13231
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Wednesday 20 June 2012
______
The Speaker (The Hon. Shelley Elizabeth Hancock) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.
The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT
The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to section 63C of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of the Performance Audit Report of the Auditor-General entitled "Managing overtime: Rail Corporation NSW (RailCorp) and Roads and Maritime Services", dated June 2012.
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Report
The Speaker tabled, pursuant to section 78 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the report of the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption entitled "Report of an audit of applications for and execution of Surveillance Device Warrants and Retrieval Warrants by the Independent Commission Against Corruption", dated May 2012.
Ordered to be printed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motions
General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.
INSPECTOR OF CUSTODIAL SERVICES BILL 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 19 June 2012.
Mr KEVIN CONOLLY (Riverstone) [10.07 a.m.]: I speak in support of the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012 which provides for the appointment of an Inspector of Custodial Services and sets out the powers and functions of that role. The bill implements a Government election commitment and responds to the recommendations of the 2009 Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services in New South Wales. This is another example of the Government's commitment to transparency and accountability. The inspector will fill an independent statutory role in which he or she will be required to inspect each custodial centre at least once every five years and each juvenile justice and juvenile correctional centre at least once every three years. In addition, the inspector will have the power to inspect any custodial service at any time. Following these inspections the inspector will be required to report to Parliament.
The inspector also will be required to report to Parliament on any issue relating to his or her function if it is in the public interest or if requested by the Minister to do so. The bill also includes the Official Visitor Program under the jurisdiction of the inspector's office. The bill provides the inspector with broad powers to ensure that he or she is able effectively to carry out the work in an independent manner. Clause 7 provides the inspector with all access to the records of any custodial centre as well as copies or extracts from the records; visits and examinations of any custodial centre at any time the inspector thinks fit; the power to require custodial staff members to supply information or produce documents or material relating to the custodial centre's
13232 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
operations; power to require centre staff members to answer questions; the ability to refer matters to appropriate agencies for action, for example, a complaint from an inmate referred to the Ombudsman; and access to persons in custody detained or residing at any custodial centre for the purpose of communicating with them.
Within four months of 30 June each year the inspector is required by this legislation to make annual reports to the Parliament in relation to his or her operations. These reports must include a description of the inspector's activities during that year and recommendations for changes in the law or administrative action needing to be taken. Prior to making this report the inspector is required to provide a draft of any critical material to the affected division, department or Minister and provide them with the opportunity to respond. The responses to the criticisms by the inspector must be included in the final report. Protection of information that would prejudice the security or discipline of any custodial centre or national security is provided for through an exemption in clause 15 which provides that the inspector must not disclose information in a report to Parliament if there is an overriding public interest against the disclosure of such information.
Clause 4 allows the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission to veto the appointment of a person as inspector, if necessary. Clauses 17 and 18 ensure that there are checks and balances in place through the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission as well as a parliamentary joint committee which will monitor and review the exercises undertaken by the inspector. Clause 19 provides that wilful obstruction or refusal to comply with any lawful requirement of the inspector or the inspector's staff is an offence which will result in a maximum of 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months or both. Further, clause 20 provides that any retribution taken against a person for providing information or evidence to the inspector will result in the same penalties as refusing to comply with the inspector.
I note that following the inquiry in 2009 the former Government chose not to follow the recommendations as it was seen to duplicate the role of the Ombudsman. This bill specifically confers on the inspector the ability to refer matters to the Ombudsman, such as individual complaints from inmates and ensuring there is no overlap between the two bodies. The main benefit of this bill will be the creation of a truly independent and proactive role of Inspector of Custodial Services who will take action and investigate concerns relating to any prison or correctional centre without waiting for an invitation to do so and without any constraint or unreasonable fetter on his or her operations. In this way the community will be confident in the knowledge that the inspector is oversighting our correctional facilities and reporting to Parliament if at any time serious concerns arise. This sensible reform will ensure that a proactive rather than a reactive system is in place. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [10.11 a.m.]: I contribute to debate on the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012 and state at the outset that nothing is more important for our community than addressing the shortcomings of our correctional system. However, my main concern relates to whether people who are moving through the correctional system have gone through a re-humanising or dehumanising process in order to become better people or worse people. I recollect when Lindsay Le Compte was Inspector General of Corrective Services. His position was subsequently abolished by the former Labor Government—I am sure not whether its decision had the support of all Labor members—because he started to raise issues that the Government found embarrassing. The former Labor Government abolished positions in a number of areas where it did not want scrutiny or public accountability.
I strongly support this initiative of the Liberal-Nationals Government. This bill will present challenges for the Government because anyone in such a position tends to disclose matters that could cause a certain amount of discomfort. However, that provides for good governance and it achieves better outcomes for the community. I was disturbed when many of the programs that worked well—for example, the anger management program that was designed to rebuild self-esteem—were taken out of the corrective services system. This Government has not yet addressed all the programs that were decimated by the former Labor Government in its 16 years in office, but much of what currently occurs dehumanises rather than re-humanises prison inmates.
Division 2 sets out the powers and functions of the Inspector of Custodial Services. I say to whoever is appointed: It is ridiculous when people who do not pose a serious danger to the community enter the system as maximum security inmates but within a period of two to three weeks are moved to a minimum security environment to serve their sentence. Prisons should be multifaceted and their core service should be to re-humanise and not dehumanise inmates. We must ensure that from day one the system deals appropriately with minimum security inmates. There should also be better communication with the families of inmates. We 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13233
must not forget that those who are sentenced generally have families. From the moment a prisoner is taken from the dock and through the back door of the courtroom those families need to know what is happening. They have not been privy to that information for years.
I hope the Inspector of Custodial Services will address that issue and look beyond the definition in clause 3 of "custodial centre", which includes correctional centres, residential facilities, transitional centres and juvenile justice centres. At least one member of the Coalition—and therefore the Parliament—would like the inspector to examine how the corrective services system deals with inmates from the moment they are taken into custody. Families need to know where a prisoner is going and how to engage with that prisoner. I recall one family that had a severely disabled child at home that required such engagement with an inmate. I support the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill and look forward to the appointment of an inspector who will fill a role that the former Labor Government did not think was appropriate when it removed former Inspector General Lindsay Le Compte.
Mr NICK LALICH (Cabramatta) [10.16 a.m.]: The Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012 has as its objects:
(a) to provide for the appointment of an Inspector of Custodial Services and confer on that Inspector functions relating to the inspection and review of custodial centres and custodial services, and
(b) to make a number of miscellaneous amendments of a minor or consequential nature to other Acts and regulations.
The most overlooked and underestimated people in the public service are the hardworking men and women in the Department of Corrective Services. Police, nurses and teachers often receive public praise for their hard work and dedication—and rightly so—but we must not forget the important role played by Corrective Services officers in keeping New South Wales safe. Every day these men and women proudly put on the blue of the Department of Corrective Services, resolutely guard our prisons and correctional facilities and make sure that the most dangerous and unlawful in our society serve their time safely without causing harm to themselves or to others. Make no mistake about it, the job of a Corrective Services officer is dangerous and these brave men and women operate every day without fail in the knowledge that their lives could be threatened. Vigilance and caution must be exercised at all times. There is no shortage of courage and bravery in the Department of Corrective Services.
Corrective Services is not just about the front-line officers who guard our prisons and correctional facilities; an important role is played by staff members who look after offender services and programs. Worthwhile programs are administered by staff as a form of rehabilitation so that upon release inmates have the best opportunity to start life afresh and within the boundaries of the law. I pay special tribute to the Vietnamese Transitions Project which assists Vietnamese offenders with transitional support when the time comes for them to leave custody and reintegrate into society. A Vietnamese client services officer supports Vietnamese offenders who have alcohol and other drug problems in the three months before they leave custody and he or she continues to assist offenders and their families for up to three months after release. This worthwhile program is making a difference in my local community.
The Inspector of Custodial Services will be obliged to provide an annual report to the Minister for Justice and the Parliament, report on each correctional facility at least every five years, report on each juvenile justice facility at least once every three years, and conduct additional inspections at the request of a Government Minister. The Inspector of Custodial Services also will administer the Official Visitors Program and his or her term will be for five years with one allowable extension. The Minister for Justice said in his second reading speech that the inspector would be a champion for prison officers and prisons. This just shows how out of touch this Government is.
Prison officers have always had a champion. His name is Ron Woodham; and, unfortunately for our corrective system, he is retiring and leaving the profession that he has served for decades on the frontline. Remarkably, he was the first former prison officer to become Commissioner of Corrective Services. This new role of Inspector of Custodial Services will not have the power to investigate complaints. This seems quite illogical, as complaints often lead investigators to where the problem lies. An oversight body that does not deal with complaints is not really oversighting anything but merely adding further red tape to the system. It can also be asked: Where does the inspector's role finish and where does the Ombudsman's role start? The confusion caused by this bill just adds further layers of bureaucratic reporting and counter-reporting.
The Opposition does not oppose this bill. However, it should be noted by the House that to date no details have been released on the resourcing of the Inspector of Custodial Services, so we do not know whether 13234 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
this position is merely tokenistic and a way to fulfil a Coalition election promise without really fulfilling it. That being said, I wish success to whoever assumes the position of Inspector of Custodial Services and hope that the Government gives his office adequate resourcing so that a positive contribution can be made and assistance given to the hardworking men and women who guard our prisons and keep us safe from society's most vile and dangerous. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.
Mr JOHN FLOWERS (Rockdale) [10.21 a.m.]: I am pleased to speak in debate on the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012. This Government and this Attorney General are serious about improving standards within the State's correctional facilities. The bill provides for the appointment of an Inspector of Custodial Services and confers on that inspector functions relating to the inspection and review of custodial centres and services. The inspector will have jurisdiction over all New South Wales correctional facilities. Those include both juvenile and adult correctional centres, juvenile justice centres, transitional centres, residential facilities, and court and police cells that are managed by Corrective Services or Juvenile Justice. The inspector will, on a regular basis, inspect and report on all correctional facilities. The inspector will serve a term not exceeding five years. The inspector may be reappointed for another five years. In saying this, a person may not hold the office of inspector for terms totalling more than 10 years. There will be a statutory review of the inspector after five years.
Part 3 of the bill refers to the parliamentary joint committee. The parliamentary committee that currently monitors the Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission, the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner will similarly monitor the inspector. The joint committee has the following functions: to monitor and review the exercise by the inspector of his or her functions; to report to both Houses of Parliament with comments it thinks fit on any matter appertaining to the inspector; to examine the reports and annual report of the inspector to both Houses of Parliament and any matter appearing in, or arising out of, any such report; to report to both Houses of Parliament on any change that the joint committee thinks desirable to the functions, structures and procedures of the inspector; and to inquire into any matter referred to it by Parliament. The joint committee also has the power to veto a proposed appointment or reappointment of the inspector.
The inspector will inspect and report to Parliament at least once every five years on each adult correctional facility. In the case of juvenile correctional facilities, this will be once every three years. This shorter period acknowledges the greater need for protection of juveniles. It also is important to note that the inspector may inspect and report on these correctional facilities at any time, with or without notice. In June 2009 Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 handed down its report entitled "Inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services." One recommendation to come from the inquiry was that the position of New South Wales Inspector-General of Prisons be reinstated to report on both public and private prisons.
The Inspector of Custodial Services will be given broad powers in order to perform his or her functions. Those include: the power to access custodial centres and their records, with or without notice; require the production of information or documents; require staff members to attend to answer questions; access inmates; refer matters relating to a custodial centre to other appropriate agencies for consideration or action; and access reports by special inquiries under section 230 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. This means that the inspector will be providing external scrutiny of custodial services. The functions and powers of the Inspector of Custodial Services are set out in part 2, division 2 of the bill.
I turn now to the Official Visitors Program. One of the functions of the inspector will be to oversee the Official Visitors Program conducted within correctional centres and juvenile justice centres. That is, this bill transfers from Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice the Official Visitors Program to the inspector. This is important because it will improve the independence of the Official Visitors Program. Consequently, this will enhance the effectiveness of the program. Official visitors, who will continue to be appointed by the Minister, visit correctional centres across the State in order to resolve inquiries and complaints from inmates and staff at the local level. Similarly, they produce reports on those inquiries and complaints and on any issues of concern. Official visitors will continue to provide reports to the Minister and Corrective Services or Juvenile Justice. They may comment on those reports. The inspector will be provided with all reports by official visitors. By continuing with these processes, the relevant agencies have the opportunity to respond to criticisms within the reports of official visitors.
I turn now to division 4 of the bill, Reports by Inspector. The Inspector of Custodial Services will be required to make an annual report to Parliament within four months of 30 June, the end of the financial year. An annual report to Parliament must include: a description of the inspector's activities during that year in relation to 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13235
each of the inspector's principal functions; an evaluation of the response of relevant authorities to the recommendations of the inspector; and any recommendations for changes in laws of the State, or for administrative action, that the inspector considers should be made as a result of the exercise of the inspector's functions. Finally, I would like to touch on the offences. A person must not, without reasonable excuse, obstruct, threaten or fail to comply with a lawful requirement of the inspector; wilfully make any formal statement or mislead the inspector; or take detrimental action against a person because the person provides information to the inspector. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [10.30 a.m.]: I support the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012 and commend the Attorney General on its introduction. By way of background—and we have had some debate about this—in 2003, following the recommendations of a statutory review, the position of New South Wales Inspector-General of Corrective Services was dissolved. In June 2009 Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 handed down its report on its inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services. The report highlighted that the Inspectorate of Corrections was essentially part of the Department of Corrective Services and therefore could not be seen as having the necessary independence to perform its duties. The committee recommended that the position of New South Wales Inspector-General of Prisons be reinstated to report on both public and private prisons.
