and to achieve much more.
PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION AND WORKCOVER LEGISLATION
Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [6.15 p.m.]: Today the Independents met with Michael Slattery, QC, President of the New South Wales Bar Association, to discuss a plan to get a fair go for injured people. Peak bodies from a number of areas of the legal profession are conducting a statewide campaign to try to change personal injuries compensation laws that the State Government introduced in 1999 and 2001. Today we learned in detail about the campaign, which is being conducted by the New South Wales Bar Association, the Law Society of New South Wales, the Law Council of Australia, and the Australian Lawyers Alliance. It attempts to draw public attention to the effects that the laws are having on injured people, in particular people who are injured in the workplace or in motor vehicle accidents.
The changes have established thresholds for personal injuries that affect a great number of people to the extent that more than nine out of 10 people injured at work or in motor vehicle accidents are denied the right to receive damages for pain and suffering. These people do not meet the test for fair compensation because of the range of complex percentage thresholds. People have come into my office clearly in great pain and discomfort and with long-term prospects of diminished activity and earning potential, yet they do not meet the stringent thresholds.
I found it particularly interesting that in 2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers claimed that the WorkCover scheme's $2 billion debt would take until 2012 to clear up. However, just nine months later the Minister announced that this scheme was some $81 million in surplus. That speaks volumes about where the money is going: $8 billion has been raised under this scheme, yet only $1.8 billion has been paid out in compensation to injured people. There is a huge black hole that needs to be addressed. The finances that had been retained by the insurance companies have allegedly been kept to drought-proof us against further future claims. However, the reality is that the insurance companies are rapidly becoming addicted to the substantial amounts of money coming in; they are showing a great reluctance to release any further money to people who have genuine injuries.
The position of all the different organisations in the campaign is fully supported by the findings of the Legislative Council's General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1, which released a report in December 2005 that would benefit people with injuries. Unfortunately, the Government has rejected the findings of that committee and, unfortunately, the Opposition has failed to respond positively to the Fair Go for Injured People campaign. The position taken by the legal profession is balanced and reasonable. The profession acknowledges that the Civil Liability Act provides a good model for the regulation of personal injury claims and that the legislation provides for the determination of claims by independent courts, and reasonable thresholds and methods of assessment of individual injury. However, by way of contrast, both the workers compensation and motor accidents scheme provide unacceptable thresholds. As I said earlier, more than 90 per cent of injured 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4483
people in motor vehicle or workplace accidents are denied access to non-economic loss. The approaches do not reflect the real effect of those injuries.
The association representatives we met today outlined a number of different case studies. Two young boys were involved in an accident in May 2002 that claimed the lives of their parents and younger brother. One boy, who was four at the time, was thrown 20 metres and broke both his legs. He now has a shortened left leg. His brother sustained a compound fracture and broken wrists, a fractured pelvis, lacerations, kidney injuries, lung injuries and head injuries. His left arm is permanently deformed. Yet under the Motor Accidents Authority guidelines the boy's psychological and physical injuries cannot be combined and they do not meet the 10 per cent threshold.
In another case, a furniture removalist who was injured while carrying a piano suffered serious back injuries but he does not qualify for compensation. A cleaner was injured while cleaning a bedroom in a psychiatric hospital in New South Wales. A patient hit the cleaner and she suffered massive injuries, but she does not qualify for compensation. There are many, many examples of what is wrong with the system. We need to have a complete look at the system, and the Government should reassess the standing committee's recommendations.
Private members' statements noted.
[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr John Mills) left the chair at 6.20 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]
NEW STANDING ORDERS
VALEDICTORY SPEECHES
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [7.30 p.m.]: I move:
That:
(1) the standing orders approved by the Governor on 12 December 1994, with amendments approved on 14 October 1996, be repealed;
(2) the standing orders adopted by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee on 28 September 2006 be approved by the House;
(3) the House authorises the Clerk, with the concurrence of the Speaker and in consultation with the Leader and shadow Leader of the House, to make any necessary clerical corrections to ensure consistency in the new standing orders;
(4) the new standing orders be forwarded by the Speaker to Her Excellency the Governor for approval; and
(5) the new standing orders be effective from the first day of the Fifty-fourth Parliament, commencing in 2007.
I shall comment briefly on this motion. As the Leader of the House I consider it a privilege to move a motion that modernises the language of the standing orders to ensure that they are contemporary. Effectively, it is a decade since the standing orders were updated. Although I am the mover of this motion, I acknowledge that the former Leader of the House, the honourable member for Smithfield, and a number of other members of this place—in particular, the honourable member for Liverpool, Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Wallsend, and the Deputy-Speaker, as well as Opposition members—have put significant effort into updating the standing orders.
I turn now to some of the changes. The old-fashioned terms of "first reading" and "second reading" will be replaced by an introduction and a "debate in principle". Third readings will basically be dispensed with. Consideration of a bill in the Committee of the Whole will be replaced by "consideration in detail". The Chairman of Committees will be replaced by an Assistant Speaker. As the House in its present state is somewhat dominated by female members, we will lose the term "chairman".
Mrs Karyn Paluzzano: Hear! Hear!
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: That interjection says it all. I am delighted that we are changing to gender-neutral language. Consideration in detail will be chaired by a Speaker without the need to have a 4484 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
separate Committee Chair, most motions will not require a seconder, and references to House of Commons practice will be removed. The honourable member for Wollongong might be a bit concerned about that.
[Interruption]
The honourable member for Wollongong is a proud member of this place and is a proud Australian.
[Interruption]
I did not think it was wise to make that comment, in any way, shape, or form, about the honourable member for Mount Druitt. Importantly, we are an independent House and one that can stand on its own two feet without the need to refer back to the old days and the old country. The new standing orders provide a new procedure for points of privilege, and the procedure for reordering business is streamlined and deferred, together with other procedural matters, until after question time. No doubt the community wants to see the Government held accountable, particularly by its backbench, during question time.
[Interruption]
As I said, most people in the community expect the transparent accountability that comes in question time to take precedence. As the honourable member for Kiama interjected, that is entirely appropriate. Given some of the things that have happened in this place of late, sadly, under the new standing orders a member of Parliament who is suspended will be suspended from the parliamentary precinct. That is a sober warning to all members during the last week of this particular Parliament.
As I said, I do not intend to speak at length on this motion. I simply thank and acknowledge the members of this House who put in such a great effort; some of them will speak later in the debate. As always, we have had the considered advice of the Clerks. Mr Grove is too humble to prompt me to acknowledge him. In particular I thank Mr Grove, Mark Swinson and Stephanie Hesford for providing technical advice. This debate will continue in the evening. Some members will take the opportunity to speak briefly to the new standing orders as they make their valedictory speeches; others will concentrate on the standing orders, and that is entirely appropriate.
I understand that one member to make her valedictory speech will be the honourable member for Illawarra, who was elected to this place in an adjoining seat to mine, on the same day as me. She is someone I have had the pleasure and privilege to work with, and I wish her well in her future life when she leaves this place. I acknowledge her family and staff, who are in the gallery and who have supported her so strongly in her work. I know she will be supported strongly as she moves on. From my perspective it is a privilege to move an update of the standing orders of this place a decade after they were last reconsidered. I trust that the House will support the new standing orders.
Ms MARIANNE SALIBA (Illawarra) [7.40 p.m.] (Valedictory Speech): Tonight I speak for the last time in this Parliament. I do so because I want to thank so many people who have been involved in my career. In particular I thank my family, who are in the gallery tonight—Charlie, my children, Matthew, Dennis, Sara and Alex, my mother, May Hudson, and my sister Lesley. I also thank my staff, who are in the Chamber tonight. My mother was a role model for my becoming involved in politics at all. She spent 14 years as a councillor on Shellharbour City Council. Over the years she has taught me everything I know, and has been a very strong advocate for the Labor Party and the principles of the working-class people. I thank her very much for her guidance in my early years and for getting me to this point.
I also thank the sisterhood for being here tonight. My parliamentary colleagues who have come into the Chamber tonight have made the past four years a very enjoyable time. When I first came to this place I found it a hard place to work in. I felt lonely and found it difficult to function while I was here because I came from such a large family and I felt like the odd person out. With so many women coming into Parliament in the last term we have developed a strong friendship, and I have enjoyed the opportunity of having that friendship. In particular I thank my partner in crime—and I do not really have to say who that is, because everybody knows that the honourable member for Wollongong is my partner in crime. I think it was Richard Amery who gave us that title—and he is right: we are partners in crime. I will certainly find it a very different life without Noreen.
Over the years I have been involved in a number of projects in my electorate. I want to make mention of a few projects I have been fortunate enough to see completed. Unanderra Public School was a project started 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4485
by my predecessor, Terry Rumble, and I was fortunate to officially open that public school. I have seen the building of Dapto Public School. I achieved funding for the Figtree High School hall, which my colleague the honourable member for Keira will have the pleasure of opening. I hope I am invited along to the opening because it is good to see the hall reaching that stage. The honourable member for Kiama, Matt Brown, and I were also involved in the Oak Flats interchange and the new Oak Flats railway station in my electorate.
Mr Matt Brown: I thought it was in mine.
Ms MARIANNE SALIBA: The old Oak Flats railway station was in my electorate and the new Oak Flats railway station is in Matt's electorate, so it is a contentious issue for us. However, we will be happy to share that railway station for the short time I have left as the local member. The Shellharbour Hospital accident and emergency department has increased to a 20-bed unit. The $1.3 billion Stronger Together funding over a five-year period for people with a disability in my local community is appreciated. I acknowledge people I have worked with from the disability services in the Illawarra. They are Neil Preston, the chief executive officer of Greenacres, and Margaret Bowen from the Disability Trust. There is also Leanne Sommadossi, who is from the House With No Steps. I have enjoyed working with those people and their organisations to ensure that people with disabilities in the Illawarra electorate are properly looked after and receive the services they require. I will certainly continue to work as a civilian with those people in those areas.
I also make mention of a couple of other projects in my electorate. I was strongly involved in negotiating the exchange of the Integral Energy Recreation Park to Wollongong City Council so that it would remain as public open space for future generations. I acknowledge Rod Oxley, the Chief Executive Officer of Wollongong City Council, and Alex Darling, the Lord Mayor of Wollongong City Council, for their involvement in ensuring that that land came back into public ownership. I have a connection with that land because it was where my family used to spend Boxing Day for many years, and I look forward to going back to that park in the future and reliving the parties we used to have there.
I say thank you also to David Hamilton, the Mayor of Shellharbour city, and Brian Weir for their support over the years and for keeping me up to date on the issues in the Shellharbour local government area. I have enjoyed working with them and was fortunate to see a lot of progress in that area over time. Last Friday the Premier turned the first sod at the TRUenergy gas-fired power station. Part of that project also involves foreshore land being handed back to the Lake Illawarra Authority for public access. In the past that land had been part of the power station, and it was good to see the land come back into public ownership and that the community will get the benefit of it.
I also thank the voters of the Illawarra electorate for their confidence over the years. It has been my privilege and pleasure to represent them. I am sure my successor, Lylea McMahon, when she wins office next March, will do a great job and will continue to fight the battles I have started and take on new projects as well. I say thank you to my staff who are here tonight. I thank Noelene Sinclair, Suzanne Naumovski, Charmain North and Vicki Williams. Noelene worked previously with Bob Carr when he was environment Minister and also with former Attorney General Terry Sheahan, as well as Terry Rumble, my predecessor in the Illawarra electorate. Suzanne Naumovski had worked with Laurie Kelly and then Terry Rumble, before coming to me. I was fortunate when I moved into that job that I had staff who were very well versed on electorate offices and how they worked.
I have never had a complaint from any of my constituents about my staff. My staff are wonderful, and I would not have been able to do this job without them. I also acknowledge my relief staff. They are Anne Girard, Alison Dumbrell, Sally Nicholas and Alf Whiddett, who have all filled in in my office at different times. I thank them very much for their support and the work they have done. Without our staff backing us up we cannot do the job we do.
I have worked with a number of people within the branches and I want to mention those people. I start with my branch presidents. Alex McLeod is in the Warilla branch. In Shellharbour there is Matthew Babcock and Tye McMahon, who is the secretary. In Dapto we have Peter Holz and Allan Cunynghame, who has been a long-term secretary of that branch. In Oak Flats, Tom Hawker is the president and Carol Hughes is the branch secretary. I thank them for the work they have done within the branches to ensure the branches keep me informed of the issues that affect them.
Outside my role as a member of Parliament I have been involved in a number of committees. I am currently the President of the Parliamentary Lions Club, and I thank all the Parliamentary Lions Club members 4486 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
for their support and the work they have done. Our club highlights the work of Lions International and promotes the need for people to join service clubs and get involved, because the clubs make a huge contribution to the community. I also thank Bede Long and John Sim for their strong support of our club. They are the backbone of the club and keep it going. I am past secretary of the Parliamentary Baden Powell Guild, having handed over the office last week. I thank the guild members and wish Karyn Paluzzano, who has taken on the role of president, good luck in the future. I am sure the club will go from strength to strength.
Present tonight are Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. I thank them for the time they give to the Christian prayer group. Somehow I landed the role of convener of that group. I do not remember how that happened; I think Fred talked me into it. During the eight years I have been a member, the group has kept me stable in this place and brought me back to earth. As members of Parliament we are in a position where we make decisions all the time. Sometimes you can forget who you are and what you are about. Attending the prayer meetings each Thursday morning reminded me of who I am, where I have come from and what I am about. I thank Gordon Moyes and Fred Nile very much for being part of that group and making me feel comfortable.
Together with my colleague the honourable member for Wagga Wagga, I am the co-convener of the parliamentary Red Cross group, which was established last year to promote the good work of the Red Cross. I am sure the group will continue to prosper. I am a member of the New South Wales Parliament Asia-Pacific Friendship Group and the Israeli Friendship Group. I know those groups will continue the good work they are doing.
I acknowledge the work of the local police in my electorate—Wayne Dedden, commander of Lake Illawarra Local Area Command, and Gary Worboys, commander of the Wollongong Local Area Command. Over the past few years I have worked with Wayne Dedden at Police Accountability Community Team meetings and on a one-to-one basis. I have found both Wayne Dedden and Gary Worboys to be extremely helpful in assisting my community. I thank them for the work that they do in keeping my electorate safe. I would like to mention Wendye Cunynghame. Her husband, Allan, is secretary of the Dapto branch of the Australian Labor Party and Wendye is the fundraising officer. Whenever anything needed to be done in my office—whether it was cutting out newspaper clippings or assisting at functions—Wendye always put up her hand. Apart from the fact she distracts my staff for long periods of time, she is a great worker and I have appreciated all that she has done.
A number of people have represented me over the years in many organisations. Mick Lord has been my traffic committee representative on Shellharbour City Council, and Alf Whiddett my traffic committee representative on Wollongong City Council. My mother, May Hudson, has been my representative on the Shellharbour City Council Australia Day Committee. Alex Riddell has represented me on the Warilla Safer Communities Committee. I thank each of them very much. It is difficult for members of Parliament to be in so many places at one time. Those people have made my job easier by representing me and keeping me informed.
Last but not least, I thank my family. I thank Charlie. I know I could not have done it without him. I hope he does not mind my saying—it is a compliment—but he went from someone when I met him who could not boil water to someone who cooks and does all sorts of things. His mother would be very proud of him. Over the years Charlie has taken on the role of primary caregiver to our four children and has freed me up to be able to undertake the duties of this job. I thank him very much. I know that things have not always worked out the way we wanted, but I greatly appreciate his support and I thank him.
To my children, Matthew, Dennis, Sara and Alex, who are all here tonight, they are the ones who have had it the hardest. So often I have not been there when I should have been. When I ask my girls would they like to come shopping with me, the reply I get is, "Only if you are not going to talk to everybody." That is very difficult when you are a member of Parliament. It does not matter where you go, people talk to you. I promise in the future I will take you shopping and I will try not to talk to too many people. I thank you very much. Matthew was 10 or 11 when I became a member of Parliament and now he has just finished his Higher School Certificate. This Thursday night he has his formal. I have missed a lot of occasions in their lives, but I intend to make the most of the rest of the time I have and I will not miss any more. [Extension of time agreed to.]
I thank Russell Grove and his staff for all their support over the years. In particular I thank Les Gönye and Stephanie Hesford for their support on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. They made my job a lot easier, and I appreciate the work they put into that committee. I know that it is not an easy task for those who sit in that Chair. I thank the honourable member for Peats, who is in the chair, for the role that she 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4487
played in this Parliament and to the Speaker for his guidance over the years. Joe, the Speaker's attendant, has kept me on my toes over the years. When I am supposed to be in the Chair and I am not, he comes looking for me and will not stop until he finds me. I thank him very much for being my timekeeper.
Another committee I am strongly involved in is the Parliamentary Bowls Club. I acknowledge our fearless president, who is here today. I am the star candidate! The bowls club brings members closer together and gives us an opportunity to participate in a sporting activity and get some fresh air while we discuss the affairs of State. I have enjoyed our time playing bowls and the trips to bowls carnivals. I put on the record that I will continue to bowl once I am out of here.
I thank very much all of the parliamentary staff who have been very helpful to me over the years. In particular I thank Hansard. I remember saying to a Hansard staff member that sometimes it was awkward speaking in this place. This is probably the fullest Chamber I have spoken to. I know that people are listening and watching on their monitors in their offices, but when you speak to a Chamber that is fairly empty you can feel that you are talking to yourself. The Hansard staff member said, "Don't forget, we're always listening." I thank them very much for always listening. When I am speaking in the Chamber, talking to no-one, I always look up at Hansard and know that there are people up there listening to what I am saying. I thank them very much for that. To the Opposition, I thank them very much for the respect they have always shown me over the years. I do not think there is anyone in this place who is not here for other than good intentions, that is, to make a difference within their community. That is about it, except to say goodbye and thank you everybody.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): With the indulgence of the House, I want to add a few comments. Marianne and I, as Temporary Chairmen of Committees—a dreadful term—have a lot in common. Also, I have been involved in a number of parliamentary groups with Marianne, including the Parliamentary Bowls Club. Marianne is a very good bowler, one of our most promising, and she has been actively involved in whatever has gone on in Parliament. To Marianne and her family, I wish them all the best and good health in the future.
Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [8.00 p.m.] (Valedictory Speech): I thank the House for the opportunity to make some comments in acknowledgment of my retirement on 24 March next year. I will start by thanking my family, who are in the gallery this evening. Vicki, my wife has shared my 14 years in State politics and the five years I spent in local government before that, making a total of about 20 years come the election. I thank you for your patience and support. She will object to my saying "support", because it is very difficult, particularly given the long weeks and long nights. However, I very much appreciate that support.
To James, Keiran and Jordan, your names are now recorded forever in Hansard—you can now Google your names. You were born into politics. You will probably see a bit more of me in coming years. This is the place where I spent my time when you were going to bed wondering why Dad was not at home. These are the guys I work with; they are nice people. They will be carrying on beyond the next election. Guys, thank you very much for your support. To Mum and Dad, who are in the gallery, thank you. They were around when I was elected to council—and obviously well before that. They have always been extremely supportive and I have appreciated that support. I thank my sisters, Debbie and Sarah, and their respective husbands, David and Jordan. Debbie and Sarah have handed out tickets at the six elections I have contested in local and state government. They have done so very effectively and I have appreciated that support, which has been offered without reservation. To all of you, thank you very much for your support over such a long time.
Members of Parliament are nothing without their staff, and I have had some brilliant staff. There are some who cannot be here tonight: Rebecca Makila, who is in London; Kate Gorman, who is in Brisbane; and Cheryl Rogers, who has to be up at 3.00 a.m. for Channel 7. I thank them very much for working for me in such a great capacity. I have three staff members here tonight. Liz Jones spent a large amount of time with me in my electorate office. Liz, thank you very much for your friendship, support and wonderful work over such a long time. She was inadvertently—she thinks—encouraged to go into local government and spent four years as a Warringah councillor as a result of some persuasion. Sorry about that, Liz. It was not something she expected.
Roger White has been absolutely extraordinary for the past two-and-a-half years. Many honourable members know that. He is a stalwart and had a great career in the media. He then chose to work for me. He is a great friend and an absolutely brilliant worker. I am sure he will find things bigger and better after the election. Thank you, Roger. Libby has been with me throughout my political career. I know her entire family very well. She has lived politics her whole life and has spent the past 15 years working for me. She has run the electorate 4488 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
office alone for the past six or seven years and before that. She is not only a great staff member, but also a good mate. She has been through all of tough and good times with me. Libby, thank you.
You have colleagues and also friends in politics. Thank you to those of you who are good mates. You are all friends. I will single out one person who has been like a big brother. I refer to Chris Hartcher. He has been a great supporter, friend, brother, and much more. I owe much to him that I cannot repay. I appreciate that you were there at every turn, Chris. It has really been appreciated. To all my colleagues and political opponents, thank you, it has been an interesting journey for 15 years.
I acknowledge party members who have been there at various times. There are so many of them. However, I particularly acknowledge Peter Moxham, Paul Couvret, Alan Lipman, Alister Henskens, Don Wormald, Michael Lane, Di Woods and Adrienne Ryan. All have been enormously supportive of me and have given all their time and support for the very little I can give in return. One of the amazing things about politics and party politics is that people support you without question. Whatever our failings, different views or disagreements, these people have been there throughout that entire time. It is extremely humbling. To every one of them, thank you very much. To my constituents, it has been a unique privilege to serve you in Davidson for 15 years. Many of them were constituents when I was a councillor on Warringah Council for five years prior to my time in this place. Thank you. It is an enormous privilege to serve in public office. I will have served 20 years in public office at my retirement from this place. It is a good time at my age to do something different. Despite suggestions to the contrary, it will be the end of elected public life for me in March.
I would never have been a member of Parliament were it were not for the Liberal Party. I would never have been a member of Parliament were it not for the many hundreds, if not thousands, of Liberal Party members who have supported me without question in extraordinary ways, giving their time and efforts in campaigns and in other ways. Many of them are friends and I am grateful to them for that. Many have also been party members who have been loyal to the party. I have been one of the amazing beneficiaries to serve this place and to serve the public and my community, which very few people get to do. That is an amazing and unique privilege for which I am extremely grateful to the party.
I have many memories, and I will touch on some. I served under six parliamentary leaders. Nick Greiner was an extraordinary leader who got us into government in 1988. He did amazing things for the State, although he is not recognised for it. He was one of the great Premiers—if not the greatest Premier—in living memory. He was certainly a great leader. I arrived in this place during the latter part of his service. John Fahey had a very difficult period from 1992 to 1995. He is a very nice guy. He worked extremely hard and did not get the rewards he deserved. We went into Opposition under Peter Collins and Kerry Chikarovski. They worked extremely hard and are possibly not recognised for their efforts. John Brogden led the party to the last election and got us into an extremely good position.
The leadership was then taken over by Peter Debnam. I pay tribute to Peter because he has been extremely supportive. I do not think he has been fully recognised as a very focused, disciplined and good leader for the Liberal Party, and an extremely good leader for the State. He deserves to be given that opportunity. I think he is the right person to lead the party and the State, because we need change. He is the best person for the job.
I have come through the grassroots level of politics. In some respects I like the description "a citizen legislator". I have always taken the view that I am here to represent the people. There are always competing views and opinions in a political party and there is sometimes a test of that against what the community wants. I have certainly tried to serve the community and the party as well as I can and to keep that balance. I have taken the view, particularly as a shadow Minister, that it is my responsibility to take the fight up to my opponents. I have sought to do that, and sometimes you get a bit in reply and sometimes you are heavily criticised. I wear that as a badge of honour, because it is a measure of making a mark on your opponents. I do not take any of it personally. I treat politics as I treat football: go on the field and tackle hard, and then have a drink after the game. But I have remained focused and I believe the Liberal Party is focused on providing the best alternative government for this State.
At a local level there have been many issues, and I have supported and assisted many constituents. I like to think of some of the battles I have been involved as tests. Some of the achievements have been the upgrade of Forest Way, school halls at Belrose Primary School and Killarney Heights High School, and the youth centre in Frenchs Forest. And I have been involved in many anti-development fights in support of the community, fights to protect bushland in the Belrose road corridor and bushland along Mona Vale Road. While 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4489
they were not always successful, they were fights on behalf of the community for the benefit of the community. I have always advocated a hospital for Frenchs Forest. I am not convinced it will happen under the current Government, were it to be given the chance, but I have no doubt it will happen under a Liberal government, and it will be a Liberal Minister for Health, Jillian Skinner, who will cut the ribbon.
At a portfolio level, I have been involved with a number of issues. The ones that come to mind are pressing for smoke alarms to be compulsory in homes; arguing against the level of compensation for offenders in the justice system and some of the injustice in the parole system; fighting for better equipment, particularly personal protection equipment, for Rural Fire Service volunteers; preschool funding, which has to be addressed, and I am pleased to have been a small part of that debate, which was taken up by Gladys Berejiklian as shadow Minister and is now party policy; supporting victims of crime through the justice area; and a number of debates relating to planning when I was shadow Minister for Planning and Environment. I have many memories of travelling around the State and meeting people, not only constituents but people right across the State.
I recall the debate to save Callan Park Hospital and the public foreshores, and I am delighted to have played a role in that because I think that is a very important part of Sydney that includes places such as the quarantine station. I recall the fight to try to get filtering for the M5 tunnel. I met many people who have been adversely affected to an extraordinary degree, which I doubt that many in the public arena will ever understand. There was the fight against the Mogo charcoal plant, which was good fun and which the honourable member for Bega will well remember.
I have had dealings with so many amazing people right across the State in the Rural Fire Service, the State Emergency Service, the Volunteer Rescue Association, the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol and the Volunteer Coast Guard, and in surf lifesaving and many other emergency organisations with people who deliver great service. They do not always receive acknowledgement, nor do they seek it, but they should be acknowledged and in my capacity as shadow Minister for Emergency Services I pay tribute to them.
I believe very firmly that we need a change of government in this State—no disrespect to some of my opponents in this House—and I will continue to work towards that end. I will not be there in person but I will be there in spirit. One of the things I would like to see occur with the change of government in March is the restoration of democratic representation in Warringah Council and a winding back of some of the excesses of development that is proposed for Warringah. I would like to see a permanent transport solution for the northern beaches, a hospital at Frenchs Forest and, with no disrespect to my Nationals colleagues and in the hope that I do not jeopardise my honorary membership, I would like to see daylight saving extended. [Extension of time agreed to.]
There are many worthy issues, but the priorities I see for a Coalition government in this State fall into three areas, which to me are important. One is economic rejuvenation, and I believe we have a number of policies and a number of people who are committed to that; we need to capitalise on the strengths we have as a State, given our location but also our natural resource strengths, and to build on them; and we need a government of people who are focused on doing what they can to value add and kick start those areas where we need to sustain a strong economy so that we will all enjoy a better standard of living. I think business will bring that to us.