The former Minister for Corrective Services responded to the committee recommendation in a letter dated 2 December 2009, which stated that the Report of the Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of Corrective Services that was tabled in Parliament in June 2003 identified significant duplication between the Inspector-General and the Ombudsman. The report also found that the continuation of the Office of the Inspector-General was not justified given that the Ombudsman had greater authority and legislative powers to fulfil the role for which the Inspector-General was created. Accordingly, the then Government did not consider the issue warranted revisiting. On 31 January 2011 a representative of the Coalition responded to a Community Justice Coalition survey. In response to questions about the governance and transparency in the prison system the representative stated:
The NSW Liberals and Nationals propose to re-introduce the role of Inspector of Corrections who will also supervise Juvenile Detention Centres. The Inspector will have overall control of Prison Visitors and the Inspector will report directly to the Minister.
The inspector's role will be to inspect and report to Parliament on every adult and juvenile correctional centre and to review and report to Parliament on custodial services and on any issues relating to its functions if it is in the interests of any person or it is otherwise in the public interest to do so. The inspector will also report to Parliament on any issues related to his or her functions under direction from the Minister. The inspector will be given broad powers to perform his or her functions and will be overseen by the joint parliamentary committee that now oversees the Ombudsman and other bodies. Given the significant commitment made by the Coalition during the election campaign, this bill keeps faith with the community. The five-year review time frame is perhaps a little long given that this bill reinstates an office and that a number of matters will need to be considered throughout the process. For the reasons stated I support the bill and commend it to the House.
Mr MARK SPEAKMAN (Cronulla) [10.34 a.m.]: I support the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012. This is yet another delivery by the O'Farrell Government on its election promises. The legislation establishes the Inspector of Custodial Services and follows the recommendations of the Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services tabled in June 2009. By improving the standards within correctional facilities we are improving the prospects of rehabilitation of offenders. If offenders are rehabilitated properly they can become productive, law-abiding members of society on their release. Therefore, by improving standards within correctional facilities we are improving the safety of the community as a whole.
The inspector will perform an independent statutory role that will provide external scrutiny of the standards and operational practices of custodial services in New South Wales. The inspector will also provide an independent mechanism for monitoring broader thematic and systemic issues arising out of inspection of adult and juvenile correctional facilities and services. Agencies that provide adult and juvenile correctional services should not oversee themselves. The Inspector-General of Corrective Services role was dissolved in 2003 when the then Government accepted the recommendations of a five-year statutory review of the office. However, in June 2009 General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 handed down its report on its inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services and recommended that the position of New South Wales Inspector-General of Prisons be reinstated to report on both public and private prisons. That inquiry noted that other jurisdictions, including England, Scotland, Wales and Western Australia, had established independent prison inspectorates. 13236 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
The inquiry noted that the corrections inspectorate was still part of the then Department of Corrective Services and therefore lacked independence from the department. The inquiry received submissions that New South Wales did not have appropriate prison visitors who were outside the control of the Department of Corrective Services, that the role of official visitors had been watered down and that they could not be autonomous from the department in trying to resolve issues. The former Government did not support that recommendation and it has been left to the O'Farrell Government to make the running on this issue. The inspector will take a proactive rather than a reactive approach to improving custodial services. He or she will regularly inspect and report on all correctional facilities. The former Inspector-General only ever reported on comprehensive inspections of two correctional centres and the Ombudsman has not made a special report to Parliament on Corrective Services NSW since 2000. I will now deal with the Inspector-General's role, which is set out in clause 6 of the bill. The clause provides:
In general the Inspector is responsible primarily for inspecting, examining and reviewing, and making recommendations on, custodial services (including the management of the custodial centres). More specifically, the Inspector has the following functions:
(a) to inspect each custodial centre (other than juvenile justice centres and juvenile correctional centres) at least once every 5 years,
(b) to inspect each juvenile justice centre and juvenile correctional centre at least once every 3 years,
(c) to examine and review any custodial service at any time,
(d) to report to Parliament on each such inspection, examination or review,
(e) to report to Parliament on any particular issue or general matter relating to the functions of the Inspector if, in the Inspector's opinion, it is in the interest of any person or in the public interest to do so,
(f) to report to Parliament on any particular issue or general matter relating to the functions of the Inspector if requested to do so by the Minister,
(g) to include in any report such advice or recommendations as the Inspector thinks appropriate (including advice or recommendations relating to the efficiency, economy and proper administration of custodial centres and custodial services),
(h) to oversee Official Visitor program conducted within correctional centres and juvenile justice centres,
(i) to advise, train and assist Official Visitors in the exercise of their functions,
(j) such other functions as may be conferred or imposed on the Inspector under the proposed Act or any other Act.
The Inspector-General will have a range of powers. Clause 7 provides:
The proposed section provides that the Inspector in the exercise of the Inspector's functions:
(a) is entitled to full access to the records of any custodial centre (including health records) and may make copies of, or take extracts from, those records and may remove and retain those copies or extracts, and
(b) may visit and examine any custodial centre at any time the Inspector thinks fit, and
(c) may require custodial centre staff members to supply information or produce documents or other things relating to any matter, or any class or kind of matters, concerning a custodial centre's operations, and
(d) may require custodial centre staff members to attend before the Inspector to answer questions or produce documents or other things relating to a custodial centre's operations, and
(e) may refer matters relating to a custodial centre to other appropriate agencies for consideration or action, and
(f) is entitled to be given access to persons in custody, detained or residing at any custodial centre for the purpose of communicating with them.
The inspector will have a duty to report to the Independent Commission Against Corruption on any matter that the inspector suspects on reasonable grounds concerns or may concern corrupt conduct. The inspector will be required to furnish every report that he or she makes to the Presiding Officer of each House of Parliament. The direct supply to Parliament of those reports will ensure the independence of the reports. The inspector must not disclose information in a report if there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of that information.
The 2009 report of the Legislative Council committee inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services made another recommendation: that the Government establish a prisons parliamentary 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13237
oversight committee with powers and authorities similar to those of the committees on the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Police Integrity Commission. Consistent with that proposal, the joint parliamentary committee that currently monitors the Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission, the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner will also monitor the inspector.
The Australian Government signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [OPCAT] in May 2009 but has not yet ratified that agreement. Under that convention parties agree to international inspections of places of detention by the United Nations Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture. Once the convention is ratified Australia will have to establish an independent national preventive mechanism to conduct inspections at all places of detention. In the United Kingdom Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons coordinates the United Kingdom's national preventive mechanism. Similarly, here in New South Wales the inspector could be deemed to be part of the national preventive mechanism to assist the State in meeting its obligations under the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This is a long overdue reform and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ANDREW GEE (Orange) [10.41 a.m.]: I support the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012. I congratulate the speakers before me, including Opposition members, on their contributions. We know that the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition have a particular interest in corrective services reform because it was the Leader of the Opposition who was responsible for the privatisation of Parklea prison. That was a watershed moment for corrective services reform in New South Wales. Many people will recall that back in 2008 the present Leader of the Opposition was adamant that he would not become an advocate for privatisation. Yet when the present Leader of the Opposition became the Minister for Corrective Services he was like a rat up a drainpipe.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! That type of language is not appropriate. Government members will remain silent. The member will not incite Government members on the back benches.
Mr ANDREW GEE: I will refrain from doing that, Madam Acting-Speaker. I will just add that in 2008 on Stateline the Leader of the Opposition said:
You can rest assured I won't be becoming an advocate for privatisation. I'm not going to change who I am. I am not going to change my belief systems or my values. And I will continue to advocate for those.
Ms Noreen Hay: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 73. The member should be brought back to the leave of the bill and should restrict his comments to the bill before the House.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! We are talking about custodial services. I advise the member to choose his words carefully.
Mr ANDREW GEE: I will be careful, Madam Acting-Speaker. Perhaps in the spirit of bipartisanship I will say that if there are any issues on the other side of the House, if there is any trouble in paradise on the other side of the House, there are members on this side of the House who have mediation experience and we can help if it is needed.
Ms Noreen Hay: I reckon you should use it on yourselves.
Mr ANDREW GEE: I extend that invitation to the member for Wollongong. We are here if she needs us.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! The member for Orange will return to the leave of the bill.
Mr ANDREW GEE: The Coalition is here to help.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! Opposition members and Government members will remain silent. The member for Orange will return to the leave of the bill.
Mr ANDREW GEE: The purpose of this bill is to establish the office of the Inspector of Custodial Services, which will be an independent statutory body that provides external scrutiny of the standards and 13238 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
operational practices of custodial centres and services in New South Wales. An important part of the bill is that it transfers the administration of the official visitors program from Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice to the inspector. Official visitors perform a very important function in the operation of correctional centres. They visit correctional centres regularly in order to address inquiries and resolve complaints from inmates and staff, and they produce regular reports on the types of inquiries and complaints they have received and on any issues of concern. This acts as a safety valve for potential issues that may arise within correctional centres.
Recently I visited the Wellington Correctional Centre with the Attorney General and members of his hardworking staff—at least one is in the House this morning—and we met with prison officers and two hardworking official visitors, Bill Phillips and Alison Conn, who told us about their experiences of how the system is working. They do a very good and important job. The official visitors program was previously administered by the former Inspector-General of Corrective Services. However, the position of the former Inspector-General was dissolved following a five-year statutory review in 2003. The program is now administered by Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice.
In 2009 the General Purpose Standing Committee of the Legislative Council handed down its report on its inquiry into privatisation of prisons and prison-related services. The 2009 inquiry received submissions from the Australian Lawyers Alliance, which suggested that the role of official visitors had been diminished. The inquiry recommended that the position of the inspector be reinstated and that the inspector report on both public and private prisons. It is essential that official visitors are independent from those agencies that manage correctional facilities because of the potential conflict of interest between Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice in administering the Official Visitors Program and because reports of official visitors may be critical of those same agencies. The transfer of administration of the official visitors program to the inspector will resolve that conflict of interest. We were very impressed with the operation of the Wellington Correctional Centre. It is an extremely well-run centre. I have been to the centre twice while I have been the local member—
Dr Geoff Lee: Not as a prisoner, I hope.
Mr ANDREW GEE: No, as the local member. I thank the member for Parramatta for that insightful comment. Our recent visit was very worthwhile. We visited the print shop; the women's section of the prison, where all the inmates were hard at work; and the bakehouse. It is a correctional centre operating in the modern age. Back in the early 1990s when I was a law student I took a tour of Long Bay prison with a group of law students. It was quite an experience. The inmates at the time assumed that we were a group of trainee prison officers and it is fair to say we were given quite a rousing reception. I recounted that story to prison officers at Wellington and they told me of their experience when they toured Long Bay prison. It is something of a rite of passage. I was taken aback by the change in the feel of correctional centres of the early 1990s and modern day centres, which Wellington Correctional Centre certainly is.
The Wellington Correctional Centre is doing some great work in our local community. Inmates of the centre will be doing work at the Wellington Information and Neighbourhood Centre and have undertaken renovation of the neighbourhood centre. They have worked on two other projects—the golf course at Wellington and St Matthews Catholic School in Mudgee—and are now looking for more work in the area. I pay tribute to the hardworking staff of Wellington Correctional Centre. They do a great job running that centre. I think the bill will make some very worthwhile reforms in the area. I conclude by saying that it is very difficult to envisage the member for Wollongong ever being in conflict with anyone, but if she ever finds herself in that position there are people on this side of the House—
Ms Noreen Hay: Point of order—
ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! The member for Orange will return to the leave of the bill.
Mr ANDREW GEE: I commend the bill to the House.
Mr CHRIS HOLSTEIN (Gosford) [10.51 a.m.]: I speak to the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012, which was introduced by the Attorney General and Minister for Justice, my colleague the member for Epping. The bill is designed to establish the position of Inspector of Custodial Services. It implements an election commitment and follows the recommendations of the Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services in June 2009. The inquiry recommended that the position of New South Wales Inspector-General of Prisons be reinstated to report on both public and private prisons. The former Government did not support that recommendation at the time. 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13239
It is only by improving standards within correctional facilities that we will improve the prospects of rehabilitation of offenders, thereby improving the safety of the community as a whole. The inspector will perform an independent statutory role and will provide external scrutiny of the standards and operational practices of our custodial services in New South Wales. It is not appropriate that agencies that provide adult and juvenile correctional services should oversee themselves. It should be noted that other jurisdictions, including Western Australia, and overseas in England, Scotland and Wales, have already established independent prison inspectorates. The inspector will take a proactive approach rather than a reactive one to improving custodial services. The previous corrections inspector was part of the Department of Corrective Services and lacked independence from the department. Prison visitors were not seen to be autonomous from the department in trying to resolve issues. However, the office of the new inspector will add external scrutiny and weight due to its status as an independent statutory authority.
The inspector will have jurisdiction over all correctional facilities in New South Wales and will regularly inspect and report on all correctional facilities. The administration of the official visitors program will be transferred to the inspector, in light of findings in the 2009 inquiry, and this will ensure its independence. Official visitors will continue to be appointed by the Minister and they will provide reports to the inspector as well as to the Minister and Corrective Services or Juvenile Justice, as deemed appropriate, for their comment. The inspector's role includes an inspection and report to Parliament on each adult correctional facility at least once every five years, and at least once every three years on each juvenile justice and juvenile correctional facility. This is a minimum requirement only and does not prohibit the inspector from inspecting or reporting on any facility at any time and without notice should the need arise. This allows the inspector to keep a focus on areas of immediate concern.