Justice has become something of a passion, and I have three aims. We need to look at the entire justice system with new eyes. The effectiveness of a justice system should not be measured by the amount of money that is spent or by the number of people in the prison system, but by tackling the sources of crime and reoffending. It is one area where we have done very poorly as a State over the past decade. By reducing crime we will not only improve society but also save a lot of money in the process. Whichever direction one is coming from, it makes sense to tackle that issue. Henry Parkes said, and I love this quote:
How much better to teach the child than to punish the hardened youth; and how much cheaper to provide schools than to build gaols.
Henry Parkes was a great Liberal in the century before last, five times Premier of this State, and the Father of Federation, and I think those words should be at the forefront when it comes to justice. With respect to victims of crime, particularly the families of victims—and I have dealt with so many—they do it tough through the court system and then through the justice system or the parole system. I think much more respect should be paid to them. I acknowledge in particular Marrion Saunders, who lost her son—this House dealt with that issue earlier this year. She gave me a lot of her time and I was pleased to be able to assist her in some respects. The system did not treat her well and if there is any legacy that can come from the pain she has gone through as a result of 4490 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
the loss of her son, going through the whole process, and then having to fight to keep the relevant offender in the prison system, it is to reform that system to make it fairer, and to make sure that victims and their families are respected and acknowledged throughout the process.
I am pretty tough in many respects when it comes to crime, but there is an area that is unseen because it is remote. I refer to Aboriginal crime. The honourable member for Wakehurst may find this interesting and will probably understand it. Some years ago I visited Wilcannia and, thinking back, I thought it was just horrific. I noted when visiting a mission school there that each year a generation of young children attend the mission school and then go on to primary school. Effectively, it is a lost generation.
The children love to go to preschool because they are picked up and are given breakfast there. The following year they start primary school but within a short period of time they cease to attend. After starting primary school they stop attending because the parents do not take any interest in them, and their peers and their brothers and sisters do not go to school, so they do not go to school. I believe that reflects the source of Aboriginal crime because they have no hope—and there are hundreds of remote communities just like Wilcannia.
It may seem pretty drastic but I think we need to look at dramatic solutions, because it will not be too many years down the track before Aborigines make up 30 per cent or 40 per cent of the prison population in this State. That will bring with it high rates of crime and high rates of violent crime, unless we tackle the source, because those remote communities are not sustainable. There is no point in pretending they can be sustained through welfare. Some radical solutions have to be examined and a courageous government will have to do that.
Finally, one of my great passions is infrastructure. We had great vision as a society more than 100 years ago in relation to infrastructure. Henry Parkes and others did a great job. But I believe we have lost that vision in recent times. We saw only a little of it with the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme, but now we need some vision and commitment from government at all levels and of all persuasions to deliver; not to just talk about it, but to recognise that infrastructure will be here for many generations.
Infrastructure will have to be funded through intergenerational equity and finance. We need that in relation to water, not only in Sydney but right across the State, and we need it for everything, from the river systems to agriculture. We need to capture water and reuse it, and a lot of us are becoming more aware of that. The community is becoming more aware that we have to be more forthright and courageous in solving the problem. I am also a great fan of rail but I think it is an area in respect of which we have to do much more, for both freight and passenger services and in relation to country roads and bridges. I think much of what has been said is right: Remote communities are often forgotten when government is based in Sydney. A report has been released today on power generation. We need to be prepared over the next few years to have a serious and sensible debate about nuclear power. You cannot have a debate about greenhouse gases and all those things and pretend the solutions lie in windmills. We have to seriously accept nuclear power as part of the debate. Let us not be silly about it. Whilst it possibly will affect the coal industry to a moderate extent, nuclear power has to be taken on seriously as a challenge.
I have many great memories, I have been given many great opportunities and I have had good fun. I do not regret anything in my time in politics. It has been a wonderful journey and a great experience. I thank all those people who have been around me at different stages in different ways. I cannot acknowledge them all by name. It would take forever to do that, but can I say in conclusion thank you to everybody. I thank the staff of the Parliament—Russell, Ronda, Hansard and all the staff around the Parliament—who have always been extremely friendly to me. Again I thank my family for everything and I thank my staff, who have been absolutely extraordinary. I thank my colleagues, friends, party members, the party and constituents. It has been a great experience, a great privilege and a great honour.
Mr JOHN MILLS (Wallsend) [8.20 p.m.] (Valedictory Speech): First of all, I send greetings to my wonderful and very loyal electorate staff, who, I am advised by fax, are in my electorate office having champagne and nibbles. Thank you Marj, Leeca, Scott and my other staff for your loyalty. I hope you enjoy this. But never mind if you do not—at least you can enjoy the nibbles.
When the Labor Party called for preselections for the Wallsend electorate in July of this year, in order to get a hook so that I could get some radio interviews I decided to say that I am retiring before I get grumpy. Many members will recall the newspaper headlines 4½ years ago when somebody was looking for the grumpy old men of the Labor Party and four people were nominated—George Thompson, Colin Markham, Ernie Page 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4491
and me. The forces of darkness got the other three, but I had wonderful support from the Labor Party and voters in Wallsend electorate. They said, "Keep going, Millsy, you are doing a good job." So I said "Okay", after I got my wife's permission and had a health check-up. It has been a wonderful four years and I am very glad that I was not grumpy then and that I am leaving before I get grumpy.
When my predecessor, Ken Booth, died suddenly in November 1988 and I contested the Australian Labor Party [ALP] rank and file preselection in the hope of continuing his kind of representation, it was to make a difference—a difference for individual local people and their battles for a fair go, a difference for the local community in the region in getting projects going that were of benefit and a difference for my beloved Australian Labor Party in seeking to recover from the shock of that loss of government in 1988. History and the voters of the Wallsend electorate can be the judge of whether I achieved my goals. I would be the first to acknowledge that anything I count as an achievement was a result of teamwork—teamwork in the local ALP branches, teamwork in partnership with my past and present Hunter parliamentary colleagues, and teamwork in winning support and funding from relevant Ministers and from the leader. And that is our great democracy. Even the very best of ideas and aspirations need somebody to go out and get the numbers, somebody to go and do the work of winning support.
My first and proudest achievement, and one that still gives me a great deal of satisfaction, is to help a constituent with a grievance and solve that problem. My staff will tell you of the happiness in my office when we get a response that my staff can share with me and we get a win for one of our battlers on some issue that is important to him or her. That really keeps you going. Whatever media or critics might say, if you can get a win for your constituents, that is stimulating and encourages you to keep going and do a good job. I know I have made a difference but always in the framework of that teamwork I spoke of.
I came into politics with a bee in my bonnet that health services in the Hunter region were underfunded. I worked away for 15 years and I had all the data. I had been lucky enough to serve on the Hunter Area Health Service board and had the contacts and was able to get information. I knew we were underfunded because the medical school was squeezed into the Hunter Area Health Service without the kinds of increases in funding that should accompany all those extra services. People were trying to do the right thing locally with all the new services available and with a medical school, but that put the squeeze on, and it was underfunded. I made it my business to turn that around. Finally, in the 2002-03 budget year, Craig Knowles as Minister—after hard work by Andrew Refshauge and some early commitments, I must admit, by Peter Collins, also as health Minister— recognised what the problem was but was not able to do anything in a budgetary way to fix it up. I am very proud that the Hunter region now gets its fair per capita share of recurrent health funding.
I am also very proud of the Glendale Regional Athletics Centre and the Ken Booth Gymnastics Centre—again a team effort. Many of my colleagues gave up their sport and recreation grants for their own electorates for a number of years and they were pooled so that at a State level we had enough money to match council to build a brand-new athletics track because the Hunter region did not have a decent athletics track; there was only a potholed cinders track. We got that up and running and the gymnastics centre was the result of a special grant to act as a gatekeeper and to solve an urgent regional need for a decent gymnastics centre to go with the decent athletics centre. I thank Lake Macquarie Council and the then mayor, John Kilpatrick, for the co-operative work we all did to get that great prize of the athletics and gymnastics centres at Glendale.
The widening of Cardiff subway to four lanes was a project that took 48 years to achieve, so it was started a fair way back before I got there. That was a very narrow little subway underneath the Great Northern railway line. My thanks to Carl Scully for recognising the absurdity of that situation and the urgent need to get something done. The Hunter Estuary National Park and the green corridor State Conservation Area was recently announced by the Premier, the Minister for Planning and the Minister for the Environment. It was a great dream of the wetlands centre and conservation people across the Hunter that the great wetlands and high conservation valued woodlands and wetlands across the middle of our region would get some protection. It is an excellent outcome. Thank you to the wetlands centre for putting a lot of flesh onto its original vision and persuading us— me in particular—to get government to fund it.
The Blue Gum Hills Regional Park, the first regional park outside the metropolitan area, is going along nicely. The Hexham Swamp Rehabilitation Project will restore a large part of the wetlands that 36 years ago were turned over to dairying in the misguided, almost Romanesque, idea that swamps are drained because they are foul and smelly places, without realising that Hexham Swamp was the best fish and prawn nursery on the east coast of New South Wales. They are returning, and I hope the floodgates are opened just before the election. 4492 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
I am proud of Yallarwah Uncle Bob's Place, where Aboriginal families come from all over north and north-western New South Wales. It was part of the Aboriginal health plan designed by Minister Refshauge, Chief Executive Officer Dr Tim Smyth and Uncle Bob Smith, leader of the Awabakal Medical Service at the time. One of the elements was to have a culturally appropriate place for families to stay. Paul Walsh was the author of a book entitled Novocastrian Tales during the Newcastle bicentenary to raise funds for the project and the Government matched funding three for one so that the place is now operating.
The new health facilities and a tertiary referral centre at John Hunter Hospital, now called the Royal Newcastle Centre, are the centrepiece of continued upgrading of top-class facilities for the people of the Hunter area. We service up to the Queensland border and out to the Far West. I highlight also the more than 2,000 jobs created from the Hunter Advantage Fund after the turmoil of BHP's closure of its steelmaking facilities in Newcastle. Local people eagerly sought the upgrade of EnergyAustralia Stadium. The State Government has funded its half of the stadium but we have been waiting for five or six years for a local Federal Liberal member to get the Prime Minister to meet his commitment. Nevertheless, EnergyAustralia Stadium looks fairly good with the State Government's half.
The school halls for Lambton and Glendale high schools would not have been built under the former Coalition Government, so when Labor came to office in 1995 it made sure that they were built. Funding for the Wallsend to Glendale tramway-cycleway has been announced, although it has run into some land ownership problems. I look forward to that proceeding, but that is something my successor will look after. I will say more at a later time about the Aboriginal ownership of national parks legislation. I am really proud of the Government's achievement to reduce class sizes for kindergarten, year 1 and year 2. The Lake Macquarie Improvement Program is another achievement. It has been a great task by the Government to join with Lake Macquarie City Council to improve the quality and health of the biggest saltwater lake on the east coast of New South Wales and to make it an exciting place to live.
I am proud of those achievements. The people I represent acknowledge those things needed to be done and that they were worth doing. Of course, more needs to be done and I can happily hand over that work to my successor. I will be 65 years old next week, with 18 years of service in here. My race is run. More than 85 per cent of my voters are younger than me, so a younger person will be a better advocate for the community that I have been honoured to serve. Ten years ago I mused that it would be ideal to be succeeded by a good, left-wing woman—and she has emerged! In a smooth transition, probably typical of my character, without any controversy—no four-inch headlines in the Newcastle Herald—and in the best traditions of ALP rank and file democracy, Councillor Sonia Hornery became the endorsed Labor candidate for the Wallsend electorate for the election in March next year. I am proud to have been the first person to sign Sonia's preselection nomination form.
She must win the support of voters in March, of course, but I am confident that she will succeed me as the member for Wallsend. I will let members in on a secret. When my constituents discover that I am leaving, they say, "Millsy, who is going to succeed you?" I tell them it is Sonia, and they tend to say to me, "Oh, she's good. I'll vote for her." With that kind of support, I look forward to her succeeding. Sonia is part of the next generation of Labor women who will come into the Parliament to uphold the ideals and beliefs that our great Labor Party was built on. She will fight this election as if hers is the most marginal seat in New South Wales, and that is exactly what her constituents demand and expect.
Labor must win government in March next year, for people of the Hunter and for those we represent across New South Wales. The first reason is that the Government has plans in place to continue the good work of a great Labor government. We are the reformers, the workers, the builders, and there is more to achieve. We can be proud of the achievements of the Iemma Government so far—the reforms to mental health, disability care and lifetime care for the catastrophically injured. The State Plan has been released. The Hunter community had the opportunity to provide feedback and when they did, they told us we were doing good things in health, policing and the environment but that more work needs to be done to ensure employment for youth in the region, water recycling and improved public transport.
I do not think the Coalition deserves to win government in New South Wales, for a couple of reasons. It has already promised to sack 29,000 public sector employees to pay for its $25 billion set of promises. The Coalition has promised to hand over the New South Wales industrial relations system to John Howard. That is not good. Last week the High Court found that WorkChoices was legal. However, still it is not fair. And the blow will fall heaviest on the young, older, unskilled and migrant workers. It is a fight worthy of all our efforts. We in New South Wales can provide a bulwark against some of these features of John Howard's WorkChoices. 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4493
Labor must win because we stand for something better. We remember the tree of knowledge, the light on the hill, Whitlam's brilliance, Wran's reforms, Bob Carr and his care for the environment. They remind us that there are better things, that at its heart the Labor Party is about serving others. We believe in community over individualism. We believe in optimism over pessimism. We, the ALP, want what is best for everyone— rich and poor, men and women—but, in particular, for those who have no voice or who are downtrodden and powerless. Those people need Labor to be re-elected. They need Sonia Hornery to be the next member for Wallsend. It has been an honour to serve the people in the Wallsend electorate. [Extension of time agreed to.]
One of the privileges of being a parliamentarian is the opportunity to meet so many wonderful people all over New South Wales. One such group of people who inspired me to lift my sights, open my eyes and work hard for reform were Aboriginal people. They suffered the invasion of the British settlement. They were deprived of their land and livelihood but they have survived and they seek their rightful place as our first people. They deserve justice. Jack Doherty recruited me into the Newcastle Aboriginal Support Group to support land rights and establish dialogue with local Aboriginal people, but my initiation came during my second day of doorknocking for the by-election. A stocky man took me by the hand, pulled me into his house, and said, "I've been waiting to meet you." Three hours later my education had started. It was Jimmy Wright and his wife, Gwen. I did not do any more doorknocking that night, but it was wonderful. Shortly after that I met Ron Gordon, who was then associated with Kirinari. Jim's successor was Ray Kelly, a playwright and an actor, and recently I had the pleasure of seeing his play Ngarrama on the shores of Lake Macquarie.
I learnt from Zelma Meehan, Sean Gordon, John Heath, Ashley Gordon, Uncle Bob Smith, Uncle Bill Smith, Auntie Sandra, John Lester and the Wollotuka people. My learning will take a lifetime. When Colin Markham was elected to the shadow Cabinet and given the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio I joined with him and members of the Aboriginal caucus committee to visit many Aboriginal communities to listen to their stories. Col developed a strong rapport with Aboriginal people and gained a strong respect in this Parliament. He developed a bipartisan approach. I pay tribute to the honourable member for Wakehurst, who is shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, for his continued co-operation and bipartisan support in seeking progress for Aboriginal people.
I am proud of our response on native title, the stolen generation, and the Community Development Program, which had a strong impact at the local level. However, there is more to do because disadvantage still needs to be overcome. This is unfinished business for me in retirement and for the next Parliament. I was delighted also to meet people at the University of New England, where I was able to serve eight years on the university council. Two of the people I served with are now members of this place. One is Tanya Gadiel, then Tanya Barber, who served as a student representative on the council at the time I first went up there in 1995, and Richard Torbay, who was a student union secretary. I often relive happy memories of being able to serve Australia's oldest and best regional and rural university.
I owe a lot to the great people of the Hunter region. Our people think collectively. As a member I learnt to work collectively with my parliamentary colleagues. I thank Richard Face, Matthew Morris, Merv Hunter, Jeff Hunter, John Price, Bryce Gaudry, Don Bowman, Jill Hall, Milton Orkopoulos, Stan Neilly, Kerry Hickey, Bob Martin and John Barlett. In particular I thank Richard, as the Minister for the Hunter from 1995 until 2003, for keeping us backbenchers in the loop, well informed and organised to take our collective case to the Government in Sydney and to the community and the media at home. He was one of us, and accountable to the Hunter people.
Disappointingly by comparison, the experiment of having a Minister for the Hunter from the upper House has been less successful, communication being more difficult and direct accountability to the Hunter voters being absent. I strongly recommend to my leader, the Premier, that after the 2007 election he appoint one of us, a lower House Minister from a Hunter electorate, as Minister for the Hunter. I thank my family. To my loving wife, Trudy, I could not have done this without her great and loyal support. She has been a critic and a builder of my confidence, and I owe much to her. I look forward to spending the rest of my life with her. My two kids were at school when I was first elected; they are now successful adults enjoying their lives. One is a teacher and the other is a biological ecologist.
I thank the following people: my electorate office staff, Leeca, Marjorie and Julie, and in the past Margaret, Kath and Scott. They have done a magic job. They were my eyes and ears to the community, and they were unfailingly courteous to my constituents. I thank also the ALP members in the branches and campaign directors, people like Jack Adams, Scott Taylor, Gordon Landford, who was my returning officer, Paul Wade, John Gurr, Bill Royan, Sonia Hornery, Scott Taylor and Nick Mowbray. I thank the Labor councillors, Labor 4494 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
Federal members, and councillors and mayors I have enjoyed working with across the Hunter region. I thank the parliamentary staff and officers who have been kind, courteous and helpful throughout my career: the Clerks, Russell, Mark, Ronda, Les, Russell Keith, Patricia Broderick, Stephanie Hesford, and the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms Greg Kelly, who has never had to remove me from the Chamber.
I thank the Financial Controller, Greg, and Gladys and the staff; the Legislative Assembly office staff, Jeff Page, Jenny, John, Becky and Joe; Members' Services, Lucy and Keith; in Property Services, David Auert; the stenographers Barbara, Christine and Di; the attendants Dennis Wilson, Peter Tuziak, Danny, Richard, Ian and April; in Security, Morgan Andrews, Owen, Lorraine, and my constituents on the security staff, Charles and Vanessa; in catering, Maureen, David, Joseph, Steve and Angela have been great; the PSA workplace group; and in Hansard, Judith Somogyi and her staff—even when they wear Christmas hats—especially Lisa, who does a wonderful job getting members' notes.
I thank the staff of the committees I have been proud to serve on; the directors, Jim Jefferis, Catherine Watson and Ian Faulks have been great; in archives, Robert Lawrie; in Building Services, Morgan, Robert and Michael; in Stores and Purchasing, Greg and Bernie; in Printing, Demi; in ITS, Ali, Neil, Kerrie, Nick, Jason and Nick, who are still trying to teach me; Graham Spindler and Kathy Slade in the education section, who do a great job; in the Parliamentary Library, Greig Tillotson, Margaret, Prue, and Mark Sheehan in media monitoring, and David, Gareth and Talina in research, who have done a great job. Mr Speaker, Mr Deputy Speaker, the President and their staffs, in particular Joe Andrade, I have enjoyed working with you. My caucus colleagues, the leader and deputy leaders, all have contributed to a most satisfying and rewarding career.
I shall leave honourable members with my most moving moment. Nelson Mandela was released from prison in early 1990. He came to Australia. I remember that we had a long lunch break on a sitting day. Like most members of Parliament, I walked down towards the Opera House. I think there were 100,000 people there, including the Prime Minister. Nelson Mandela said thanks to Australia for helping to bring down that vile apartheid system. The moving moment was when a small choir of African voices sang Nkosi Sikela Africa. The hair on the back of my neck stood up and I cried with happiness that this triumph of freedom had been achieved without bloodshed. That was the most inspiring moment of the twentieth century for me, and I hope it has inspired everybody else in this place to do their jobs well. Farewell!
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): With the indulgence of the House, I add my comments to those of the honourable member for Wallsend. I have served with him on a number of committees, particularly the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission—he did an excellent job—and other caucus policy committees. He has been a most active member of Parliament, and I wish him and his wife and family all the best for the future.
Mr IAN SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [8.40 p.m.] (Valedictory Speech): This is the last time I will speak in this place as I am one of the fortunate members of Parliament who actually knows that they will not be here after 25 March 2007. I place on record my appreciation to the people of Barwon, who have bestowed upon me the rare privilege and honour of being their local member in the oldest Parliament in Australia for the past 12 years. In my maiden speech on 30 May 1995, as recorded in Hansard, I said:
In 1950 Geoffrey Crawford—the first Country Party member to hold the seat of Barwon—was elected after severe floods in the electorate. In his maiden speech he extended his sympathy to the people of Barwon for the losses they had suffered during those floods. In 1976 my predecessor, Wal Murray, was elected to the seat of Barwon following further record floods. In his maiden speech he also extended his sympathy to the people of Barwon for the losses they had suffered. Today—30 May 1995—in my maiden speech I extend my sympathy to the people of Barwon who are suffering the worst drought in 200 years.
That shows that little has changed as we are still in drought, interspersed with occasional flooding, over the 12 years I have been in Parliament. We must accept that our country is a land of constant extremes, and the word "average" is not a reality. I have many people to acknowledge and thank for their support and friendship. I am afraid I will leave some out, but please do not take that as an insult or feel that I have not appreciated what you have done for me.
I thank my partner and fiancée, Lily Hsu, who is in the gallery tonight, and my family: my daughter Kate and her husband, Mal Walker, son James, daughter Rachel and her husband Tom Wald, my daughter Sophie and Lily's daughter Amy Low. My brother, Mike, and his wife, Judy, my sister Jenny, my sister Gill, and her husband, Murray Baker, and their children have all contributed in helping me at one time or another and they have been wonderful sounding boards for some of the decisions we as members of Parliament must make from time to time. I also thank my grandchildren, Hamish, Phoebe and Alice Walker, and baby Wald, who was 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4495
due two days ago. I wanted to have his or her name recorded in Hansard. Never mind, you are too late, but you have given me another perspective in life and I thank you.
I thank my current and past staff at my Wee Waa office, especially my secretary, Pam Callachor, whose wisdom, patience and wonderful sense of humour have made the office the best I could ask for. Pam and I started this journey together in March 1995 and we have had our interesting times with some people. Pam never, ever lost her cool, but sometimes it must have been close. Proof of what a special person she is can be illustrated by the fact that we have never had a cross word. I am certain Pam has held her breath at times, but this again shows what a wonderful person she is.
Alexandra Walsh—no doubt, I believe, the best media officer in The Nationals—has assisted Pam for over 12 months now. She has made our office a wonderful place to work in, and I thank her very much. In the past we have had Megan Chaplin, Rebecca Smith, Belinda Barrett, Clare Siddons, and the late Christine Watkins, who tragically lost her life after being kicked by a horse. I appreciate all you have done for me and for the people of Barwon during your time in our office.
In three elections there are always people coming to the fore and helping The Nationals contest the seat of Barwon. I can say with some pride that when we won the seat in 1995 it was by a record majority, and in the next two elections we increased our vote. So many people assisted, and I place on record my thanks to the late Wal Murray, who gave me the best support I could have asked for, and my campaign directors, Nancy Capel, Jim Lennon and Alan Hunter. Alan proved that a person could almost be lynched in a town and yet we could still win the town's vote. That is what happened in Manilla.
I thank my old electorate chairman, Robbie Barrett, who is now my successor Kevin Humphries' campaign director and still firing on all eight cylinders. Robbie is a combination of charm and total commitment with sound counsel, and it has been a pleasure to work with her. I also thank Conrad Bolton, the chairman of the Wee Waa branch of The Nationals, who has been a great supporter and sounding board over the years. Conrad's cheerful attitude and ability to look outside the square made some great contributions to issues in our communities. Another person has helped in every campaign and has worked tirelessly, travelling miles, manning booths and offices, and giving sound advice. I have really appreciated all she has done. My thanks go to Jan Tydd. She also, I feel, has had to take deep breaths as we worked very well together on the campaign trail.
It is said that this Parliament is the only institution that is run by its inmates. That is true. During my time here I have made many firm friends. Both parties have fine people, and it is only our different ways of achieving the same ends—that is to make our State a better place—that leads us into conflict. I thank my colleagues for their friendship over the 12 years. It has been a privilege to work with you. When I first arrived here John Turner showed me the most important place in Parliament House—the bottle shop, which is now closed. Andrew Fraser, Don Page, Duncan Gay and George Souris helped me get settled, along with Gerry Peacocke, the late Doug Moppett, Adrian Cruickshank and Rick Bull. In later times Russell Turner tried to show me where the gym was but I resisted the temptation. The friendships of Rick Colless, Thomas George, our current leader, Andrew Stoner, Steve Cansdell, Jenny Gardiner, Katrina Hodgkinson, Melinda Pavey and Adrian Piccoli have been friendships I will never forget.
I arrived to this House in the class of '95, along with Barry O'Farrell, the Premier, Morris Iemma, Tony Stewart, Paul Lynch, Di Beamer, and John Watkins. I had the privilege of sitting next to John Brogden, on my left, as he was elected a bit later than I was, and on my right was Andrew Fraser. It was never dull! People often ask me if I have any regrets about not being on the Government side instead of in the Opposition. My answer to that is that my job was to win my seat, and the cards fell a certain way in other seats. Not enough of us on this side won our seats to make the difference. My job was to win our seat, and that is what we achieved. I have no regrets at all about that.
To the people working in this place, you have no idea how nice it is to come to work and be greeted with a smile. Nothing ever seemed too difficult or inconvenient, and I know that sometimes that was not the case. There are too many people to name but I will mention just a few. You have made this a special place and my thanks go to you all. Dennis, April and Peter in the front; Maureen and Chow in the dining room; Shannon, Owen, Lorraine and Vanessa from security; Clerk Russell Grove and his secretary, Patricia; Connie and Gladys in accounts; the library staff, who are the most long-suffering people; and Hansard, to whom I pay special thanks. Many times the Hansard staff have fixed up my speeches and have actually made them sound convincing! Great job! Quite a miracle! I also thank Fiona, Nick and Kerrie in information technology, who always seem to unfreeze your computer or give you yet another password, and the people in printing and 4496 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
stationery, who always have a smile on their faces. All of you have made this place very special and I will never forget your kindness.
In every job there are things you do not like or enjoy. This job has plenty of them as well. It is not the personal attacks or the snide remarks you encounter along the way; most of them are due to ignorance, although deep down they do hurt if they are bad enough but you do not give people the satisfaction of knowing they hurt. The worst thing is getting to understand that we have people who are living tragic lives, especially children in unacceptable circumstances. It is our job to assist everyone who seeks our help. That is not generally known, as we never talk about it, and I feel the media, especially the shock jocks on the radio, might—and I only say might—get off our backs a bit if they walked in our shoes for a week or two.