The inspector will have the power to report to Parliament immediately and without a full investigation and review if necessary. The inspector may report on any particular issue or general matter if, in the inspector's opinion, it is in the public interest or indeed the interest of any person to do so. The Minister may also request the inspector to report to Parliament on matters relating to the functions of the inspector and the inspector must produce an annual report no later than four months after the end of each financial year. The inspector will have broad powers entitling him or her to full access to records, including health records; access to facilities and persons in custody for communication purposes; and to the supply of information and documents in relation to operations and attendance of staff to facilitate their questioning on those operations, and referral to other agencies as required and deemed appropriate. It will be an offence for a person to obstruct, threaten or fail to comply with a lawful requirement of the inspector or a member of the inspector's staff in the exercise of their functions without reasonable excuse.
It will be an offence to wilfully make false statements or mislead the inspector or the inspector's staff. These offences will carry a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months or both. Information obtained by the inspector in the course of his or her investigative and reporting functions will be designated to be excluded information in schedule 2 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, meaning that a person cannot gain access to it through an application under the Act. This ensures that confidential information is protected. The inspector and the Ombudsman may share information obtained in discharging their functions. This will ensure that the inspector and the Ombudsman are able to assist each other and at the same time minimise any duplication of their functions. The inspector will have a duty to report to the Independent Commission Against Corruption on any matter that he or she reasonably suspects of being corrupt conduct.
Should the reports to Parliament by the inspector contain opinions that are critical of any part of government or an individual, they will be informed and given an opportunity to make comment. However, the inspector, having taken into account any submission, retains the right not to alter the report. The inspector must not disclose information in a report should there be an overriding public interest against such disclosure: for example, the whereabouts and security arrangements of convicted terrorists, or where revealing the identity of a person could endanger a life. The Government will also designate the joint parliamentary committee that currently monitors the Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission, the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner to monitor the inspector. This joint committee will have the power to veto the appointment or reappointment of the inspector. The tenure of an inspector may last for only two five-year terms: one appointment and one reappointment only. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr CHRIS PATTERSON (Camden) [10.58 a.m.]: I support the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012. The bill will establish the position of Inspector of Custodial Services. The inspector will provide external scrutiny of the operational practices of custodial centres and services in this State. The office of the inspector 13240 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
will be independent of the department as a statutory body. The inspector's independence is very important. The report of the general purpose standing committee of the other place on its inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services in June 2009 noted that the corrections inspectorate, as existed until 2003 when it was dissolved following recommendations of a statutory review, was part of the then Department of Corrective Services and, because of the way in which it was established, was not independent of the department.
The general purpose standing committee of the other place also received submissions that New South Wales did not have appropriate Official Visitors who were outside the control of Corrective Services. The committee therefore recommended that the inspector be reinstated and report on public and private prisons. This is an election commitment of this Government in response to the community justice questionnaire. Madam Acting Speaker, as you would be aware, honouring election commitments is the backbone and substance of this Government. This is another example of the Government doing that.
Ms Noreen Hay: You have not kept a commitment yet.
Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: I thank the member for Wollongong because we pride ourselves on—
ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! Government members and Opposition members will remain silent. I advise the member for Parramatta not to say a word.
Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: I will return to the importance the Government places on honouring its election commitments just so everybody is aware of it. It is something the Government prides itself on and continues to do week in and week out. The inspector will have jurisdiction in all correctional centres and services in New South Wales, including adult and juvenile correctional centres, court and police cells managed by Corrective Services or Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Justice centres, transitional centres and residential facilities. The inspector will be overseen by the joint parliamentary committee which currently oversees the Ombudsman, and a statutory review will be undertaken after five years of the inspector's commencement on 1 July this year. The inspector will be appointed for five years and may be reappointed only once. Circumstances in which the inspector may be removed from the position are limited but include incapacity, incompetence, misbehaviour, or unsatisfactory performance.
Ms Noreen Hay: That rules you out.
Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: I was just going to say—
ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): Order! I know that the member for Newcastle is as enthusiastic about the Jets as I am, but I ask him to contain his enthusiasm.
CHRIS PATTERSON: In response to the member for Wollongong, incompetence, misbehaviour and unsatisfactory performance are words that have shades of the former Government about them. With that said, I shall move forward. It is a step in the right direction that the inspector's role will take a proactive approach to systemic issues. The inspector will refer complaints from any individuals in custody to the appropriate bodies, for instance, the Ombudsman. The inspector will take over the administration of the Official Visitors program to ensure its independence, with appointments of such Official Visitors remaining with the Minister and reports from Official Visitors being made to the inspector, the Minister, Corrective Services, or Juvenile Justice, where appropriate. The bill will make it the inspector's role to inspect and report to Parliament on each adult correctional centre at least once every five years and once every three years for a juvenile correctional centre.
Dr Geoff Lee: How long?
Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: Just for clarity, it will be at least once every five years for an adult correctional centre and three years for a juvenile correctional centre. The inspector will review and report to Parliament on any custodial service at any time, and will review and report to Parliament on any issue relating to the functions of the inspector if it is in the interests of any person or is otherwise in the public interest to do so. The inspector will be required to report on any issues relating to the functions of the inspector should the Minister request it. The inspector's broad powers will allow him or her in performing his or her functions to access custodial centres and custodial centre records with or without notice, to require the production of information or documents, to require staff members to attend to answer questions, and to access inmates, and to access reports of special inquiries. The inspector's reports made under the Act must be made to the Presiding 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13241
Officers of both Houses of Parliament and the inspector must provide the Minister and any government division or person that a report is critical of with a draft of that report and allow them a reasonable opportunity to respond.
The bill will make it an offence to obstruct, threaten or fail to comply with a lawful requirement of the inspector without reasonable excuse, or wilfully make a false statement or mislead the inspector. It also will be an offence under this bill to take detrimental action against a person who has provided the information to the inspector. The inspector will have a duty to report to the Independent Commission Against Corruption any matter that may concern corrupt conduct. Confidential information retained by the inspector in relation to his investigative and reporting role will not be subject to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 to ensure protection of that confidential information. Like so many pieces of legislation brought to the House by this Government, this is a common sense bill. This issue has needed to be addressed and I am glad to say it has been addressed. The inspector's independence will ensure that standards in correctional facilities will indeed be improved.
To have an independent inspector in this department is of great value to all bodies and people involved. In establishing the role of the inspector another level of accountability is added to this department and to this Government. As has been said so often by members on the Government side, accountability and transparency have been the hallmarks of the O'Farrell Government and they will continue to be so. We pride ourselves on accountability and transparency within government. As a result of this bill, offenders will have a better shot at rehabilitating successfully. Again, it is crucial that offenders be given every opportunity to be rehabilitated. I make the point that not all offenders will be able to be rehabilitated, but they will be given the opportunity. That is what this bill is about—helping people who have the ability to rehabilitate successfully where appropriate. It will not happen in every instance; however, the aim of this bill is to give them every opportunity. For these reasons I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs TANYA DAVIES (Mulgoa) [11.08 a.m.]: I support the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012. The object of the bill is the establishment of a position of Inspector of Custodial Services. The inspector will be responsible for inspecting, reviewing, examining and making recommendations on the management of custodial services. The inspector will have powers to oversee the operations of all custodial services managed by New South Wales Corrective Services, including correctional centres, juvenile correctional centres, Juvenile Justice centres, transitional centres and residential facilities. The Liberal-Nationals Government is fulfilling another election commitment by the introduction of this bill. The Government is committed to improving standards in custodial services to maximise the chances of successful rehabilitation of offenders. We want offenders to have the best possible chance to become contributing, law-abiding members of society once they are released back into our communities.
When standards are raised in custodial services, community safety is improved. The inspector will perform an independent statutory role that will provide external scrutiny of the Department of Corrective Services management of custodial services in New South Wales. The Official Visitors program also will be transferred to the administration of the inspector to maintain the independence of this program from the Department of Corrective Services. The visitors will continue to be appointed by the Minister and will report both to the Minister and to the inspector. Official Visitors perform an essential function in correctional centres. They visit correctional centres regularly to resolve inquires and complaints from inmates and staff at the local level. Official Visitors produce regular reports on the types of inquiries and complaints they have received and any issues of concern. This acts as a safety valve for potential issues that may arise within correctional centres. It is essential that Official Visitors are independent from agencies that manage correctional facilities.
There is an obvious conflict of interest between Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice administering the Official Visitors program in that reports of Official Visitors may be critical of those same agencies. The transfer of administration of the Official Visitors program to the inspector will resolve this conflict of interest. The inspector will be required to inspect each adult custodial facility at least once every five years and to inspect each juvenile justice centre and juvenile correctional centre at least once every three years, and to report to Parliament on the inspections. This distinction recognises the importance of protecting juveniles and recognises their greater potential for successful rehabilitation. The inspector also will have the power to visit any custodial facility at any time and report to Parliament on any issue at any time. This allows the inspector to address real and immediate concerns. The inspector also will report to Parliament on any issue relating to the functions of the inspector if the inspector believes it is required or if the inspector is requested to do so by the Minister.
In order to properly perform the functions, the inspector will be given broad powers, including the power to access custodial centres and their records without notice, to require the production of information or 13242 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
documents, to require staff members to attend to answer questions, to access inmates and communicate with them, and to refer matters to appropriate agencies. The Act also creates offences for obstructing or failing to comply with a lawful requirement of the inspector without a reasonable excuse, wilfully making a false statement or misleading the inspector, or taking detrimental action against a person because they provided information to the inspector. The inspector will use these powers to report to Parliament on any holistic and/or systemic problems in the custodial management system and the Ombudsman will continue to deal with complaints or grievances relating to an individual inmate's circumstances. The Act requires the inspector to provide a draft copy of any report that is critical of a person or body to the Minister and to the person or body to give them a chance to respond before the report is furnished to the Presiding Officers.
New South Wales has not had an external body to review custodial services since the former Government abolished the Inspector-General of Corrective Services in 2003. In June 2009 the General Purpose Standing Committee of the Legislative Council noted in its report on its inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services that the Corrections Inspectorate is a part of the Department of Corrective Services and therefore lacked independence from the department. The committee recommended that an inspector be reinstated. It is undeniable that agencies that provide adult and juvenile correctional services should not be overseeing themselves. I am proud to be part of a Government that is now acting upon this recommendation to ensure that there is adequate external and independent oversight of custodial services in New South Wales. I congratulate the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice on his commitment to improving our corrective services system to improve the chances of rehabilitation of offenders. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET (Castle Hill) [11.14 a.m.]: I support the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012 and commend the Attorney General on its introduction. The bill will establish the position of the Inspector of Custodial Services following the recommendations in the report of the Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 entitled, "Inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services", in June 2009. The rehabilitation of those in adult and juvenile correctional facilities is, along with the safety of the community, a paramount concern in detaining individuals. The Inspector of Custodial Services will work to improve the standards within correctional centres and will give those individuals a better opportunity to return into the community as contributing and law-abiding members of society. It can be difficult and often undesirable for certain organisations to be a proper judge of their own operations and to provide a suitable level of scrutiny to current methods and processes.
An independent body will better serve to ensure that standards within correctional facilities are met to ensure better outcomes. To that end, the inspector will perform an independent statutory role that will provide external scrutiny of the standards and practices of custodial services in New South Wales. This bill is important to enhance accountability in the Department of Corrective Services. Establishment of the Inspector of Custodial Services will provide an independent mechanism for monitoring correctional services. The inspector will provide reports directly to both Houses of Parliament. While the Minister may comment on the draft report by the inspector, the inspector is not bound to amend its report in the light of those submissions. The independence of the inspector does not translate to there being no accountability.
The joint parliamentary committee that currently oversees the Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission, the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner also will oversee the inspector. This will allow the inspector the independence to run investigations without being influenced by others. However, the inspector still will be held to account by the committee. In addition to reinstating the position and its powers, the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill transfers the administration of the Official Visitors program from Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice to the inspector. It is essential that Official Visitors are made independent from agencies that manage correctional facilities. There is an obvious conflict of interest between Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice administering the Official Visitors program in that reports of Official Visitors may be critical of the very same agencies.
The transfer of administration of the Official Visitors program from Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice to the inspector will resolve this conflict of interest and help increase the department's transparency. It also will improve the independence of the Official Visitors program, thereby enhancing its overall effectiveness. The New South Wales Inspector of Custodial Services will adopt a holistic approach, focusing on systemic issues in correctional facilities to facilitate changes that are needed in the Department of Corrective Services. The role will be to primarily report on systemic issues within correctional services and facilities. The inspector will have jurisdiction over facilities when a person is kept in custody pursuant to a custodial service; for example, correctional facilities, residential facilities, transitional facilities and juvenile justice centres. 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13243
Thus, unlike the system under the Inspector-General that was scrapped in 2003, this new appointment will avoid the duplication of roles with the Ombudsman that previously existed. The Ombudsman's role is primarily reactive and specific to individual cases whereas the inspector's role is proactive and is more concerned with the overall system. I note that the Ombudsman has not made a special report to Parliament on Corrective Services NSW since 2000. It is obvious that the inspector's appointment is overdue and can have a positive outcome on our Corrective Services in New South Wales. Under this legislation, the inspector will be asked to report on all corrective services every five years and all juvenile justice facilities every three years.
The inspector will take a collaborative, rather than an adversarial, approach with Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice. Their joint insights into corrective services will allow for greater awareness of the issues that need to be ironed out in the current system. The inspector's monitoring role is specialised to Corrective Services. The appointment of the inspector will improve the standards of our correctional facilities by increasing the chances of rehabilitation of offenders. Standards against which the inspector will inspect are universal and commonly accepted custodial standards. The joint parliamentary committee that oversees the Ombudsman, amongst other bodies, also will oversee the inspector. The committee will be in a position to challenge the nature of the relationship between the inspector and the agencies being inspected, if required. I welcome the move to improve the review of our prison system and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr CHRISTOPHER GULAPTIS (Clarence) [11.20 a.m.]: I am pleased to support the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012. The purpose of the bill is to establish the Inspector of Custodial Services. It also honours a Coalition election commitment and follows the recommendations of the Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services in June 2009. This is an important bill for my electorate because Grafton is a jail town and has been for a long time. Grafton has had corrections facilities since 1862. The Acmena Juvenile Justice Centre, which has the capacity for 45 young people, was opened in September 1999. The centre accommodates male detainees, mainly from the far North Coast, mid-North Coast and New England areas, who are on control orders or are remanded in custody. The centre offers a range of health, education and spiritual services to the young people, including individual case management, specialised counselling and training in job and living skills.
I have had the opportunity to visit Acmena with a men's group led by Peter Pearson from Grafton to mentor some of the youth in that facility. It is an important facility in that it looks at improving the lot and future of those young detainees. For me, that is the crux of this bill: improving the standards within correctional facilities. By doing so, we also improve the prospects of rehabilitation of offenders. If offenders are rehabilitated properly they can become law-abiding members of our society and productive members of our community upon their release. The first correctional facility in Grafton was constructed under the supervision of the Office of the Sheriff and accommodated up to 48 inmates. The more permanent facility, known as the new Grafton Gaol and accommodating 197 mostly male inmates, was established in 1893 and proclaimed from 8 September 1893. The centre is listed on the New South Wales State Heritage Register as one of the few jail complexes in Australia designed by private architects. I recommend that members in this Chamber visit the place. I have visited it on a number of occasions.
For a number of years a successful program of services conducted by multidenominational churches has been run at Grafton to provide spirituality to the inmates. I have been informed by the manager of the jail that at the completion of the program, which lasts about a week, the jail is a quieter place. There is no denying that Grafton jail was a brutal place—as was certainly detailed in the report of the Nagle royal commission into New South Wales prisons from 1976 to 1978, which was set up to oversee reforms in the Australian penal system. We have come a long way since then. Grafton jail was officially abolished by proclamation on 18 December 1991. The jail is now known as Grafton Correctional Centre. It is an important facility for Grafton, and I believe this bill is important for Grafton because it provides the checks and balances that will assist in sustaining the correctional facility into the future. The inspector will perform an independent statutory role that will provide external scrutiny of the standards and operational practices of custodial services in New South Wales.
The inspector also will provide an independent mechanism for monitoring broader systemic issues arising out of inspection of adult and juvenile correctional facilities and services. It is not appropriate for agencies that provide adult and juvenile correctional services to oversee themselves. The role of the Inspector-General of Corrective Services in New South Wales was dissolved in 2003. In June 2009 General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 handed down its report on its inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services. The inquiry noted that other jurisdictions, including England, Scotland, Wales and Western Australia, had established independent prison inspectorates. The inquiry noted that the corrections 13244 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
inspectorate was still part of the then Department of Corrective Services and therefore lacked independence from the department. The inquiry recommended that the position of New South Wales Inspector-General of Prisons be reinstated to report on both public and private prisons. The State Labor Government did not support that recommendation.
The State Labor Government was happy to support the Department of Corrective Services scheme that provided a free telephone service for inmates to make inquiries and complaints and appointed monitors to a number of State-operated correctional centres. Clearly, these initiatives are internal arrangements and do not provide a measure of external security. Inspections under the authority of the inspector will add external scrutiny and weight due to the Inspector of Custodial Services status as an independent statutory authority. The inspector will take a proactive rather than a reactive approach to improving custodial services. To avoid duplication of roles, the proposed inspector's role will not extend to dealing with complaints or grievances relating to an individual in a custodial service. The inspector may refer such complaints to other appropriate bodies, such as the Ombudsman's office. The inspector's role will be to take a holistic approach, focusing on systemic issues in correctional facilities to bring about real change.
The administration of the Official Visitors program also will be transferred from Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice to the inspector. Official Visitors will continue to be appointed by the Minister. Official Visitors will provide all reports to the inspector as well as continue to provide reports to the Minister and Corrective Services or Juvenile Justice, as appropriate. The inspector will have jurisdiction over all correctional facilities in New South Wales. This will include all adult and juvenile correctional centres, residential facilities, transitional centres, juvenile justice centres, and court and police cells that are managed by Corrective Services or Juvenile Justice. The inspector's role will be to inspect and report to Parliament on each adult correctional facility at least once every five years. The inspector must also inspect and report to Parliament on each Juvenile Justice and juvenile correctional facility at least once every three years. This shorter time frame in relation to juvenile facilities recognises the greater need for protection of juveniles.
The inspector may also inspect and report on such facilities at any time, with or without notice, should the need arise. This allows the inspector to focus on areas of real and immediate concern. The inspector may also examine and review any custodial service at any time. This includes the management of custodial centres, the care of inmates and the transport of inmates by Corrective Services or Juvenile Justice. This provides the inspector with the ability to perform thematic reviews of custodial services generally or in relation to a particular correctional facility. The inspector may report to Parliament on any particular issue or general matter relating to the functions of the inspector if, in the inspector's opinion, it is in the interests of any person or in the public interest to do so. This gives the inspector the power to report to Parliament immediately without a full investigation or review, if necessary.
The inspector must report to Parliament also on any particular issue or general matter relating to the functions of the inspector if requested to do so by the Minister. The inspector must also prepare an annual report within four months of the end of each financial year detailing the inspector's activities in the preceding year, an evaluation of the responses of relevant authorities to the recommendations and any recommendations for legislative or administrative action. The inspector will be given broad powers to perform his or her functions. This is a good thing for Corrective Services. This is a very transparent way for the Government to behave and for Corrective Services to be able to report to the Parliament and the Minister. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [11.30 a.m.]: I support the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012. This bill refers to an area in which people assume everything is being managed—that someone is watching and is alert to abuse or potential abuse. We do not expect prison to be a five-star resort, but we expect it to be a well run and fair system with genuine hope of encouraging people to reform and to emerge as positive contributing members of society. There should be no actual torture, starvation or vindictive cruelty towards inmates, but for most of us these are assumptions. We live our lives outside the corrections system and literally have faith that someone else independent and free reports on monitoring the prisons and institutions on our behalf. This bill shatters those cosy presumptions. Its very words will surprise those who thought, should they have turned their minds to the matter, that officials independent of Corrective Services NSW kept vigilant watch over the jails and what happens within those locked precincts.
Fortunately, the NSW Ombudsman has had some powers of investigation, but they have been limited. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has been able to investigate complaints against the department, Justice Health, the NSW Police Force, the Department of Juvenile Justice or any other New South Wales government agency and the privately run correctional centre at Junee. While the Ombudsman can investigate, he cannot force an 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13245
agency to comply with his recommendations. The department has had officers visit the institutions but, of course, they are in the employ of the very department they are investigating. This model has the potential for conflict and structurally is not independent. For most of the time we are content to ignore this until at some point a family friend or member is sent to a custodial institution—the abstract suddenly becomes real and present and we become vitally interested in who is watching the watchers.
The Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012 makes the bold move of establishing the new Office of Inspector of Custodial Services. This was an election commitment and is aligned with the recommendation of the Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 Inquiry into the Privatisation of Prisons and Prison-Related Services. In an independent statutory role the inspector will provide external scrutiny of the standards and operational practices of custodial services in the State. This includes juvenile and adult facilities, residential facilities, Juvenile Justice centres, transitional centres, and court and police cells under the management of Corrective Services or Juvenile Justice. In addition to investigating complaints, the inspector also will have the power to look into what might be called broader thematic and systemic issues, which emerge from inspections of facilities. In this way the position clearly is designed to be proactive, seeking to identify and deal with problems well before they become intolerable.
Inspections are to be regular and systematic rather than simply follow the receipt of a complaint or the report of an incident. As the Minister noted, this reform contrasts with the current system under which the Inspector General only ever reported on comprehensive inspections of two correctional centres. The Ombudsman has not made a special report to Parliament on Corrective Services NSW since 2000. It is expected that the inspector will be busy inspecting facilities and reporting to Parliament. The report on an adult correctional facility must be delivered at least once every five years. Juvenile facilities require more frequent reporting, with each institution being the subject of a report at least once in three years. The inspector will be free to report to Parliament on other issues that come to light. In order that there is no delay, when time is of the essence in managing the situation, the inspector need not wait for a full and proper investigation and report; if the situation calls for prompt action, the inspector can make a report to Parliament without delay.
The inspector will be obliged to report to the Independent Commission Against Corruption any matter where there is a concern or reasonable grounds for believing there has been corrupt conduct. The bill provides strong powers to the inspector, including to inspect a facility at any time, to look at and make copies of records, and to require the production of documents. As the Minister mentioned, the role of the inspector could be deemed to be part of the national preventative mechanism to assist the State in meeting its obligations under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Within my electorate is the Mannus Correctional Centre. Located 10 kilometres from Tumbarumba, it is a minimum-security institution for approximately 160 inmates with no fences and views to rolling hills and snow-capped mountains.
The inmates work in the orchard or vineyard, or with livestock. Many educational courses are run at the centre or are available through distance education. The centre is involved in numerous community projects, particularly maintenance of local community grounds, aged people's homes, public buildings and the Mannus community hall. The NSW Ombudsman's most recent annual report for the year 2010-2011 shows that over this 12-month period the Ombudsman received seven informal complaints and one formal complaint about Mannus Correctional Centre. This is in contrast to the 415 complaints lodged about the Junee Correctional Centre. When the Ombudsman's report was made public it drew attention from numerous sources. One online critic posted:
Boo Hoo, your in Jail, what did you expect? Its not meant to be a hotel. Dont do the wrong thing and you wont have anything to complain about.
Another added:
... whingers, should of thought of not doing crime before being housed at the expense of the honest aussie.
These views remind us why we need inspectors knocking on the gates of the State's detention centres and reporting to Parliament. Once we move beyond the mentality that says, "Lock 'em up and throw away the key", words must be backed with meaningful action. This bill is an important step in delivering an open, healthy and fair corrections system. Some people are satisfied by not knowing what goes on in our jails and detention centres. Some people are satisfied by throwing abuse and displaying ignorance about those in our jails and detention centres. Some people want to establish order and see that inmates are treated fairly and honestly in our jails and detention centres. I am pleased that, through this bill, our Government is firmly basing itself in this last category. I commend the bill to the House. 13246 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [11.37 a.m.]: I shall make a few comments on the Inspector of Custodial Services Bill 2012. The position of the Opposition was outlined by the member for Liverpool, the shadow Minister. The bill provides for the appointment of an Inspector of Custodial Services, confers on the inspector functions relating to the inspection and review of custodial centres and services, and makes a number of miscellaneous amendments of a minor and consequential nature et cetera. This is an interesting aspect of the Government actually establishing a new Office of Inspector, which was known previously as the Inspector General of the Department of Corrective Services. The history of this particular appointment goes back to the early 1990s when the Labor Opposition formulated policies in a number of areas, including the promise to establish an inspector general to handle complaints and, in effect, be an ombudsman within the prison system.
The Labor Party was elected to office in 1995 and set about establishing a regime of going through its manifesto of election promises, overseen by Premier Bob Carr. A legislative process was adopted in accordance with our policy to set up the Office of the Inspector-General within the department. In 2001-02 I became the Minister for Corrective Services and the inspector-general was fully operational within its review period. The Minister's office and the department were involved in extremely time-consuming disputes between the hierarchy of the department and the inspector-general. It resulted in some conflict between the Commissioner for Corrective Services and the inspector-general, which is not unusual. Ombudsmen and police commissioners have always had conflict about management issues. When I was Minister for Corrective Services I proudly appointed Ron Woodham as the Commissioner for Corrective Services. That recommendation to Cabinet went beyond my official capacity. With the passage of time the decision to appoint Ron Woodham has been vindicated many times over.
I understand that he has not been reappointed as the Commissioner for Corrective Services. While I was the Minister for Corrective Services and in the lead-up to the 2003 elections one of the issues with Corrective Services became apparent: it is a politically sensitive area and always has the potential to be a front-page story. One of the issues was escape rates and complaints within the prison system. History shows that Ron Woodham's appointment as Commissioner for Corrective Services resulted in a period of stability for the Labor Government that continued for this new Government. Ron Woodham's appointment has been vindicated many times over. I wish him the best in any future venture. One of the things I am most proud of is the fact that I recommended the appointment of the very first prison officer to hold the rank of commissioner within the history of the department.