Many things we do not talk about, and yet we suffer abuse from people who really do not know what our work really is. Much of the work we do is never reported, and it should not be either. It is to do with people's personal lives, and confidentiality is a prerequisite for a lot of the work we are involved in. We do not talk about the time when we have been trying to get accommodation for a mother with three little kids whose stepfather has sexually assaulted them over a period of years. We do not talk about sitting with and trying to ease the pain of the parents of an only son whose life was ended by the blast of a 12-gauge shotgun by a crazed druggie for no reason at all. We have all experienced these sorts of things.
We do not talk about the family evicted from their home by a lending institution after a period of poor seasons. We do not talk about the parents who tell me in total confidence that their son is a hopeless drug addict and is about to go to gaol and who ask what I can do to help. I only hope I have been able to make a difference to people's lives. I think I have done that in some cases, perhaps not enough in others, but I have tried to help whenever I could and it has been an honour to be allowed to do so.
I guess I can claim some achievements in my electorate during my time even in Opposition, as my hometown of Wee Waa was the first place in New South Wales where DNA testing was used to catch a person who viciously raped and almost murdered a 90-year-old woman. It was as a result of my vigorous lobbying of police Minister Paul Whelan and Premier Bob Carr—and I thank them both—that the whole town was tested, as DNA was the only evidence available. It worked, that person is now in gaol, and DNA is now commonly used in New South Wales thanks to the result in Wee Waa. I was also able to convince the then Minister for Transport, Brian Langton, to place reflective tape on railway rolling stock after the terrible deaths in two separate level crossing accidents at Moree within a week of each other. Although many people prior to this tried to make it happen, it was due to my friendship and personal relationship with Brian that we were able to achieve this.
Mr Acting-Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make my final speech in this place. The next election will contain, as elections always do, a number of surprises, and some members will lose their seat and will not have the privilege of making a farewell speech. It is time for a change of government, and it will happen on 24 March 2007. I have had an honour that is bestowed upon few people. I have been one of the very lucky ones to have the privilege and honour to represent in this Parliament an electorate as great as Barwon.
Mr JOHN PRICE (Maitland) [8.55 p.m.] (Valedictory Speech): Twenty-three years and the term ends. I agree with my colleagues who have spoken before me that it is a singular privilege to be elected as a member of Parliament, one of 93 people who are elected to serve the community of New South Wales. I have had the honour of serving with six premiers: Premier Wran, Premier Unsworth, Premier Greiner, Premier Fahey, Premier Carr, and the present incumbent, Premier Iemma. They all have special qualities and, although two of them were not of my political persuasion, I believe I enjoyed a friendship with all of them, and my electorate did not suffer with the change of government. I think that is true for most of us. If the job has to be done, no matter who is running the State, it usually gets done. It just needs a bit of persuasion, often gentle.
I had a pretty tough preselection. I defeated a sitting member who then ran as an Independent. I have to tell you, if you want a rough time that is the way to do it. I won on Liberal preferences, which at the time was interesting. I was the member for Waratah from 1984 to 1999—15 years. It was the State's safest Labor seat. We had a majority of 27 per cent. Sadly, the seat was abolished in 1999 and I was assuming an early retirement. The party said to me, bright and breezy with a broad smile, "Pricey, we don't hold Maitland. We think you should run." I discussed this matter with my wife, Elizabeth. We had bought a cottage that happened to be within the boundary of the electorate of Maitland. We thought why not. So I nominated for Maitland. The fellow who was the member was a friend of mine, and still is, Peter Blackmore, the Mayor of Maitland. We beat Peter by 0.9 of 1 per cent. It is a bit of a change to drop down from 27 per cent to 0.9 of 1 per cent. We have restored the 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4497
balance a little bit. In the last election it was up to 8.9 per cent and we stand a chance of holding the seat quite comfortably.
It has been interesting to experience the opportunities I have had as a member of Parliament. I have been the shadow Minister for Public Works, the shadow Minister for State Development, Chairman of Committees for four years, and Deputy-Speaker up until now. For a brief period I was the Acting-Speaker, as you might recall. Anne Aquilina sadly passed away and John had family duties that could not be avoided. It was pleasant to be the Acting-Speaker, but it was a sad occasion on which I was asked to undertake that role.
I have had the opportunity to represent the Parliament as a member of the University Council of the University of Newcastle and as the ministerial appointment to the CB Alexander Foundation, which is basically the Tocal college, which extends from the electorate of Maitland to what will be the new seat of Lower Hunter. Again, on both counts that has been a great experience. As I live close to Tocal college, I look forward to maintaining that membership, whilst ever we remain in government. I also had a stint working with the party. For a period I was chairman of the party's two radio stations, NEW.FM and 2HD. That was an exciting time. For anyone who has ever worked closely with the media, on the right side of the media, they will find they can be fairly human, playful people. They party well. I thoroughly enjoyed that experience, and I was grateful for the opportunity to work in that area.
Those who have spoken before me have talked about achievements. If you are elected to represent a group of people in the community, you are obliged to work for them and not necessarily for yourself. As I look back over the 23 years and pick out the highlights, it is interesting what you can achieve as an individual or assist in achieving in an electorate situation, albeit in the Hunter Valley. In the electorate of Waratah we have built two public schools, at Maryland and Glendore. Not many members experience the opportunity of building and opening a new school. We had two in Waratah. John Hunter Hospital was built. When Nick Greiner came up to open it I was the member for Waratah who had to introduce him. He left my name off his plaque, but I have forgiven him for that.
A cancer centre was established at the Mater Hospital at Waratah. It has done great work over many years and has expanded greatly, even though it is now in the electorate of Newcastle. I lived through the changeover of the Newcastle College of Advanced Education. It extended into the University of Newcastle and became a very large campus. The changeover encountered all sorts of growing pains, with staff members who felt they had been done over and those who wanted to do someone over. Unfortunately, we saw the removal of a vice-chancellor who could not cope with the lack of loyalty that occurred at that time. However, we survived and now have an excellent institution in the University of Newcastle.
The flyover at Tarro is an interesting one. I first became a member of the Newcastle City Council as an alderman because I was concerned that when my children learnt to drive there was an intersection on the New England Highway that was extremely dangerous and we were killing, on average, three people every two years. The council agreed to move the intersection three times, but we were still killing three people every two years. Seventeen years later, by doing a deal through Eric Fitzgibbon, the then Federal member for Hunter, and the Federal Minister for Transport of the day, we got the flyover at Tarro. Since that time there has not been one serious accident or fatality. Likewise, the flyover at John Renshaw Drive and New England Highway was a bonus. It has improved traffic co-locating between Sydney and the North Coast and made life a lot easier for many drivers. I watched the Tangara trains being built, with all their attendant problems, at Goninans in Newcastle from commencement to handover. Of course, Goninan's has gone and Tangara carries on, very successfully.
The F3 extension, which came through from Seahampton to Beresfield, and Warrabrook railway station, which was the first station with lifts in my electorate, were both the result of Federal activity. But it was good to be involved on the ground with people who were concerned with the projects, both those from the university and the suburb of Warrabrook and those who had property resumed. A lot of property was resumed for the F3 extension. I was pleased to be involved in that very exciting time and to see the tremendous results. Waratah police station was opened when that area became part of the electorate of Newcastle. I was there with Garry West when the decision was made to build the police station. Through Paul Whelan we got $5 million and now have one of the most modern headquarters within the Hunter region. It was built in co-operation with police officers. They were involved in the planning process and got what they wanted. That was Waratah—a long time ago.
We have also done very well in Maitland. We have lifts on three other stations—Beresfield, Thornton and Maitland—upgrades to a number of them, particularly Victoria Street Station, four bridge replacements in 4498 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
Dungog shire and the rebuilt Hinton Bridge, which is more than 100 years old. We were able to beat the Heritage Council and the bridge has been restored using steel, timber and concrete. It still looks like it is 100 years old if you stand back far enough. It established a new approach to the restoration of historic bridges in this State, and hopefully that approach will save the State some money.
A steam museum is being built on the Hunter Valley Training Company site, which will be a great adjunct to the Steam Fest. It will be open to enthusiasts every day of the year. That is now a Maitland City Council responsibility, and I congratulate the council on accepting that responsibility. The psychiatric ward established at the Maitland Hospital, the extra paediatricians, and the dialysis unit are extraordinary. Those things have made a huge difference to the community of Maitland and surrounding areas. The availability of those services has cut travelling time dramatically and people can receive treatment when and where they need it.
The Ashtonfield Public School will be open for business in February next year. It took a lot of hassling, but we have it. The third crossing of the Hunter River is due to commence early in 2007. I understand that the preliminary work associated with the road approaches and traffic through East Maitland will be commenced before the end of this year. The Beresfield flyover at Weakleys Drive, which is due to be opened in March, has been funded principally by the Federal Government. The community has been engaged in a long, seven-year, struggle, but we have it. The seven new two-car trains are also poised to come on line. They will replace the red rattlers. Honourable members who know the Hunter will know the red rattlers and they will understand why we need the new cars.
The Metford underpass has also been constructed. It took 10 per cent of the traffic off Melbourne Street in East Maitland and made a huge difference to the traffic signals at the intersection with the New England Highway. The Tillegra dam project has also been announced. It is an oldie that has been regurgitated, but I assure honourable members that because it is still in my electorate it is a great initiative. I have no doubt that whoever takes over as the honourable member for that area will be pleased to see the project come to fruition, and likewise extra water made available for the Hunter and the Central Coast.
One cannot undertake this job without the support of one's family. As many honourable members know, my first wife, Elaine, who died, was a great supporter in the early part of my career. She grew up through it and was used to it. I am grateful for the work she did to ensure that everything was right at home while I was away, as sick as she was. Not many men are lucky to have two women who are great partners and great workers. I defer to my wife, Elizabeth, who makes an ongoing contribution to any success I have. I can recall Bob Carr saying to me one night at a function in Kurri Kurri, where Elizabeth's father had been the rector of the local church for some years, "Listen Pricey, she campaigns and works a room better than you do. Have you ever thought of standing down?" I had not, but he was right—she is a great operator. I think it was the church influence that helped. The mothers' union cannot be all that bad.
My daughter, Helen, my son, Paul, who is in the Northern Territory working with Aboriginals, and their respective partners, Michael and Amanda, my stepdaughter, Josephine, and her partner, Ben, my grandchildren, Grace, Ellie, Jack, Harry and Sophia, are what life is all about. There is no doubt that I leave here with a heavy heart. I have thoroughly enjoyed the 23 years that I have had in this establishment and I look forward to maintaining some sort of association with this wonderful institution. I know we beat each other up pretty badly from time to time, but at the end of the day the object is to make the State of New South Wales a better place for us all to live in. I suspect that, one way or another, we achieve that, and that we do so in the way the community demands. That is what we are here for.
I turn now to ministerial support. Well, there you go! I will mention a few names that might raise an eyebrow or two. Without Carl Scully we would not have lifts, railway improvements, road upgrades, and the new rail cars that have been ordered for the Hunter. He did a superb job in the Hunter, and those improvements will remain a monument to his ministry. There are no two ways about that: I could never criticise Carl. His co-operation was always 100 per cent. Michael Costa, about whom many of my colleagues express concern from time to time, was a superb Minister for Transport. He approved the building of an underpass that no-one would countenance in my electorate. It has saved a tremendous amount of time and it cost a tremendous amount of money. That does not matter, because the entire community benefits and they appreciate it. He also signed the document approving the establishment of the steam museum. It was up to John Watkins to find the money, but it was a great idea, and it is now there. There is always value in everyone, you just have to dig deep enough. [Extension of time agreed to.] 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4499
I extend my thanks not only to Michael Costa but also to our Attorney General, Bob Debus, and to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Hon. Tony Kelly, in another place. The support they gave my rural fire service, the New South Wales Fire Brigades, and the State Emergency Service has been tremendous. We have had a procession of new vehicles, equipment upgrades, better training for officers, and a restructure that has particularly benefited the Rural Fire Service. I thank them both for the very special work they undertook. They both visited my electorate on several occasions and they certainly impressed the people in those organisations. When you consider that most of them are volunteers, it was great to see the support they gave. The hospital improvements that occurred in my electorate under Craig Knowles and Morris Iemma, in their capacity as Ministers for Health, could not have occurred without their total involvement and assistance. I thank them.
The Serjeant-at-Arms, Ronda Miller, has been my secretary in my capacity as the Chairman of the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. Ronda has run that committee single-handedly, with Russell Grove driving her—for which I forgive him. I consider Ronda a friend. She has made herself available by phone, at Parliament, at home and when she has been on leave. She accompanied me to Wales in March this year and carried the mace that our Parliament gave to the Welsh Assembly. It was my privilege to read the speech to the Queen and to meet the royal family in the company of Deputy-President the Hon. Amanda Fazio. It was a quick visit, but one that will stay with me all my life. Where else does one get the opportunity to do things like that except as a member of this esteemed institution?
I should mention a couple of campaign directors. Barry Bishop and John Chalmers were from Waratah and Anne Wills was from Maitland. Their assistance was spectacular and ensured my election. I also extend my thanks to my electorate staff, Joanne Delbridge and Diane Green. My Waratah State election campaign president, Graham Smith, and secretary, Dr Morrie Graham, are worth a mention. My first Waratah State election campaign president was the Reverend Bill Brown, now deceased. It is not often you get an Anglican priest leaping forward to carry the banner for the Labor Party. I thank him sincerely, in absentia. I hope the new Labor candidate, Frank Terenzini, will join this establishment, and I will work towards that goal. Frank is a great guy. He is a lawyer and he will make a significant contribution to this House.