The role of inspector-general conflicts existing structures within the New South Wales system. The appointment of an inspector-general was based on other jurisdictions, mainly Great Britain, that considered having an Ombudsman within the system to review complaints about the system and complaints from prisoners. Ultimately much of role of the inspector-general was duplicated by other institutions operating within New South Wales, which did not occur in the other jurisdictions that had an inspector-general. Naturally if your role is taken over by others you look to other aspects of the role. The executive summary of a review of the Office of Inspector-General dated May 2003 states:
In creating the office of Inspector-General the Government sought to establish a complaints handling function designed to pursue mediation and to resolve issues using locally appropriate solutions and to work with existing investigatory bodies, not supplant them.
Further it states:
From the outset the Inspector-General adopted an adversarial approach with the Department of Corrective Services which created strong negative tensions. In his initial address to a conference of governors of corrective centres, the Inspector-General adopted a heavy-handed approach. As a consequence, the opportunity to contribute to the broad enhancement of the delivery of corrective services, expected from the Office of the Inspector-General, was largely lost.
I commend all members to read the Review of the Office of Inspector-General Department of Corrective Services, May 2003, which made a recommendation that the office be discontinued when the legislation reached its statutory review period. On 11 February 2003 I, as the Minister, requested that review be conducted by the former Commissioner of Police, John Avery, and the former Commissioner for Corrective Services, Vern Dalton. No-one could question their integrity and efficiency in conducting an objective review. Opposition members wish the new inspector all the very best. I note that he will not, as in previous cases, be handling complaints from prisoners.
If the inspector is not handling complaints from prisoners one would ask how important scrutiny within the prison system is to the Government. The Attorney General would say correctly that prisoners are able to make complaints to other investigating bodies and that is probably one of the reasons why the 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13247
inspector-general's office was discontinued by the former Government. The Opposition looks forward to the work of the Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services because investigative persons and bodies are helpful to those in opposition in highlighting inadequacies of the Government in running the prison system. I commend the bill to the House. I understand the shadow Minister will be moving amendments to the bill at a later time.
Mr GREG SMITH (Epping—Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [11.44 a.m.], in reply: I thank the members for Liverpool, Barwon, Fairfield, The Entrance, Myall Lakes, Coogee, Drummoyne, Penrith, Riverstone, Wakehurst, Cabramatta, Rockdale, Northern Tablelands, Cronulla, Orange, Gosford, Camden, Mulgoa, Castle Hill, Clarence, Albury and Mount Druitt for their contributions to the debate. Before concluding I will address some matters raised in debate. I do not propose to comment on the customary barbs of the member for Liverpool lest we enter into an ongoing verbal tennis match. The member for Liverpool has stated that the Labor Party will move that the bill be amended so the inspector would have a complaint-handling role. I notice the member for Mt Druitt mentioned that as well.
Such an amendment would repeat the mistakes of the past. The 2003 statutory review of the former Inspector-General of Corrective Services recommended it be dissolved partly because of significant duplication between the inspector-general and the Ombudsman, as both bodies dealt with complaints of inmates. For this reason the inspector will not have a complaint-handling role but will focus on systemic issues in correctional facilities in order to bring about real change, similar to the successful West Australian inspector position. Furthermore, if the inspector were to handle individual complaints, this would detract from the inspector's primary focus of inspecting and reporting on systemic issues in correctional facilities. The inspector's resources are clearly better spent on addressing systemic issues rather than duplicating existing complaint-handling mechanisms.
Inmates and custodial centre staff members are already well catered for in terms of complaint handling. Independent official visitors attend correctional centres to resolve inquiries and complaints from inmates and staff at a local level. Official visitors produce regular reports on the types of inquiries and complaints they have received and any issues of concern. I get to see those reports. Failing that, inmates and staff may also lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman, who has extensive powers to act and resolve such complaints. There was reference by several members to the work of the current commissioner, Ron Woodham. I agree that Mr Woodham has given long and dedicated service to this State. I make a minor correction to my second reading speech. I stated that the Ombudsman had not made a special report to Parliament on Corrective Services since 2000. There has been one such report over that period, which was tabled in November last year and it related to the Kariong Juvenile Detention Centre.
To sum up, the purpose of is bill is to establish the Inspector of Custodial Services. The proposal in this minute will implement a Government election commitment, and follows the recommendation of the general purpose standing committee's inquiry into the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services in June 2009. The role of the inspector will be an independent statutory one that provides external scrutiny of the standards and operational practices of custodial centres and services in New South Wales. The inspector will also administer the Official Visitors program. The inspector will have jurisdiction over all correctional centres and services in New South Wales. The inspector's primary role will be to inspect and report to Parliament on each adult correctional centre at least once every five years, and each juvenile correction centre at least once every three years.
The inspector may also examine and review any custodial service at any time. The inspector will be given broad powers in order to perform his or her functions. The inspector will provide his or her reports directly to both Houses of Parliament. The joint parliamentary committee that currently monitors the Ombudsman, among other bodies, will also oversee the inspector. The inspector will be appointed for a five-year term and may be removed only in limited circumstances. These features ensure the inspector's independence. By improving standards within correctional facilities we are improving the rehabilitation of offenders, and therefore improving the safety of the community as a whole. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in detail requested by Mr Paul Lynch. 13248 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
Consideration in Detail
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): By leave, I will propose the bill in groups of clauses and schedules.
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [11.52 a.m.]: By leave, I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 4 on sheet C2012-086 in globo:
No. 1 Page 5, clause 6 (1). Insert after line 12:
(e) to investigate and attempt to resolve complaints made by any person relating to the administration of a custodial centre,
(f) to encourage the mediation and informal resolution of complaints relating to the administration of a custodial centre,
No. 2 Page 5, clause 6. Insert after line 33:
(3) The functions of the Inspector relating to the investigation of complaints may be exercised on the Inspector's own initiative, at the request of the Minister, in response to a complaint made to the Inspector or in response to a reference by the Ombudsman, the Independent Commission Against Corruption or any other agency.
No. 3 Page 6. Insert after line 22:
9 Limitations on Inspector’s functions
(1) The Inspector cannot exercise functions in relation to the following matters:
(a) a matter that is subject of an inquiry under section 230 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999,
(b) a complaint about the conduct of a public authority that is listed in Schedule 1 to the Ombudsman Act 1974 as being excluded from the operation of that Act,
(c) a complaint about a decision, procedure or member of the State Parole Authority or the Serious Offenders Review Council (within the meaning of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences Act 1999).
(2) Subsection (1) (b) does not affect the powers of the Inspector in relation to the recommendation of disciplinary action or criminal prosecution against custodial centre staff members.
(3) If the Inspector receives a complaint that would fall within the charter of an investigation unit within the Department, the Inspector must refer the complaint to the investigation unit unless directed to deal with the complaint by the Minister.
(4) Nothing in subsection (3) prevents the Inspector from:
(a) monitoring the way in which a complaint is dealt with by an investigation unit within the Department, or
(b) recommending that the Minister direct investigation of a complaint by the Inspector or another investigative body, or
(c) requiring a copy of any report by any investigation unit within the Department and making recommendations with respect to the report.
10 Discretion of Inspector to investigate complaints
(1) The Inspector may decided not to investigate a complaint or to discontinue the investigation of a complaint for any reason that the Inspector considers appropriate.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Inspector may decide not to investigate a complaint or may discontinue the investigation of a complaint if the Inspector considers that:
(a) the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or not in good faith, or
(b) the subject-matter of the complaint is trivial, or
(c) the conduct complained of occurred at too remote a time to justify investigation, or
(d) there is or was available to the complainant an alternative and satisfactory means of redress, or
(e) the complainant has no interest or an insufficient interest in the conduct complained of.
(3) This section does not apply to any matter that is referred to the Inspector for investigation or other action under Part 5 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988.
20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13249
No. 4 Page 7, clause 10, Insert after line 9:
(3) The Inspector must not investigate a matter on complaint or on the Inspector’s own initiative if the matter could be the subject of a complaint under the Ombudsman Act 1974 until the Inspector has entered into arrangements with the Ombudsman under this section.
As I indicated in my second reading speech, these amendments aim to alter the bill so that it more closely resembles the inspector-general model that was in existence previously. The Opposition does so because it is that model that the Coalition promised to introduce when they were in opposition. That was the promise made by the then Coalition Opposition, now the Government, in its campaign before the election. The bill betrays that promise. These Opposition amendments fulfil that promise. I also note that there was extensive discussion about the legislative committee report dealing with various recommendations, and a long line of Government speakers pointed to that in the second reading debate as the historical genesis of the bill. In fact, what that committee recommended was not the bill. There is no justification in the committee's recommendation for the bill. These Opposition amendments are justified by those committee recommendations. Granted the length of time we have debated this already, I am happy to leave it at that.
Mr GREG SMITH (Epping—Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [11.53 a.m.]: The Government opposes the amendments. It is interesting that the Opposition is telling the Government that it is honouring the Government's pledge when in opposition. As I explained in my speech in reply, we do not propose to give the inspector the same sorts of powers that apparently clashed previously with those of the Ombudsman. It would not be the proper way to run the operation. We are happy with the work that the Ombudsman is doing in relation to prisons and in other areas. There is a clear distinction in functions for the inspector. We oppose the amendments.
Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [11.54 a.m.]: The difficulty with that submission is that, if that is correct, then that is not what the Attorney should have promised before the election.
Question—That Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 4 [C2012-086] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.
Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 4 negatived.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 28 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Third Reading
Motion by Mr Greg Smith agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
APPROPRIATION (BUDGET VARIATIONS) BILL 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 13 June 2012.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [11.56 a.m.]: The objects of the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2012 are as follows:
(a) To set out the recurrent services and capital works and services for which the "Advance to the Treasurer" appropriation was expended in the 2011-12 financial year, and the 2010-11 financial year (where not previously reported), and to make the necessary adjustments to the appropriation for each of those years,
13250 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
(b) To appropriate $61,200,000 from the Consolidated Fund for recurrent services, and capital works and services, that were required by the exigencies of Government in accordance with section 22 (1) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 in relation to the 2011-12 financial year,
(c) To appropriate an additional amount of $800,000,000 from the Consolidated Fund for certain capital works and services for the 2011-12 financial year.
I read the Treasurer's second speech carefully. I note that he, pursuant to the lead given him, all Ministers and backbenchers by the Premier, has on this occasion, as on every occasion, descended into more political spin and rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to the Treasurer's Advance there are many philosophies on how to use it, and there are many ways in which the Government might seek to use it. As long as they comply with all the relevant legislation and come in here and report it in the most public of all places, that is, the floor of the House, it is all proper. I note the purported lecture from the Treasurer about how to spend money from the Treasurer's Advance, and other matters contained in the Treasurer's second reading speech. I will not accept that lecture from the Treasurer, or anyone else in this Government, on economic management. The fact is that $880 million in capital amounts in last year's budget were unspent.
Thousands of jobs hinged on that unspent money. The Government now announces, fallaciously, that general government sector spending on capital expenditure this year is at a record amount. That is not true. That is just another example of the spin that comes from this Government. We will not be lectured by a Government that cuts, sacks and slashes and frames economic management and its execution of government policy in programs that hurt vulnerable people. The Government should be hanging its head in shame today after what it did yesterday to working people with the workers compensation bill. Instead, this morning on ABC the Premier made a bald-faced lie about it. We support this bill and we do not expect to be lectured by the Government. I conclude my speech.
Mr Greg Smith: Point of order: The shadow Minister should be relevant to the bill before the House and not to other bills and he should not cast aspersions on the Premier.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! I uphold the point of order. Unparliamentary language was used in calling the Premier a liar. I ask the member to withdraw that.
Mr Michael Daley: I will not withdraw it. I have concluded my remarks, as I indicated when I sat down.
Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD (Myall Lakes) [12.01 p.m.]: I speak in support of the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2012, which is part of the package of budget bills presented by the Treasurer. The Treasurer brought down a budget that reduces the amount of spending in New South Wales in part because of Labor's performance in its 16 years in office—16 sorry years when Labor had control of the budget of New South Wales, did not deliver a surplus and kept running down the State's economy. The financial years from 2000 to 2010 are known as New South Wales's lost decade—when New South Wales underperformed compared to the rest of Australia—when growth in New South Wales averaged 1.1 per cent less than the rest of Australia. If it were not for that New South Wales would probably be about $16 billion better off than it is today.
The former Labor Government left New South Wales behind the eight ball. When those opposite talk about budgets, fiscal responsibility and things like that—they obviously have no idea what they mean—they have no credibility. In Labor's 16 years in government one example of its incompetence is what it did to WorkCover—$4.1 billion unaccounted for. Other examples of Labor's mismanagement are the Rozelle Metro— $500 million down the drain without delivering one centimetre of track—and $100 million on the Tillegra Dam without turning a blade of grass.
Mr Nathan Rees: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance under Standing Order 129. This bill is about the Treasurer's Advance; it is not about the Appropriation Bill in general. The member's remarks are wide-ranging and are not confined to the leave of the bill.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! Standing Order 129 applies only to question time. There is no point of order.
Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD: In response to what the member for Maroubra said, if Opposition members want to attack this Government, they have to have credibility. Labor members have no credibility. The mentality of Labor members is like the Greek Fiscal Responsibility Act—someone somewhere in the future will pay for all this rubbish. 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13251
Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: Under Standing Order 76 the member has to be relevant. The bill is about as narrow as it can be for bills of this nature. The bill is about appropriating certain amounts from the Consolidated Fund for the Treasurer's Advance and for other purposes. It is very narrow.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! We do not need to debate the point of order. The member for Myall Lakes will return to the leave of the bill.
Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD: We have to turn this State around, but we were left with a $5.2 billion budget black hole, $4.1 billion unaccounted for in WorkCover, and a $5.4 billion reduction in GST revenue left to us by the other Greek authority on accounting—the Federal Labor Government. In round terms—this is the mathematics for the member for Toongabbie—it is about $15 billion. We are delivering in the budget a $10.2billion turnaround over the next four years. It is a balanced and fair budget. We are here to clean up Labor's mess and we are getting on with the job of doing it. This Government is looking after the workers in New South Wales. Labor turned its back on the workers of New South Wales. There is no better evidence of that than the last election when there was a landslide and the Labor Government was thrown out.
This Government is looking after the workers. If changes are not made to the workers compensation scheme there will be no jobs—the WorkCover scheme will fall over and there will be no compensation for workers. We are fixing up the WorkCover scheme, and those who are genuinely injured will be looked after by us—in many cases they will be looked after far better than they were before. If the WorkCover scheme fell over we would have to go back to the old scheme where workers compensation would be left to insurance companies. Many insurance companies would then go bankrupt. We are delivering a better scheme and workers will still have the best benefits in Australia.
Greg McCarthy, the former chair of WorkCover, said that the Labor Government did not have its hands on the levers, that it would not listen and that it was negligent. That is why $4.1 billion is unaccounted for. The member for Maroubra was meant to have his hands on the levers but he would not listen and he would not be involved in it. He attacked the Premier by saying that the Premier was telling lies. What a disgraceful attack on the Premier. I applaud the member for Orange, who is in the Chamber, for his brilliant oration yesterday. He is a true local champion for Orange. This Government is delivering for regional New South Wales. My electorate of Myall Lakes has $88 million in the budget for roads alone, and $112 million overall. Another great benefit for Myall Lakes is that we are getting a new nurse training and education centre at our TAFE. That is not accounted for in the budget because it is out for commercial tender, but it will be great for Myall Lakes. People from all over New South Wales will be attracted to the area because of that new training and education centre for nurses.
We are honouring the promise that we made to upgrade the Pacific Highway. In the Myall Lakes budget $59 million has been allocated to continue the Bulahdelah bypass. Also in the budget is the Government's commitment to 20 per cent of the funding for the Pacific Highway, which is part of the memorandum of understanding between the New South Wales Government and the Federal Labor Government. What a shameful act by the Federal Labor Government in cutting down its share by $2.3 billion, while $2.1 billion is sitting in the forward estimates for the Parramatta to Epping rail line that this Government, the experts, the consultants, Infrastructure Australia and New South Wales say we do not want. That money could be used right now to finish off the Pacific Highway by 2016 and to save lives. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr GLENN BROOKES (East Hills) [12.08 p.m.]: I support the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2012 introduced by the Treasurer, which is a further example that this Government is acting responsibly in controlling its costs and managing its finances. For far too long the previous Government lived well beyond its means and overspent by hundreds of millions of dollars. The previous Government spent money it did not have. It spent money recklessly and with little regard to its impact on the economy of this State. Thankfully, those days are over. Under the O'Farrell Government there has been a cultural change. Every effort is being made to spend within the budget and not beyond.
The cultural change extends beyond directors general and government agency chief executive officers and now sees government Ministers recognising the importance of managing their budgets. Money is being spent responsibly and appropriately where it is needed the most and in a way that will be of greatest benefit to the community. We all have to live within our means, especially with today's uncertain economy wherein the full impact of Federal Labor's carbon tax is yet to be felt. While this Government knows what it means to be fiscally responsible, it also knows how to spend its funds for the greatest benefit. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I only need to look at the funding made available to community groups within my electorate to see that this is a great Government that knows what it is doing. 13252 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
Just last week I visited Sir Joseph Banks High School to announce that it would receive funding for the upgrade of its kitchen and food technology facility to enhance the learning environment and to allow for vocational education and training courses finally to be offered at that school. Because of the previous Government's waste and mismanagement of funds, students at Sir Joseph Banks High School had been forced to use kitchen equipment that was more than 30 years old. In stark contrast, because this Government is undertaking good fiscal responsibility, $200,000 has been secured for Sir Joseph Banks High School that will see its catering facility upgraded for the first time in more than three decades. Labor left schools in New South Wales with about a $1 billion maintenance liability and an infrastructure backlog.
This Government is making hard decisions to put an end to waste and mismanagement. This Government is making hard decisions so that students at schools such as Sir Joseph Banks High School can receive the education they deserve. The New South Wales Government is delivering on its election commitments, which highlights the previous Government's inability to work within its budget. The New South Wales Treasurer implemented measures to put the State's economy on the fast track to recovery and prosperity. This Government will not create massive budget black holes. It is in control of its spending and it will not waste hundreds of millions of dollars on projects that go nowhere and help no-one. This Government knows what to do and it is being responsible with the public purse. New South Wales is now in good hands and, as a consequence, I am happy to commend this bill to the House.
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly—Treasurer) [12.13 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to debate on the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2012. We are talking about fiscal responsibility and pursuing sensible financial policies, but the Opposition had only one contributor to the debate, which is an indication of its priorities. I understand why Opposition members are not interested in this legislation. The member for Maroubra, who made a contribution to debate in his role as shadow Treasurer, spoke about many philosophies. I will not try to understand where he was going with that, but I say to him and to every member of this House that although many philosophies might apply there is only one right policy; that is, being responsible with the finances we are overseeing and being responsible in every decision we make relating to spending. The O'Farrell Government will continue to do that.
The Treasurer's Advance was set up to be used for contingencies: that was its intent and that is what the O'Farrell Government is doing. It is a simple proposition that we have put across the whole of government. From one end of the public service to the other and from one agency, chief executive officer, director general and Minister to another everyone understands that budgets matter. Maintaining responsibility for our spending is at the core of this bill and at the heart of the approach of the O'Farrell Government. We are aware of the track record of the former Labor Government. For 16 years it spent on average $1.25 billion more than it said it would spend each year. The former Labor Government did not stick to its budget and spent $20 billion in addition to the money that was budgeted—an approach that led us to the position in which we find ourselves today. The O'Farrell Government is making the decisions that are required to map out sustainable finances for a sustainable future and a path back to a surplus.
I thank the member for Myall Lakes for his contribution. He understands these issues. The member for East Hills precisely identified the implications of this legislation and said there had been a cultural change across government. There has been a cultural change. The member for East Hills said the Government is making the hard decisions so that his local community will continue to receive services, just as the high school to which he referred has received services. At the core of this legislation is the provision of services. To continue to borrow money to pay wages is unacceptable; it will put this State on an unsustainable path. By making hard decisions today the Government has mapped out the way it can continue to provide much-needed services and build the infrastructure for which the community has been crying out. That is what the people of New South Wales are receiving from the O'Farrell Government and that is what this bill is about. The member for East Hills concluded by saying that this Government is in control of its spending, which is good news for the people of New South Wales. The Government is controlling its budget, which enables it to fulfil the obligations that the community elected it to fulfil.
I will not repeat all the arguments that were made during debate, but it is worth highlighting the difference between the track records of Opposition members and Government members. When the Treasurer's Advance was allocated money in 2007-08, the previous Government was 52 per cent over the $325 million budget. In 2008-09 it was 41 per cent over the $400 million budget. In 2009-10 it was 43 per cent over the $440 million budget. That is why I am proud to announce that the Treasurer's Advance was allocated $285 million in this budget. The O'Farrell Government did not go over that; it spent only $93 million. That 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13253
testament to the new culture in government in this State demonstrates that this Government will be responsible with its finances. It is another way that the O'Farrell Government is getting on with the job of delivering services and building the infrastructure that this State desperately needs.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Motion by Mr Mike Baird agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
CHILD PROTECTION (WORKING WITH CHILDREN) BILL 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 13 June 2012.
Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) [12.19 p.m.]: I lead for the New South Wales Opposition in debate on the Child Protection (Working with Children) Bill 2012. I state at the outset that the New South Wales Opposition will support the legislation. I left the Chamber momentarily to receive an apology from a member of Minister Dominello's office for not receiving a briefing. I accept that apology. It is common courtesy to provide shadow Ministers with briefings. I acknowledge that the office of the Minister for Fair Trading always kindly provides me with briefings pertaining to legislation he introduces. I accept the oversight and the apology.
The Working With Children Check was established by the Carr Government in 1998 with bipartisan support. It was the first scheme of that nature to be introduced in Australia. Most States followed New South Wales in implementing similar schemes. It is appropriate to take this opportunity to ensure that this State has the strongest protection scheme possible for our children. As a mother I can relate to many members of our community who are concerned about this matter. I am sure all members of this House are horrified by media reports of crimes against children. It is important that, as public officials, we do all we can to keep children safe. The bill arises from recommendations of the 2010 review of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 and the Auditor-General's performance audit of Working With Children Checks.
I note also that similar working with children checks are in force in other Australian jurisdictions including Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory. I understand a scheme is in the process of implementation in Western Australia. Given the different political persuasions of those State and Territory governments as well as the governments that took the first steps on this issue, it is clear that this is a matter that enjoys bipartisan support. In Minister Dominello's second reading speech, he outlined key differences between this bill and preceding child protection laws. The bill provides the same process for all categories of workers— paid workers, volunteers, self-employed people, authorised carers and adults who are sharing their homes. The check will access full criminal histories instead of a defined subset of records and will continuously monitor New South Wales records to manage risks after a person has been cleared to work with children, criminal charges and any disciplinary reports. The checks provide for two outcomes—a clearance or a bar.
If the process results in a bar, employers can no longer engage that person. The bill will streamline operating systems and centralise operations. One of the provisions of the bill includes a portable renewable clearance that can be used over a fixed period for any child-related work. The period has been set for five years and the applicant is required to seek to renew the application three months prior to its expiry. The bill will allow the Commissioner of Police to provide information regarding potential offenders to the New South Wales Commission for Children and Young People. The provisions will assist in identifying individuals who gained clearance but who then might commit a criminal offence. The Opposition welcomes that this provision aims to address any issues that might arise with sharing information between the NSW Police Force and the Commission for Children and Young People. 13254 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
The bill will require Working With Children Checks for professions and volunteers who previously were not required to undergo checks. The positions include volunteers with children's sporting teams, school-crossing supervisors and adult persons who reside in the homes of authorised carers, but are not carers themselves. When I think about volunteers with children's sporting teams, I remember a very unfortunate case in my electorate a couple of years ago. A long-term coach and sporting volunteer of our Canterbury-Bankstown Junior Rugby League team, Les Bateman, was charged and finally convicted of sexually assaulting a minor in 2010. It was a shocking case. For 30 years he was a monster in the midst of junior rugby league teams. He built trust among parents and of course among the children. It is a horrific case and I am very pleased that he is now behind bars. That case reminds us of how important it is to extend Working With Children Checks to volunteers who are involved with children's sporting teams.
The bill differentiates between employees who may see children during the course of their work as opposed to those who have a working relationship with children. In order to require a Working With Children Check, an employee must have direct contact with children, which is defined as physical contact or face-to-face contact. The bill makes it an offence to engage in child-related work without active clearance or without an ongoing review before the commission. The offence carries punishment of 100 penalty units or two years imprisonment. The same penalty applies if a person engages in child-related work while being the subject of an interim bar. Similarly, employers are obligated to ensure that employees have clearance. The maximum penalty for an offence is 100 penalty units for a corporation or 50 penalty units for an individual. Different models for child protection checks have placed the responsibility for certification entirely on the employer, which is the case in Tasmania. The penalties provided in the bill ensure that it is in the interests of both the employer and the employee to have Working With Children Checks in place.
I note that the legislation commences on proclamation. I request the Minister during his reply to confirm that there will be an extensive information and awareness campaign to ensure that all employers and employees are aware of their obligations under the new legislation. I know the Minister mentioned compliance and awareness campaigns in his speech. The Opposition would welcome further information. In particular, the Minister might consider whether local members could take a role in promoting awareness about these changes. Under the bill, an interim bar can be issued by the Commission for Children and Young People, if the commission has concerns prior to completion of a thorough review of an application. The application process is expected to take six months and, in instances of paid employment, that could have a significant financial impact on an employee. It is appropriate for a mechanism to be in place to review such decisions through the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.
The bill will allow for access to full criminal histories instead of a defined subset of records. I note that specific prohibited offences are outlined in schedule 2 item [1] to ensure that offenders, who might pose a risk to children, will be excluded. Referring to administrative procedures, I note that applicants will have to reapply every five years. Given that there are provisions for ongoing checks and communication of information about new offences by the NSW Police Force, that seems to be a reasonable period. I note also that there is a fee of $80 for all non-volunteers, paid employees or potential employees. I think this fee has been determined on a cost-recovery basis. I ask the Minister to confirm that during his reply. Last week's budget projected an increase of 75,000 Working With Children Checks during the next financial year, which will bring the projected total of checks to 165,000. I request the Minister, in the absence of an opportunity to receive a briefing, to address during his reply whether additional staffing will be provided to the commission to deal with the increased workload.
I also ask the Minister to rule out any job cuts to commission employees who are responsible for Working With Children Checks as part of his Government's plans to cut public service numbers. I ask the Minister to confirm that there are no plans to cut public service staff involved in Working With Children Checks. Legislation Review Committee Digest 20/55 considered the bill in detail. I draw to the attention of the House to some of the issues raised in the digest. The committee referred to Parliament "whether the reversal of the onus of proof in relation to an individual seeking a Working With Children Check who has been found to pose a risk to the safety of children is reasonable in certain circumstances."