I look at the larger projects that successive Labor governments have provided to New South Wales— the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Opera House, and the Olympic Games perhaps—and my biased view is that, in spite of the criticism about the need for infrastructure and its slow progress, when one considers that the Federal Government is withholding substantial amounts of goods and services tax funds, this Government has done an incredible job. I take my hat off to the Government for the work it does with the limited resources available to it. The Government has attempted to improve the social and material necessities of this State, and has done so in a balanced way, but we could not have done it without our staff here at Parliament House. Our parliamentary staff, as honourable members have heard, are the most valuable people we have. Without their continued operation, under Russell Grove's direction, I doubt that we would achieve half as much as we do now—in fact, we would never get our LSA sorted out!
As I said at the outset, it has been an absolute privilege to serve this State. For me to have been a member of this august House, and in particular to have had the trust of the constituents of both Waratah and Maitland, has been a singular honour and one that I shall never forget. I shall miss you all, believe it or not. I treat you as friends and I cannot recall having fallen out with anyone. I am not a rowdy person: I do not do too much heckling, because I have never considered it to be productive, although the Whip tells me that I have improved my performance somewhat in the past week—but then, as the candle dies, it burns brightest, does it not? Being congratulated today by Ian Armstrong on the quality of my last speech was incredible. That was almost as good as getting a medal. This establishment has been a huge part of my life and I hope we will be able to meet and greet from time to time, no matter the capacity we may work in. I look forward to hearing of the next election being a future success for Labor.
Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [9.15 p.m.]: I am delighted to speak in support of the proposed new standing orders. Standing orders are sometimes seen to be hallowed, immutable institutions that ought never be changed because they are part of our tradition and part of our heritage. That fear, of course, is flatly contradicted by even a moment's rational consideration. I have always been inspired in these matters by a sentiment attributed by a great Labour leader, Michael Foot, to the even greater Labour leader, Anuerin Bevan, in Foot's biography of Bevan, "Nye had a lifelong conviction that standing orders were made for man, not man for standing orders." Leaving aside the generationally determined sexism of that point, the rest of it is absolutely correct. There are elements of the rules that govern debate in procedure that need to be improved and should be, despite their longevity. This package, I think, does that. 4500 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
The genesis of this proposal dates back to December last year, when the stage 6 building of the West Sydney Records Centre was officially opened by the Attorney General. I remember being there with the Attorney and lamenting to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly that so much of our procedures were archaic, unnecessary and, in some cases, plain silly. Mr Grove told me that the Clerks had in fact been looking at precisely this over a number of years, and indeed had already formulated some proposals—which, when you think about it for more than five seconds, makes perfect sense. That is precisely what you would expect the Clerks in an institution like this to do. I wrote several days later to the Speaker, the Leader of the House, and to some other members of the Labor caucus, and in particular I discussed the matter with the Speaker.
I gave notice of a motion in the Labor caucus in February this year to establish a caucus committee to consider redrafting the standing orders. That motion having been adopted, on 17 March I circulated a draft of the changes I proposed. That owed a very large debt to the Clerks' original proposals, although it is fair to say that in some cases what I proposed went beyond their proposals and in other cases did not go as far as they did. After further discussion among those committee members and with technical advice from the Clerks, the proposal went to the Standing Orders Committee, which in turn made more changes, and the end result is the document we are now debating.
There are a couple of points to make about that. I must say that there were refreshing and constructive suggestions from a whole range of people. In that respect I acknowledge my indebtedness to the honourable member for Wallsend, who is currently in the chair, who in some ways was my co-conspirator in some of this. Also, I should acknowledge the role of the honourable member for Maitland, and indeed the honourable member for Tweed, who looked at the proposals and made a number of suggestions. The technical experts, the Clerks, have been closely involved in the proposal to get the detail correct, as is appropriate and as ought to be the case. I particularly instance Russell Grove, Mark Swinson and Stephanie Hesford.
The aim is to achieve three things. The first is the most obvious and the simplest: to consolidate the standing orders and the sessional orders into one document. At the moment there are two separate documents with some mutually inconsistent provisions. The inconsistency is resolved, of course, in favour of the sessional orders. But confusion between these documents has always been an affront to my solicitor's sense of order. As well, we have been operating under those sessional orders largely for 11 years. I think it is time to accept that they have been well and truly test driven and can be translated into the formal standing orders.
This change, which is probably the largest in sheer number of words, is frankly just commonsense. It is getting the two documents combined into one. The point was rammed home to me, I think after the last by-elections, when one of the newly elected members came to me and said, "Paul, you know about this stuff. Where can I get the rules that govern debate?" I had to try to explain to him that there were two major documents and a few other bits and pieces as well. If that was not the classic example of how irrational the current system is, I do not know what could be. A second aim of this proposal is to get rid of silly, ridiculous and unnecessary provisions, and to introduce some commonsense alternatives. Thus it will no longer be necessary to bow to the Chair on entering or leaving the Chamber. Half the members do not do it at present and it is, frankly, silly to have a rule of archaic practice that half the members ignore anyway
Mr Andrew Fraser: What was the history of it? Do you know the history of that?
Mr PAUL LYNCH: In response to that inane interjection from the inane member for Coffs Harbour, of course I know the history! That is the reason it ought to be changed. We are no longer an autocratic, undemocratic society and that is why autocratic, undemocratic provisions ought to be thrown out the door. Really, where has the man been! Likewise, we abolish the preposterous standing order requiring members to cover their heads with a piece of paper to take a point of order during a division in Committee. I have heard several explanations as to why that order existed. All explanations relate to events of centuries ago, which have no relevance that I can detect to the contemporary world. As well, it is just silly. For that reason the member for Coffs Harbour probably supports it.
Members can now be referred to as, for example, the member for Ku-ring-gai rather than the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai. Standing Order 2 is also abolished. That is the standing order that in essence says: In case of doubt, refer to the practice at Westminster. We do not need that rule. We have 150 years of our own parliamentary practice to rely upon. If in the rare event we do not have the precedents we need, there is 100 years of parliamentary practice in Canberra and even more than that in other Australian Parliaments. There are also far more other Westminster-type Parliaments throughout the world that may be consulted. In procedural terms the House of Commons is much more different and less relevant to our Parliament than it once 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4501
used to be. Indeed, as one of the few people in this room who has actually, I suspect, read Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, I suggest that most of it is totally unrelated to our procedures; it is just irrelevant. If you want to look at practice here, you do not go to Erskine May, you go to the books of practice issued in Canberra—that is what the clerks do. In that sense, it is absolutely absurd to keep Standing Order 2 as it currently is.
The language of the prayer is modernised. Most motions now do not require a seconder, which is what our current practice is, despite the current standing orders requiring something different. Reference to the sovereign in the standing orders is made consistent with contemporary democratic practice. Urgent motions are now referred to as motions accorded priority, which is, in fact, what they are, except that both sides of the House try to artificially push the precedence arguments into urgency when they really mean priority. We have also established a proper formal basis for the publication of Hansard. As I understand it, publication used to rest with the Government Printing Office, and the disappearance of that body removed that formal basis. These standing orders resolve that problem. In addition, "strangers" now become "visitors"—a more contemporary term.
The third aim is to modernise and democratise the standing orders. Having standing orders and a set of procedures that are easily comprehensible by outside observers improves our democracy. Non-members will have a better chance of understanding what we are doing when we propose and adopt legislation. The process for making the law now involves a first reading, a second reading and a third reading. These terms mean nothing to most people—and our current third reading is a charade. Since I have been in this place I have seen a debate or a division on a third reading in only a handful of cases. The only time this year I have seen it was on the pledge of loyalty private members' bill.
The use of the terms first, second and third readings is abolished by this proposal. The first reading will be replaced by a motion to introduce a bill and the second reading will be replaced by a debate in principle. The third reading will be abolished except in two situations: at the conclusion of the debate in principle, the bill will be taken to have passed unless someone specifically moves it not be passed; if a bill goes into what is now termed a Committee of the Whole there will be a further motion for the bill to pass, similar to the current third reading. That is because I think logically members might regard an amended bill differently from the way they regard an unamended bill and the extra opportunity to vote should be retained.
Debate on this issue generated great enthusiasm during our various discussions. In particular, the honourable member for Maitland was a proponent of the idea that we should abolish third readings altogether, supported by the honourable member for Wallsend and me, against the stout resistance of the Clerks. The end result is perhaps a win for neither side, but I believe it is a much better situation than we have currently.
The terms first, second and third reading originated several centuries ago. They stem from the time when many members were illiterate and bills had to be read to them by Clerks. That is all quite quaint, but it is preposterous to continue to use those terms in this Parliament. The Committee of the Whole, chaired by a Chairman of Committees, dates back to the period of conflict between King and Parliament. As I understand it, the Parliament wanted its representative rather than the Speaker to preside over debate, thus they would resolve into a Committee of the Whole chaired by the Chairman of Committees. Once again, that is all delightfully quaint, but it provides absolutely no basis for continuing the use of those terms in this Parliament in the twenty-first century.
Committee of the Whole is replaced by Consideration in Detail; Chairman of Committees is replaced by Assistant Speaker. Consideration in Detail will be chaired by a Speaker and will be much more modern in terminology. This removes the ridiculous situation at the moment where the Speaker's attendant has to run around to find another temporary chair while the House goes into Committee. Some of us think that this new set of standing orders is completely justified by just that one change. Some other Parliaments have moved in this direction but have used terminology that does not convince me. For example, the House of Representatives has a Speaker, a First Deputy Speaker and a Second Deputy Speaker. I find that very unwieldy. I think this alternative formulation of Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Assistant Speaker is much more desirable.
Parliamentary committees are now chaired by Chairs not Chairmen. It is also worth making the point that these provisions did not go as far as they might. For example, the honourable member for Wallsend and I proposed to have all divisions and votes on Thursdays at 12.30 p.m. This would have been a first step towards having all voting each day at one time so that it could be done electronically. That proposition did not find enough support in the discussions to survive, but the honourable member for Wallsend and I tried very hard. 4502 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
In my view these proposals were not designed to and do not alter the essential dynamic between the Government and the Opposition. That is, there was a clear intent not to provide a hidden advantage to the Government or to the Opposition; it was to make all the changes I have talked about without changing the balance between the sides of the House, because it seemed to me that was a fairly good way of creating unnecessary angst. The other person I should acknowledge is the then Leader of the House, Carl Scully. Without his active support this proposal would not have got to the stage it has. Also, Steve McMahon played a very significant role in keeping this on the tracks.
I said there was a significant degree of co-operation from a whole range of people to get this proposal approved. The best example of that is the "acknowledgment of country" that is now in the proposed standing orders. The Speaker, in my view to his very great credit, simply introduced the practice of "acknowledgment of country" at the beginning of each sitting. It seemed to me sensible to have that incorporated in the standing orders, granted we were doing it anyway. It did not seem to be a particularly big issue. The honourable member for Tweed very correctly pointed out that the acknowledgment of country relates to this place, not to all places around the State that we represent. On the face of it, that seemed a fairly sensible suggestion also.
I then proceeded to attempt to draft an acknowledgment of country that, I have to say, was appallingly unwieldy and probably the worst thing I have ever drafted; it looked terrible. I then sought the support of the honourable member for Canterbury, who, thankfully, came up with a much better formulation, in relation to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggested that we take out the word "electorates" and put in the word "land". That is a much more elegant formulation and it reads much better.
It is to the credit of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because it was actually a sensible process whereby a whole range of people who might not agree with a lot of other things were able to get a good result. People say you cannot draft things by committee, and that is often the case. On this occasion it worked quite well. I know there was concern by some other members of the House that the prayer was simply referred to in Hansard as having been read but that the acknowledgment was read out completely. This proposal resolves that problem because both the prayer and the acknowledgment are referred to in the standing orders and Hansard will simply acknowledge that both of them have been read.
The time for divisions has been reduced from five minutes to four minutes. That means members will have to get to the Chamber a bit more quickly, but it will help to expedite the work of the Chamber. There were a couple of other things we could not sort out. I would desperately like to get rid of "orders of the day" because I think it is an appallingly unwieldy term. But we could not find a better term for it, so it is still there. There is no point throwing something out unless the alternative is better.
It has been said that this is the most substantial rewriting of the standing orders in 10 years, and that is certainly true. In terms of the substance of the standing orders I believe it is the most significant rewriting of them in probably 150 years. The procedures relating to first, second and third readings have been in the standing orders for 150 years and have now been removed. In that sense it is really a quite dramatic change, and a change very much to the benefit of this Chamber: it makes it a much more contemporary and, frankly, more democratic Chamber. Inevitably, there probably will be minor errors that have to be looked at and resolved. Every time we look at these things we see yet another problem, despite everyone having looked at them 150 times. There is a provision in the motion to allow minor typographical errors to be resolved at the suggestion of the Clerks but with the agreement of both sides of the House. That is a sensible and rational way of dealing with the issue. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.35 p.m.]: I take issue only with the last comment of the honourable member for Liverpool regarding this being a democratic Chamber. There is no doubt that the 93 members who enter this Chamber do so through democratic procedure, but people who believe that the standing orders are applied in this place democratically has rocks in their head. I make a serious point here for the benefit of the people in the gallery. Regardless of who is in government the reality is that the Government will always back decisions made by the Speaker because for the Government not to back the Speaker leads to one action—the resignation of the Speaker, which no government wishes. As the honourable member for Heffron said, the Speaker is always right. I have trouble in my religion believing in infallibility, let alone believing in infallibility in relation to the Chair.
Ms Kristina Keneally: You aren't Catholic, are you?
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I am Catholic. I do not think we should start this debate with any preconceived ideas that standing orders are applied democratically in this place; they are applied ruthlessly in 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4503
support of the party that has the numbers against the party and parties that do not have the numbers, in order to benefit that political party or parties. I have only a couple of things to say about this. The other disappointment I have with the contribution of the honourable member for Liverpool, who rightly can claim credit for this entire process, is that once again throughout his speech it is evident that he is of Irish Catholic background, like me, and that he hates the Westminster system. Quite frankly, it diminishes the logic with which he argued so many points to try to dismiss 150 years of tradition and connection between this place and the Westminster Parliament. That is a matter of regret.
We regret that a couple of issues have not been picked up. As the honourable member for Liverpool said, the review of the standing orders sought to ensure that we have rules that govern the procedures of this place in one document. Currently and until the end of this Parliament we have two sets of rules. We have the standing orders and the sessional orders. There can be and there will be conflict between the two. In a sense, although the rules set the limits for behaviour in this House, they do not actually go to whether there is a commitment to what goes on in this Chamber.
A couple of things changed by the former Leader of the House, who, like the honourable member for Liverpool, deserves credit for this process, have not assisted what this place is meant to be about. One is the removal of the reading of petitions by the Clerk, a job he did with great eloquence. Preceding question time each day he rose and indicated what petitions on what subjects had been presented from which members. What is the import of that? The honourable member for Liverpool, who is now in the chair, so I am not supposed to criticise him, may say that is just history. It is an important part of our history, which is meant to represent the views and concerns of our constituents in this Chamber. Those issues are now not raised in the open forum of Parliament, which is a great regret, and does not advance democracy any more than the practice of Ministers responding in detail—something that might surprise some newer members—to issues raised in those petitions to enable responses to be sent back to constituents so they know that the free and open process of signing a petition actually has a result.
In the past 12 to 18 months we have seen the removal of the giving of general notices of motion prior to question time, again allowing members of Parliament from all sides to raise issues pertinent to their electorates that will one day come up for debate. I say "one day" because I think at present there are 258 notices of motion on the notice paper. One of the changes under this proposal is that after 12 months those motions will drop off the notice paper. Normally those motions would come up for debate on a sitting Thursday, private members' day, so that ordinary members, be they the honourable member for Heffron, an eternal backbencher on the Labor side, or a backbencher on the Coalition side, would have an opportunity at some stage to raise issues important to their electorates. Too often private members' days are cancelled. Now members will not only miss out on the opportunity to raise those issues but miss out on the opportunity to raise them in Parliament. On a couple of occasions my constituents have been in the gallery when I was giving a notice of motion on a planning issue⎯whether under Mr Knowles, Mr Refshauge or Mr Sartor⎯and it was one way in which local communities could feel empowered.
Other issues relating to question time that preoccupy me on most sitting days have not been addressed in this proposal. Standing Order 138 and Standing Order 139, relating to relevance of questions and not debating questions, need to be resolved, if for no other reason than the arguments that the honourable member for Liverpool gave: that they are clearly not relevant to today's debate because they are never adhered to. Successive Speakers from both sides have twisted themselves into knots trying to defend one or other or, on occasions, both, and at some stage we need to return to relevance. I highlighted during the committee—and I note for a while that it did disappear—the gross abuse by, in particular the Deputy Premier, of "and related matters". I do not have a problem if the honourable member for Heffron asks a question about buses and related matters, and "related matters" actually refer to buses, but I do have a problem, as we saw on a couple of occasions, where a question was asked of the Deputy Premier about transport and the related matters had nothing to do with transport except perhaps that a rail line went through the seats of Epping and Goulburn.
Ms Kristina Keneally: Do Liberal voters take buses?
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: They do. The point is that there should be some connection to the "related matters". I have not looked at the Macquarie Dictionary tonight, but I thought that "related" meant that there was a connection. The Deputy Premier, who apparently went to a fine school in Chatswood, does not seem to understand the word "related" or that the answer should relate to the substantial part of the question. That needs to be addressed. I argued that there should be time limits on responses to questions. Some Ministers are better 4504 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
than others. The honourable member for Granville—I do not want to upset him in his last week in this place— did not filibuster in this place the way we seen from other Ministers. I do not think filibusters are necessary.
Mr Paul McLeay: What do you do?
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I have not had a chance to answer a question yet, and I am not sure that you ever will. The point is that the Federal Senate has time limits for both questions and answers. A Minister should be able to answer a question within a certain time. It goes to competency and efficiency. For answers to go 20 minutes or longer, as has happened on some occasions, is tedious, boring and less than impressive. We need improved mechanisms for the tabling of documents that are quoted from. Members from all sides quote from all sorts of documents and we need procedures to enable members to request that the documents be tabled so they can be verified at the end of the day.
In this day and age, particularly as freedom of information laws do not apply to the Parliament—the only institution in the State they do not apply to—there should be, as in every other jurisdiction, the ability to either place questions on notice, or direct questions without notice, to the Chair. As long as there is not that system, we cannot genuinely say this place is accountable. It is outrageous that if one wants to raise a question with the Speaker that might be embarrassing to him because it might relate to travel or it might be embarrassing to the way in which this place is run—and hasn't that been an issue in the last six months—or some other issue, one has to do so in the privacy of his room. Particularly given that the honourable member for Liverpool argued about the inappropriateness of standing orders that have not been updated to take account of modern practice and precepts. I note that issue is not in this proposal.
Two other issues are probably not relevant or may be relevant to another motion. First, as the honourable member for Maitland said in his farewell speech, the committee that he has chaired excellently for almost a decade is the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Ethics. My view is that the Chair should not consider matters of privilege and ethics; they should be referred to the privileges and ethics committee. In the time that I have been a member on two separate occasions the committee has acted with great bipartisanship and interest towards this place and I believe it would do an appropriate job. Equally, I believe that requests for a citizen's right of reply should go to the privileges and ethics committee in the first instance and not be filtered through by the Clerk and/or the Speaker. That is about updating the processes of this place to make it more accountable and more democratic.
Finally, with respect to an issue that is probably more extraneous to the debate, I strongly support an issue that the privileges and ethics committee wants the next Parliament to pursue, a Privileges Act, something that the Federal Parliament introduced 15 or 20 years ago. The belief was that it would cause chaos and even the end of the Federal Westminster system. It has not done that. Rather, it has provided greater surety and protection. As someone who has had correspondence misused, which attracts no privilege, and who has recently been caught up in a court case that has not provided me, my staff or my documents any privilege, which may disadvantage the constituent whom I am seeking to help against an insurance company that is taking action, it is about time we had a Privileges Act to provide us with greater certainty.
There are some improvements in the new standing orders. At one stage the third reading was going to be legitimately called the "final passage". I thought that was hilarious when it was in the first and second drafts, and eventually it disappeared by the third draft. There are many jokes one could make about that, but I will not make them. We on this side of the House strongly support electronic voting, but I am not sure that we need to have a set voting time in order to have electronic voting. We tried to get from point A to point Z immediately; I think we could have gone somewhere on the way. Finally, as I was waiting for some guests this evening I picked up a copy of brochure No. 5, which refers to a strict set of rules for debate. It states:
Only one person may speak at a time—
I think that is still reflected in the new standing orders, which I cannot even read without the honourable member for Heffron laughing. The brochure further states:
A member's speech must be relevant to the matter being debated by the House …
In their speeches, Members are not permitted to quarrel; anticipate discussion of a matter on the Business Paper; reflect on a previous decision of the House …
All those rules are reflected in the new standing orders. As the honourable member for Liverpool pointed out, none of them is adhered to on a daily basis. Members opposite are quiet at the moment because they want to 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4505
show the Chair that they are being good. If we are serious about this, we should either ensure that the rules are adhered to or get rid of them. I am sure the honourable member for Coffs Harbour will tell the House that when a member raises a point of order, even before that member opens his or her mouth, the member speaking should sit down and allow the point of order to be heard in silence. My favourite rule of debate is the longstanding rule, which relates to the new standings orders, that members should not read written speeches. The concept of that is that members are elected to make a contribution on the behalf of their constituents. If a member is reading a prepared speech we do not know whether he prepared it himself. I am guilty of that myself; I am giving a speech tomorrow night that I have written. We do not know whether the member wrote his speech or whether it was written by an adviser or someone outside the Parliament.
The former member for Bathurst, Mick Clough, who was a telegram boy in Turramurra during the Second World War, was a great stickler for never having prepared speeches in this place. He stood up to a former Leader of the House on the issue. He taught the party member for Wyong how to speak on his feet without notes—and maybe that was a mistake. This change is important. The only part of the standing orders that I regret is being removed is the ban on members reading written material. With the exception of private members' statements⎯when I drive Hansard mad by saying 1,300 words in a five-minute speech⎯I do not believe the removal of the ban on reading written speeches will help this place. One thing that the public expects of us as members of Parliament is to be able to logically make a case. I have seen most members of this place do that. However, many offenders come into this place during debates and simply read a speech prepared for them in the department. It has happened under both governments, so do not get me started. I do not think the ban will actually help this place, but I am happy to commend this. Notwithstanding all that, we will be opposing this motion because of our concerns about issues relating to question time.
Mr JOHN MILLS (Wallsend) [9.53 p.m.], by leave: I support the motion to adopt new standing orders. When the legislation was passed to replace the oath of allegiance by a member of Parliament to the sovereign with a pledge of loyalty to the people, I agreed with the suggestion of my colleague the honourable member for Liverpool that it was appropriate to review some of the anachronistic standing orders that have rankled with me over the years and the many standing orders and practices that are impossible to explain sensibly to visitors, especially school students. In thinking about ideas for modernising, I felt constrained to ideas that would not cost additional money. That certainly seems to be prudent at this time when any expenditure on the Parliament is under wild attack from within by the likes of Ms Lee Rhiannon of the Green Party in the Legislative Council, who always seems to be in search of a cheap headline by belittling this institution.
The contribution of the Coalition Opposition to the debate about modernising the Parliament is welcome, and I refer to the article in the Sun-Herald on 22 October 2006. I strongly support the idea of electronic voting. I have seen it in operation in Wales and in Scotland, and I know that it is widely used in European parliaments. The downside at the moment is the cost, but the time will come, probably in the next Parliament, when the cost of electronic voting can be justified—but not today. The biggest change is in the process of dealing with bills. The first, second and third readings literally came from the need to inform members of Parliament who were illiterate. The only sensible explanation I can give to visitors is, "This is what we do. We have inherited that from England." The mother parliament of the Westminster system not longer does it the same way. It has not been afraid to reform; and neither should we.
The proposal is for a plain English description of the stages of debate and passage of a bill: an introduction, a debate in principle and consideration in detail. Many other reforms simply flow from that idea. Then there are other issues deserving reform: the office of the Chairman of Committees will be abolished and be replaced with an Assistant Speaker; the Speaker or the Clerk will read the prayer and acknowledge the prior Aboriginal ownership of this land—a worthwhile gesture of reconciliation—and the sessional orders will be taken into the standing orders. The idea that a notice of motion that does not come up for debate in six months should be discharged appeals to me. As other speakers have said, with the first, second and third readings being abolished, the Speaker should be able to continue to chair any session in the Chamber without members scurrying in and out of the chair at the Clerks' table.
We avoided several controversies, including the controversy about dress. Having to cover one's head to take a point of order in divisions comes from the days when men used to wear a headdress. As the honourable member for Liverpool said, we lost an argument that, for example, on private members' day, all divisions take place at, say, 12.30 p.m. except for motions to suspend standing orders. But it did not win enough support, so I suppose we will have a look at that again next time. Calling strangers "visitors" appeals to me. I note that the obligation to bow to the Speaker has been removed. While I agree with it, in a way I will be sad to see it go. If there is one member of Parliament who has unfailing courtesy when I am sitting in the chair—she must have 4506 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
just left the Chamber—it is the honourable member for Burrinjuck, who bows and curtsies. One can see that excellent, at times subtle, curtsy on tape. It is a pleasure for the person in the chair to receive such an acknowledgement, especially from such a courteous person as the honourable member for Burrinjuck. So I will be sad to see that go for her sake but not for my own.
Many people have been mentioned as contributing to the process, and I thank them all: Mark Swinson, Stephanie Hesford, Russell Grove, the former Leader of the House the honourable member for Smithfield, Mr Speaker, Mr Deputy-Speaker, the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, the honourable member for Liverpool, the honourable member for East Hills, Steve McMahon, the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, the honourable member for Wagga Wagga, the honourable member for Bathurst and the honourable member for Myall Lakes. Coalition members made quite a contribution, and I thank them. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [9.58 p.m.]: Today is a sad day for this House, probably for all the reasons thrown at me in vitriol by the honourable member for Liverpool when I asked him whether he knew where the tradition of obeisance came from. I suggest that the standing orders are being amended for personal reasons rather than for the reasons of good governance in this Chamber and in this State. In fact, one could ask whether the current standing orders are legal. Why? We were reminded that in about 1996 a meeting of the Standing Orders Committee was adjourned because of a division and never reconvened. I wonder whether the business of that meeting should have continued prior to these changes to the standing orders being made.
It is also interesting to note that the honourable member for Liverpool told us that early this year he had a vision of changing the standing orders. He took it to caucus, caucus approved it and a caucus committee was set up to change the standing orders. Members from this side who were named in the report were basically only consulted, I suppose, after several drafts of the standing orders. We had very limited ability to change any of the standing orders. I remember a discussion in the committee about whether there should be a standing order that Ministers and others should tell the truth. That was soundly defeated because of the numbers on the committee. The Coalition was very interested in having Ministers tell the truth.