While these are legitimate concerns, it has long been recognised in both Australian and international laws that the rights of children are paramount and, as such, legislators are occasionally required to make exceptions where children are concerned. Furthermore, unsuccessful applicants, although subject to interim bars, are able to appeal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. I note lastly that the Minister refers to an exemption for parent volunteers on the basis that parents already have relationships with children in teams, clubs and schools that their children attend in the local community. I ask that that area continue to be monitored. 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13255
I understand the difficulty in administering any type of checks in that area, but I note a case currently before the courts in Western Australia where a 38-year-old man has been charged with molesting seven boys between the ages of six and eight years. He was a parent volunteer. Unfortunately, there will be examples where parents will abuse that privilege and trust that schools and sporting groups place in parents when they give them the opportunity to volunteer. Having said that, I reiterate the New South Wales Opposition supports this legislation. We wholeheartedly will support on a bipartisan basis any measures this Government takes to protect children in our State.
Mr ANDREW CORNWELL (Charlestown) [12.31 p.m.]: I support the Child Protection (Working with Children) Bill 2012. I note the member for Bankstown said that she had not had the opportunity of a briefing from ministerial staff. I point out that the member for Macquarie Fields, who is a member of the committee, was offered a briefing. As well, the offer of a briefing was made via him to any other member of the Opposition. The simplicity of the Working with Children Check has many benefits for employers. No longer will employers be required to delay a worker's commencement until the check is completed. No longer will they need to juggle different arrangements for volunteers, paid workers and self-employed people. No longer will they need to decide whether to engage an applicant who is assessed as presenting a risk to children. No longer will they need to store reams of paperwork. Instead employers will simply verify by a click of a mouse on the Commission for Children and Young People's online register that any child-related worker they engage has a current Working with Children Check clearance or a valid Working with Children Check application.
The simplicity of a clearance versus a bar will make it easier for employers to know whether a person may work with children. If a person has a clearance or a current application, that person may work with children. If a person has not applied for a Working with Children Check or has been barred, that person may not work with children. The Government acknowledges that there will be some circumstances where it is not possible to comply with these requirements. Emergency child protection placements, for example, may be in place for up to five days before a Working with Children Check is required. Emergency staffing for key children's services—for example, in hospitals and schools—also may be in place for up to five days before the Working with Children Check is required. The Government also recognises that some people in some child-related activities need not obtain a Working with Children Check clearance. These groups will be defined by regulation. Nor will people in non-child-related work need to get a check. Employers should not ask workers or volunteers in these groups to provide evidence of their Working with Children Check status.
The Commission for Children and Young People will monitor and audit compliance with the Working with Children Check. Employers who do not comply will receive initially a notice requiring them to comply. If they fail to comply with that notice, the commission may invoke a penalty. Initially, only new child-related engagements will be covered by the new Working with Children Check. But all child-related workers and volunteers will need a Working with Children Check clearance within five years of this new check's commencement. The regulation will establish the dates for each sector to become fully compliant with the new check. People who have stayed in the same child-related position since commencement of the new Working With Children Check will need to obtain a clearance by the regulated date.
Employers may legally dismiss a child-related worker who is barred from working with children or who is not authorised under the Act and regulations to work with children. The bill provides that courts or tribunals hearing cases where a person's work is affected by their Working With Children Check status must place the welfare of children ahead of other considerations in these determinations. The bill provides that these bodies may not order reinstatement or re-employment or payment of damages or compensation where a person's dismissal or suspension was the result of being barred from working with children or not being authorised to work with children. The new Working With Children Check also gives employers a simpler and clearer set of rules for reporting disciplinary matters. Only nominated employers whose investigative systems are strong may notify disciplinary proceedings. They may only notify those proceedings where the investigation found that sexual misconduct, sexual assault or serious physical assault occurred.
All types of child-related work, whether paid or unpaid, carry risk to children. This bill recognises that the risk is the same. The new Working With Children Check applies the same level of protection to children under the care of volunteers as under the care of paid workers. People who work in the particular settings listed in clause 6 (2) will be covered by the Working With Children Check if their work involves direct physical contact with children and the type of work they do is declared by the regulation to be child related. The work settings are almost identical to the current settings, with only minor adjustments. School crossing supervisors are included for the first time. The regulation will clarify the statutory definition to make it easier for employers and workers to determine what roles require a Working With Children Check. 13256 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
Other workers in roles defined in clause 6 (3) also will be covered by the Working With Children Check. These roles include, among others, authorised carers and other home-based carers, certified supervisors of education and care services. Other roles defined in clauses 10 and 11 require a Working With Children Check. These roles are of pre-adoptive parents and adults who live in the house of an approved provider of a home-based educational care service or authorised carer. An employer may ask the commission to deem additional roles as child related if the role involves access to children's confidential records. The period of residence that triggers the Working With Children Check for an adult living with an authorised carer or a certified provider of home-based education or care service has been shortened from three months to three weeks in order to provide a higher level of protection for children in care.
The bill enhances the existing Working With Children Check by providing increased protection for children in workplaces. The bill delivers a new Working With Children Check that is more thorough, covers more people in the community and is more efficient and fair. I acknowledge and commend the work of the Minister, the Hon. Victor Dominello, on bringing this legislation before the House. It is a large and not uncomplicated piece of legislation but the result is a better and fairer system. I also acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Megan Mitchell, the Commissioner for Children and Young People. I acknowledge and thank the commissioner and all employees of the commission for the immense work they have done in assisting to bring this bill before the House and also for their continuing work and advocacy in protecting children in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms MELANIE GIBBONS (Menai) [12.38 p.m.]: As a member of the Committee on Children and Young People I support the Child Protection (Working with Children) Bill 2012. Since the March 2011 election this Government has been committed to repairing the State. Step by step we are improving the efficiency of our government departments and service providers, updating legislation to ensure that the people of New South Wales are getting the best outcomes possible with minimal red tape, and remaining dedicated to protecting our most vulnerable by establishing better procedures and consistent policies across statewide operations. This bill must be introduced because the current system is not working as well as it could. The bill will bring New South Wales into line with other States and improve the way Working With Children Checks are carried out— ensuring that any clearance granted is always monitored for any changes.
Child-related workers and employers have asked for a portable and renewable clearance that applies equally to all types of child-related work. This bill delivers that portability. The New South Wales approach to checking will be at the forefront of policy, practice and protection of children. After all, we were the first State to introduce such checks in Australia. Workers will benefit in three main ways: they can use one five-year clearance for all child-related engagements; they can be certain of their Working With Children Check status before offering themselves for child-related work; and they can seek an independent review if the commission bars them from working with children.
Currently, workers who move frequently need to complete a new Working With Children Check each time. They need to fill in three pages of documentation each time, which need to be processed onerously each time. In the new procedure, a worker has to complete only one application every five years. A clearance will work for all child-related engagements over this period. Workers will not be required to complete paperwork, only a short online application form or they can apply by phone. The current Working With Children Check is not commenced until the employer has offered the applicant a child-related job. An applicant with a relevant record, however minor that record turns out to be, experiences delays before being cleared to start the job. Many employers are not able to wait out this process and end up not employing their first candidate choice for the job.
In the new Working With Children Check the new time lines mean that the applicant can wait until a clearance has been granted before seeking child-related work. There will be no uncertainty for either the worker or employer. This change particularly benefits charities and community organisations that rely on volunteers. Lengthy application processes and checks often deter people from volunteering their time. By making it simpler to secure a working with children clearance, some pressure on those organisations will be removed. I have worked in the charity world and organised volunteer events. I know how difficult it is to get Working With Children Checks organised. These new provisions will help charities maintain their resources and remove some of the financial and staff stress. The bill addresses this by implementing different check categories.
Workers will need to have the correct type of Working With Children Check. If they are engaging in volunteer work only, they will need the volunteer clearance. However, if they are to work in a paid role, they will need the non-volunteer clearance and must pay the regulated fee. A worker can upgrade from volunteer clearance simply by visiting the motor registry and paying the required fee for a non-volunteer clearance. 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13257
A worker can use a volunteer clearance in a paid role for up to 30 days before upgrading to a non-volunteer clearance. This allows new entrants into the work force to earn some money before being required to pay the fee. The new check will cost only $80 for a five-year clearance, which equates to approximately $16 a year. As I stated, volunteers are exempt from that fee.
Under the provisions of the current Working With Children Check some people prohibited from working with children may never seek a review of their status. This Government is retaining this arrangement only for those convicted of murdering a child. Each person barred by the commission is entitled to an independent review of that decision in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. This review process ensures integrity, transparency and fairness in the Working With Children Check administration. On behalf of the New South Wales Government I thank the interstate Working With Children Check operators for their advice and guidance in the development of the new system. Our model maintains the same strong protective partnerships with employers that support the current Working With Children Check.
Employers act as the gatekeepers by verifying the actual Working With Children Check status of their workers and volunteers. Employers have statutory obligations to undertake these verifications. Our partnership with employers multiplies the government investment in keeping children safe. Our role model encourages employers to take responsibility for maintaining safe environments for children. New South Wales will provide the first fully paperless online Working With Children Check in Australia. This new operating system will be fast and efficient, with most applicants receiving a clearance within a day of completing an application. This is a giant leap forward from the three to five days it now takes, which was considered a quick turnaround time for New South Wales.
This will allow for future mutual recognition arrangements with other States and Territories that is not possible at present. This new check will be the first portable and renewable clearance in Australia to operate without a card. Instead, this system will provide a verifiable number and has multiple benefits over the use of cards. Cards are open to potential fraud: people can deface or replicate cards and cards can be loaned or given to other people. Often this type of fraud is not detected. Other jurisdictions have experienced these problems and obviously New South Wales would like to avoid them. This new procedure also spares the community of associated costs through issuing, replacing and withdrawing cards, which would cost at least $10 each.
The system will be reviewed in two years to iron out any initial kinks and to ensure that it is working the way it was intended. From my study of the bill, I do not foreshadow any changes but, obviously, it is important to review the system to ensure the provision of the best systems for the workplace, the employee or the volunteer and, obviously, for the children. I am particularly happy to see that the Commission for Children and Young People now will conduct all checks to bring additional consistency. I thank the commissioner, Megan Mitchell, who is in the Parliament today, and her team for their time and effort in the preparation of this bill and for their expertise in this area. They continuously work with children and young people to ensure their protection and will make complying easier and without the impost to businesses, employers and volunteers. This bill will create a simpler, safer and more widely available check for anyone seeking to work with children in paid or voluntary roles. I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs ROZA SAGE (Blue Mountains) [12.46 p.m.]: I am pleased to contribute to the debate on the Child Protection (Working with Children) Bill 2012. As a mother and grandmother I find it a sad indictment of our society that we even need legislation to check the suitability of those in positions of caring for other people's children. Every day in the media and in the communities in which we live we hear of people in positions of responsibility harming physically, mentally or psychologically those young lives they are meant to care for. Children are society's future; they are tomorrow's adults and citizens. To damage or destroy the lives of children who look up to adults for teaching and guidance is the most abhorrent act any adult can perpetrate. As much as the Working With Children Check is another form of red tape for private and public employers and volunteer organisations, it is necessary for the safety of our children and for the safety of the workers involved. I congratulate Minister Dominello on this timely legislation, which streamlines the system and makes it infinitely more workable.
In my previous career as a dentist owning my own dental practice, I remember when the Working With Children Check first came in. The forms and information were confusing. We were not sure who needed to be checked, which form to fill in or where we needed to send the information. This was in the workplace situation. Then as a volunteer Sunday schoolteacher I had to again fill out more paperwork for working with children, but this was then sent elsewhere. I remember thinking how ridiculous it was that I needed to be checked multiple times by different agencies and how this doubling up was a waste of resources. I am pleased that this bill 13258 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
addresses that very long overdue issue. This bill proposes a single, central statutory organisation to undertake the checking process—the Commission for Children and Young People. The clearance will then be portable so those changing work locations will be able to use the same clearance. This model will be far easier to operate than the present system and will allow also for enhanced monitoring, compliance and audit checks.
This also is helpful to employers who now need only check the currency of a potential employee with one authority. This will enable the employer to know whether a check is required, thus saving on red tape. The bill proposes that clearances are viable for five years with the provision of continuous monitoring. Action can be taken in a timely fashion for breaches rather than waiting for the clearance to expire or come up for renewal before new risks are discovered. The checks will apply to paid workers and volunteers. Paid workers will need to pay a fee of $80 and volunteers will not be required to pay a fee, which is only fair. The bill also simplifies the clearance system: the applicant is either cleared or barred. Schedule 2 of the Act lists the offences that bar a person from working with children. It sets out clearly the requirements to being barred. This bill provides a comprehensive revision based on recommendations from the 2010 review of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998.