When I listened to what the honourable member for Liverpool had to say, I wondered whether his intention to change the standing orders started on the day he first spoke in this House. He broke just about every standing order in the place and was the only one to be sat down by the Speaker during his maiden speech because of an attack he made on another member of the House. The implication he made then was disgusting, and it still is. I find it somewhat bemusing for him to lecture us this evening
Mr Paul Lynch: I was not sat down by the Speaker, which shows you are a liar and a fool.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: That interjection from the honourable member for Liverpool shows once again, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, that the standing orders are here for the party with the numbers to ensure the standing orders are interpreted the way it wants. The honourable member for Liverpool talked about Parliament in Australia having 150 years of practice, interpretation and tradition. I put it to the honourable member, as a member of the standing orders committee, that I would not be proud to have cast around the Commonwealth as precedents some of the rulings we have had from Speaker Aquilina since 2003. Like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I picked up a pamphlet in the foyer tonight. It is entitled "The Role of the Speaker and Other Members in the House". Every constituent in New South Wales can pick up this brochure, which says:
The Constitution Act describes the Speaker as the Legislative Assembly's "independent and impartial representative".
Independent and impartial! Only last week I drew the Speaker's attention to Standing Order 61. The response he gave to the House was that some standing orders in his House are cardinal and others are not. I challenge the Speaker to tell us which standing orders are cardinal and which are not. Standing Order 61 now becomes Standing Order 55, without change, in the new standing orders. I ask the Speaker whether he intends to continue his practice of ruling according to his mood on the day, rather than not following advice from the Clerks.
Standing Orders 138 and 139 have been mentioned already by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Standing Order 139 is unchanged in the new standing orders. It says that an answer will be relevant to the question asked. We are now seeing this nonsense of "and related matters." Therefore, that standing order does not apply. If the answer must be relevant to the question asked we should not have a question that includes, "and related matters". It gives a Minister who is trying to cover his backside, or a poor government, the opportunity to roam across any subject and belt up any member of the Opposition on unrelated matters. To me that is an unfair 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4507
way to conduct any meeting. I suggest the rules of procedure in this place should reflect closely the procedure rules for meetings—and they do not under the present Speaker.
I also draw the House's attention to Standing Order 120, which I raised today and which once again is reflected in the new standing orders. When one is talking about urgent motions being put to the House, that is simple to understand and one does not need to be a lawyer to do so. However, I intend to ask the Clerk before the House rises this week whether Standing Order 120 is being properly interpreted by the Speaker. It says that no more than two notices of motions for urgent consideration will be accepted by the Speaker. When those notices are accepted they take precedence in the House. The members who have given the notices must then argue why their motions should take priority. The standing order also states that in arguing priority a member is given five minutes to put his case. It does not say that he must not debate the issue; it says he may make a statement for five minutes.
Under the Speaker, the practice crept in of Government members taking points of order all the time as to whether the members were giving reasons why their motions were urgent, and eventually the Speaker ruled that the question was priority, not urgency. I am now asking for a just and fair ruling as to whether a member making the five-minute statement can put in that statement issues relevant to the motion. That is not debating the motion; it is stating the motion. As we all know, with the numbers in this House as they are, the 55 on the Government side will always win the argument when there is a total of 93 members in the House. All we are asking for is some equity.
Another standing order that I often refer to in this place is Standing Order 105. That was abused by Premier Carr initially and then by other Ministers during question time. That standing order states that when a member takes a point of order it becomes the most important piece of business in the House and the member speaking, and against whom the point of order is taken, must be seated. The Deputy Premier is an example of pure arrogance when he stands there like a supercilious dill and refuses to sit down. He has tried to copy what Bob Carr used to do but he looks like what he is, and that is supercilious.
My attitude to the standing orders is this. If the standing orders are to be adopted by the House—and I guess once again on the basis of pure numbers they will be—the Speaker, who lectures everyone on the Opposition side of this Chamber about reading the standing orders, must read the standing orders and take advice from the Clerks. As this document in the foyer of the Parliament, which is authorised by the Speaker and the President and by the Constitution Act—and I suppose now that I have named it the honourable member for Liverpool will want to amend that—the Speaker must act as an independent and impartial representative of all members of this House. I point out to the honourable member for Liverpool, although I am sure he is aware of it, that in the British Parliament the position of the Speaker of the House is basically sacrosanct. The Speaker's position is not attacked by any party in a political manner; they agree with the impartiality.
When we were in Government and the Hon. Kevin Rozzoli was Speaker of the House, members on this side of the House disagreed with some of his decisions. In fact, he suspended a Minister of the Crown from the House. Speaker Rozzoli never attended party meetings and was never dictated to by the Premier. I suggest, from the then Government's point of view, that he ran the House with far too much impartiality. I believe we have gone from one extreme to the other. Speaker Aquilina rules with an iron fist without reference to the standing orders. Speaker Murray used to make some terrible decisions. On many occasions I said to him that his ruling would go around the world. He would laugh it off because the precedent had been set. However, he made his rulings with some sense of humour and aplomb and he never tried to disguise the fact that he was being partial. On that basis his decisions, which in no way reflected the standing orders, tended to upset fewer members on this side of the House.
It is a pity that the Speaker is not in the House tonight. The Parliament has only a couple of sitting days left. I ask that the Speaker properly interpret and apply the standing orders. I ask that he show equity and fairness and that he treat all members of the House equally. The Government has been under heavy attack over the past couple of weeks. When Premier Iemma has made a resounding reply without answering the question— in other words, his answer is not relevant to the question asked—the members on the Government benches applaud and cheer. On not one occasion has the Speaker pulled those members into line and called them to order.
In the past when members of the public gallery have made a noise and their objection has been against the Government, the Speaker has called them to order. Yet he will not call Government members to order when they clearly do not act with decorum and do not follow the proper procedures of the House. I suggest that some 4508 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
of the behaviour we have seen in this House under Speaker Aquilina has been born from frustration. Because of frustration with his rulings, Opposition members have taken points of order that perhaps are not within the standing orders. If the standing orders were properly applied, fewer frivolous points of order would be taken and the House would be a better place for it.
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.12 p.m.]: With great pleasure I join my colleagues on both sides of the House to contribute to the debate on this motion. Members need to be fully cognisant of the standing orders and aware of their impact, because they are at the heart of members' responsibilities and democracy within the State. For a number of reasons, I acknowledge, after 150 years of tradition, that the State is in a position to write its own standing orders. There were one or two standing orders I did not want changed, but as members we must bear in mind that the procedures and rules are in place to pass bills through the House. We are elected to make laws. Some members tend to get carried away with the idea that we have been elected to make private members' statements and give notices of motions. They should remember that those areas are extensions of our work; they are privileges that are given to us under the standing orders. Although they are not the key reason we are here, they tend to take up some time.
Private members' statements give members the opportunity to say nice things about their electorates. Notices of motions allow members to raise particular issues and to give the Opposition an opportunity to whack the Government around the kneecaps. Regardless of who is in government, that will continue. We have the privilege of being elected to Parliament to pass laws. We have been elected to move bills through the Parliament and bring them into law. The standing orders ensure that that happens and that members are able to contribute to the passage of bills. Generally that contribution occurs through debate, if members so choose. Privilege, which is one of the strongest principles, attaches to debate. Recently the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised privilege in relation to the correspondence of members of Parliament. I concur in principle with his remarks. Obviously I concur with the principle that members should have the privilege to speak freely within the Chamber. That is a privilege that parliaments around the world strongly defend and this Parliament must be prepared to protect it.
The honourable member for Wallsend referred to the removal of the standing order in regard to obeisance, the obligation to bow to the Speaker. I have a tinge of regret about removing that standing order. Members must acknowledge that the Speaker is in charge of debates in this House and, regardless of which side of the Chamber we sit on, we must be prepared to accept both his rulings and the standing orders. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke with concern about the decisions of various Speakers. I have been a member of two parliaments. I have listened to speeches on the partiality of Speakers on a number of occasions over many years, and I have seen a change of government. I take with a degree of irony or cynicism the points that were raised by the members I referred to. When there was a change in the Federal Parliament the members who were loudest and most vociferous in their concerns about the partiality of the Speaker put their concerns aside and forgot them.
Members should acknowledge that the Speaker must be in charge of the House. At times the Speaker will make decisions we do not agree with, but through his rulings the Chamber runs more smoothly. The honourable member for Wallsend referred to obeisance and the honourable member for Burrinjuck's predilection not only to show obeisance but to curtsy. That action is unique to her as a member. I do not necessarily ask that obeisance be retained, and I certainly do not intend to go anywhere near the requirement that all members curtsy to the Speaker. I believe that obeisance would be sufficient, but I have lost that argument. I compliment the honourable member for Liverpool for the work he has done and for his positive influence on modernising the standing orders. He has become a burr under the saddle of some of the traditionalists by changing the Coat of Arms and by replacing the oath of allegiance with a pledge of loyalty. I see nothing wrong with modernising this place.
I am pleased that there will be changes to the "acknowledgement of country" to incorporate the entire State. We represent a range of areas previously owned by Aboriginal communities, so that change is appropriate. My only regret is that my request to have the acknowledgement read prior to the prayer—because the Aboriginal people were here before the Parliament—was rejected. The "acknowledgment of country" should have come first. The reduction in the ringing of the division bells to four minutes is good. The honourable member for Lismore and the honourable member for Campbelltown are both fit, young people and can certainly make it down the stairs in four minutes rather than five minutes. It is better that we do not sit around waiting for the fifth minute to pass. The way the honourable member for Lismore's fitness is improving, he might ask for a reduction to three minutes, which was the case in the old days. 21 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4509
Mr Thomas George: I won't mind when we are on the ninth floor next year.
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: I am sure the honourable member will make it. We might even hold him to that. I acknowledge the work of the members of the caucus committees, the Opposition and Government members, the Clerks, and other staff members who worked to ensure the standing orders were modernised. As I indicated, the notion of tradition is one thing, but we need to modernise the standing orders. I certainly agree with the removal of the reference to Erskine May. We do not need to go anywhere near that. We have enough tradition of our own to run a debate and work out the procedures to ensure that legislation passed in this place is legally sound. That is essentially what we are here to do. We do not need to go further than that. I commend the motion to the House.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 46
Ms Allan Mr Gibson Mrs Paluzzano Mr Amery Mr Greene Mr Pearce Ms Andrews Ms Hay Mrs Perry Mr Barr Mr Hickey Mr Price Ms Beamer Mr Hunter Ms Saliba Mr Brown Ms Judge Mr Sartor Ms Burney Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Mr Campbell Mr Lynch Mr Torbay Mr Chaytor Mr McBride Mr Tripodi Mr Collier Mr McLeay Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Ms Meagher Mr Whan Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr Yeadon Mr Daley Mr Mills Mr Draper Mr Morris Tellers, Ms Gadiel Mr Newell Mr Ashton Mr Gaudry Mr Oakeshott Mr Martin
Noes, 27
Mr Aplin Mrs Hopwood Mr Slack-Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr Humpherson Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr Kerr Mr Tink Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr J. H. Turner Mrs Fardell Mr O'Farrell Mr R. W. Turner Mr Fraser Mr Page Mrs Hancock Mr Pringle Mr Hartcher Mr Richardson Tellers, Mr Hazzard Mr Roberts Mr George Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Skinner Mr Maguire
Pairs
Ms Nori Mr Armstrong Mr Bartlett Mr Debnam Mr West Mr Stoner
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
ROAD TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (EVIDENCE) BILL
Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment. 4510 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21 November 2006
ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS AMENDMENT BILL
CRIMES AND COURTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
Messages received from the Legislative Council returning the bills with amendments.
Consideration of amendments deferred.
JAMES HARDIE FORMER SUBSIDIARIES (WINDING UP AND ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT (TRUST FUNDS) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an early hour.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.31 p.m.]: On behalf of the New South Wales Coalition I indicate that we do not oppose this legislation, but there are some things that need to be said. I congratulate the Federal Government, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister on agreeing to the changes to ensure that a system could be set up to make tax deductible the money paid into the fund by James Hardie. That was appropriate, and the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, in allowing the Australian Taxation Office to give the private ruling, have facilitated quite conclusively the establishment of the trust fund and have allowed the matter to proceed. I also acknowledge the work of the Premier in bringing this about. It is a very sad event that so many people have had to suffer so dreadfully from asbestosis and mesothelioma, and I acknowledge the Premier's role, and also that of the New South Wales Government, in waging a strong campaign for the victims of these two terrible illnesses.
It is also important to acknowledge the role of the new board of James Hardie. The present Chief Executive Officer of James Hardie has been very sincere in trying to achieve an acceptable settlement that would do something for the benefit of the victims. I make mention also of the role of those who are suffering. The courageous way in which they have handled their disease and have supported their leadership in this campaign deserves to be acknowledged. This is a tragedy that has befallen so many people, and it is appropriate that those people get whatever compensation and assistance they can receive. Unfortunately, nothing can restore their health—if asked, that is the one thing they would undoubtedly wish to have restored—but at least they can receive some measure of fair compensation to recognise that suffering and to assist their families.
Many people were responsible for making this happen—the Federal Government, the State Government, the board of James Hardie, and the sufferers, supported of course by many, including the trade union movement, local government through the councils, the media, and the wider community, who are all determined to see that this terrible injustice is rectified. It is fortunate that James Hardie is a successful company, because if it were not it would be unable to make these payments. If the company had simply gone broke, these people would receive very little, perhaps only the assistance that the Parliament and governments, State and Federal, were prepared to grant to them. But because James Hardie has been a successful company it can make these payments and the ongoing success of the company remains important. I hope the company will continue to acknowledge the responsibility it has undertaken through the establishment of the trust funds. With those few words I indicate that the New South Wales Coalition does not oppose the legislation and wishes it a speedy passage through the Parliament.
Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.35 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Gosford and the Premier for their contributions. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Mr David Campbell agreed to:
That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Wednesday 22 November 2006 at 10.00 a.m.
The House adjourned at 10.37 p.m. until Wednesday 22 November 2006 at 10.00 a.m.
______