To summarise, this bill will provide portable clearance, and there will be the same check for all classes of child-related work, including volunteer work. The outcome is that the applicant is either cleared or barred. There will then be no mistakes and no ambiguity about the outcome. Employers must only engage people allowed to work with children who have been cleared by the Working With Children Check. There is continuous monitoring, which is a very good provision and allows the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to review anyone who has been barred. The system is paperless, which means there is a saving in cost and reduction in red tape. Centralising the operation within the Commission for Children and Young People will allow portability. As stated previously, this bill allows enhanced monitoring, compliance and auditing. I congratulate the Minister and others involved in the drafting of this bill. It is overdue and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD (Myall Lakes) [12.51 p.m.]: I make a short contribution to the debate on the Child Protection (Working with Children) Bill 2012. A child's welfare is paramount; there is nothing more important. The protection of children takes precedence over all other rights. Parliament has a duty to protect children and ensure the strongest possible laws are legislated to that end. Such legislation has the highest priority and this bill addresses this issue. When I was a detective I investigated allegations of child abuse and charged fathers, Aboriginal elders, a school teacher, a naturopath, a solicitor, a priest, grandfathers, uncles and neighbours. Nearly all of them superficially seemed to be pillars of the community and law-abiding citizens contributing to the community. But they were perpetrating the worst crimes of all, crimes against children. That is why it is so important to have a background check and register of people who work with children. The objects of the bill are:
(a) to require people engaged in paid or unpaid work with children to obtain a working with children check clearance (a clearance)
(b) to prohibit the granting of clearances to persons convicted of, or charged with the murder of a child, serious sex offences and other specified offences
(c) to specify the circumstances in which applicants for or holders of clearances will be subject to detailed risk assessment to determine whether they pose a risk to the safety of children
(d) to confer on the Commission for Children and Young People (the Commission) functions relating to the granting and refusal of applications for clearances and the assessment of applicants and holders and other related functions
(e) to provide for reviews of decisions of the Commission and for applications by disqualified persons who wish to work with children
(f) to provide for the establishment of a working with children register and databases by the Commission,
(g) to provide for the mandatory provision of information to the Commission by employers, the NSW Police Force and others for the purposes of the proposed Act
The bill introduces a new Working With Children Check which improves the current Working With Children Check in four key ways: the same Working With Children Check will be applied to all types of child-related engagement; the Working With Children Check will access full criminal histories of applicants and continually monitor New South Wales records to manage any risk that may arise following the provision of a clearance; the Working With Children Check will have only two outcomes, either a clearance to work with children or a bar; and the incorporation of online systems and centralised operations will allow for more efficient operation of checks. 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13259
The new Working With Children Check is based on recommendations from the 2010 review of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998. The new Working With Children Check improves the current Working With Children Check, which was established in 1998 and was the first such check in Australia. This bill makes the New South Wales Working With Children Check consistent with similar checks in other States and provides New South Wales with the most up-to-date Working With Children Check in Australia. The new Working With Children Check will be operated by the Commission for Children and Young People and will provide a widespread, clearly recognised standard for workers and employers. It will allow for the provision of a portable and renewable working with children clearance that will last for five years.
This is another example of the Coalition Government getting on with business and improving on the legislation that was left to us by the previous Labor Government. New South Wales will have the best reporting system in Australia, which proves the Government's commitment to putting children first in our society and making their welfare and protection paramount. That has to be an objective of any government, and this Government is doing it. This bill has been introduced as a result of a 2010 review by a parliamentary committee. The Coalition came into Government in 2011. As the protection and welfare of children is paramount in the community, one wonders why this bill was not introduced by the previous Government in 2010. The Coalition Government has introduced the bill and fixed the legislation. I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS (Port Macquarie) [12.56 p.m.]: I too welcome changes to strengthen and expand background checks on people working with children. Importantly, the Child Protection (Working with Children) Bill 2012 will provide greater protection for the children of New South Wales. The bill tabled in the New South Wales Parliament by the Minister for Citizenship and Communities, Victor Dominello, is particularly welcome news for the many volunteers who provide a broad range of services to our local communities. I commend the Minister for the changes and for streamlining the process of the Working With Children Check. The New South Wales Government is modernising the Working With Children Check by making it simpler, safer and more widely available.
The bill is comprehensive in addressing shortfalls with the current Working With Children Check. Specifically, the bill: requires that people engaged in paid or unpaid work with children obtain a Working With Children Check clearance; prohibits the granting of clearances to persons convicted of or charged with child-related offences, including serious sex offences; specifies the circumstances in which applicants for or holders of clearances will be subject to detailed risk assessment; confers on the Commission for Children and Young People functions relating to the granting and refusal of applications for clearances; provides for reviews of decisions of the commission and for applications by disqualified persons who wish to work with children; provides for the establishment of a working with children register and database by the commission; and provides for the mandatory provision of information to the commission by employers and the NSW Police Force.
As I have met previously with a number of community groups calling for these changes, I wish to highlight the importance of these changes for volunteers who are involved in activities with children. I have no doubt that these groups, as well as the hundreds of others who are engaged with children, will applaud the Government's bill. The Port Macquarie electorate, like all communities, relies on volunteers. It is vital that we make it as easy as possible for them to continue to serve the community in various areas, including working with children. Volunteers are involved with the local girl guides and scouts groups, sporting organisations, surf lifesaving and church groups. The list goes on.
Not everyone who comes into contact with children is required to undergo the Working With Children Check. It is reserved for people whose work is focussed on children and whose work requires ongoing role-oriented contact with children. Regulations will outline definitions of child-related work and exemptions from the check, including for parents volunteering with their own children. Like many other members in this House I have been involved with a range of organisations that provide fantastic opportunities, through coaches, supervisors or mentors, for our children to develop, grow and improve their personal skills. It is very fulfilling to be able to participate in the community in this way.
Whilst we all acknowledge that, sadly, individuals exist within our communities who are unsuitable to play any supervisory or leadership role involving children and are the very reason that working with children checks exist, they are the minority; and for the overwhelming majority who are community members of the highest calibre we need to ensure that the process to allow them to participate is neither cumbersome nor protracted. The bill certainly achieves this outcome. Under the new system, all people working with children will get the same check—whether they are paid workers, self-employed, volunteers, carers or adults living in a 13260 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
foster carer's house. When people apply there will be only two outcomes—they will be cleared to work with children, or they will be barred. If cleared, people will need to reapply for a check every five years, and new criminal records will be continuously monitored.
One of the most significant outcomes of changes to the check required for those working with children is the portability of the clearance. Many volunteers would have already participated in a Working With Children Check as an employee or even a carer, and the duplication of checks and clearances to accommodate their role as a volunteer is time consuming and in many circumstances discouraging for those who wish to contribute to their local community in this way. I certainly welcome the "no fee for volunteers", which is appropriate in consideration of the enormous contribution and the enhancement that these people make to our local communities. Concurrently, background checks on workers are an important safeguard for protecting children and young people, including children at child care centres, at school and in recreational activities. As with the current check, an adult convicted of a serious sex offence or serious violence against a child, or with pending charges for such an offence, will be automatically barred from working with children.
There will be continuous monitoring for new records that indicate a risk for children. The streamlining and centralisation that will be triggered through the introduction of this bill is welcome, with child-related employers able to go online to verify their employees' Working With Children Check status. The new Working With Children Check will be phased in over five years for existing employees and volunteers, while new staff will undergo the new check when it comes into force later this year. The new check will costs $80 for employees—which works out at just $16 a year over five years and is below the national average. New South Wales was the first State in Australia to establish a Working With Children Check, and these changes will ensure it remains an internationally recognised safeguard for protecting children and young people. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr MARK SPEAKMAN (Cronulla) [1.02 p.m.]: I will make a brief contribution to debate on the Child Protection (Working with Children) Bill 2012. I support the bill because it will give the children of New South Wales greater protection in four ways. First, the same Working With Children Check will apply to all categories of worker, including paid workers, volunteers, self-employed people, authorised carers and adults sharing their homes. Secondly, it will access full criminal histories instead of a defined subset of records, with continuous monitoring of new New South Wales records to manage risks that occur after a person has received a clearance to work with children. Third, there will be only two outcomes: a clearance or a bar, so employers can no longer engage a person assessed as a serious risk. Finally, it will be easier to operate, with streamlined online systems and centralised operations.
The check will be portable, and there will be cancellation of clearances where a new record indicates a risk to children. There will be a simple process for employers to verify that workers are allowed to work with children; a stronger education, compliance and audit program to complement the Working With Children Check; and programs to help organisations to be child safe and child friendly. These are important improvements for the children of New South Wales, to give them—our most vital resource—greater protection. I think this is good news for employers and employees to have a clearing of the air, if you like, regarding these checks. This is an important step forward, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.04 p.m.]: I will make a brief contribution to debate on the Child Protection (Working with Children) Bill 2012. I note, as other speakers have done, that the main purpose of the bill is to reform the State's Working With Children Check by making it safer and ensuring that all people working with children undergo the same check, whether they are paid workers, self-employed, volunteers or approved carers. As part of the changes, applicants will be either cleared or rejected; there will no longer be any discretion regarding those deemed to be high risk. These are simple but essential changes to strengthen the system and ensure child safety is paramount. The Working With Children Check is often the key line of defence in ensuring our children are cared for, taught and entertained in safe and secure environments.
I also note that a comprehensive register, to be established under clause 25 of the bill, will provide a clear reference base, make administration easier and enhance the community's confidence that when they send their children to be cared for, the people caring for their children in an environment are appropriately authorised and cleared to be undertaking that work. These reforms will ensure broader criminal histories are assessed, and that those with question marks surrounding their past are denied clearance. No longer will employers be able to choose whether to employ a high-risk person. If cleared, under clause 22, people will need to reapply for a check every five years, and new criminal records will be continuously monitored. I note that, under schedule 3, 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13261
the new system will be phased in over five years for existing employees and volunteers, and that new applicants will undergo the new check when it comes into force later this year, if the bill passes the Parliament. New South Wales was the first State in Australia to establish a Working With Children Check, and these reforms will help ensure it remains an effective safeguard. These changes will be welcomed by families throughout the community of Pittwater, and I look forward to their introduction.
I am also pleased that the bill clarifies obligations of employers, and particularly volunteer organisations or not-for-profit organisations. The need for reform in this area was first highlighted to me by an organisation called the Crusader Union in New South Wales, which provides camping opportunities for New South Wales schoolchildren during school holidays, and other educational camps. Garry Hill, the executive director of the organisation, expressed concerns that under the old system it was unclear who needed to undergo checks, what the obligations of employers were, or where the costs lay. There were levels of uncertainties that put organisations that are simply promoting the interests of children at risk, put their volunteers at risk, and left children exposed to potential risks. So I am very pleased that this legislation achieves those objectives. I commend the work of the Crusader Union and all the volunteer organisations throughout my community that work with children and provide this valuable service. I commend the Minister for his activism in this area and for clarifying the obligations of employers, employees and volunteers, underpinning the paramount objective of ensuring safety for our children.
Mr TONY ISSA (Granville) [1.07 p.m.]: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to support the Child Protection (Working with Children) Bill 2012, which is groundbreaking legislation. I commend the Minister for delivering these reforms, after great consultation with the communities of New South Wales. The people of this State have been waiting for a long time for these measures to protect their children. As a family man, I support all measures that are enshrined in law to protect children. That is exactly what this legislation will do. The changes introduced by the bill will give New South Wales the most up-to-date Working With Children Check in Australia. The bill is based on the recommendations of the 2010 review of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998. The report was tabled by this Government in August last year. Importantly, the bill will deliver the measures necessary for the protection of all children in care in this State. A key measure of the legislation is that the Working With Children Check will last five years, not forever. Also, there will be continuous monitoring of new criminal charges, with provision for immediate cancellation of a clearance if a new charge arises.
Clause 3 of the bill contains provisions that ban certain people from child-related work, and includes volunteers and paid employees as well as self-employed people. It will apply to facilities for children ranging from child care to sporting fields. Under the new provisions the new check will automatically identify people whose records indicate they are a possible risk to children. The legislation has been developed after a lengthy consultation process with the community. The Working With Children Check is just one of many tools that employers can use to keep children safe. As the Minister pointed out when he introduced this legislation, a workplace does not become a child-related service if it employs young workers or it permits work experience placements. Also, clubs and community groups do not become child-related services simply because they allow people under the age of 18 to become members.
Roles that will become defined under the terms of this bill include those in a child-related service where the worker does not have direct contact with children but does have access to confidential records about children. They will be subject to the same series of checks as those who are working directly with children. Clause gives powers to the Commission for Children and Young People to decide whether a person should undergo checks to work with children. This is an important aspect of the bill because it provides a level of independent advice. The commission will be able to protect children by introducing an interim ban pending the finalisation of risk assessment. In order for this legislation to succeed there must be enforcement as well as penalty clauses, particularly in relation to carers and people applying to adopt a child. Clause 12 provides for two classes of working with children checks: a check to permit a person to work in both a paid and a volunteer capacity and a check to permit a person to work only in a volunteer role.
In relation to volunteer clearances, exemptions apply to adults residing in the home of an authorised carer, students in unpaid work placements, volunteers and adoptive parents. The volunteer check is free, while the non-volunteer check will attract a fee of $80.00. A person who holds a volunteer clearance will be able to work in a paid role for up to 30 consecutive days before upgrading to a non-volunteer status. That makes sense because it means that entrants into the paid workforce will have 30 days in paid work before they have to pay the $80.00. The legislation also provides that when they register, employers will have direct access to the Working With Children Check number provided by the applicant. This allows them to easily verify the status of 13262 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
the applicant for the job. Penalties will be enshrined in the legislation and will apply to those employers who retain a person who is banned or not authorised to work in a child-related role. Furthermore, a person can surrender a Working With Children Check clearance at any time, which will result in the commission cancelling the clearance.
Any person may take the matter further via the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. Under the terms of the bill the tribunal has the power to determine whether the applicant is a serious risk to children. Another important provision in the bill is that the Director of Public Prosecutions will have the ability to release information more easily. This information is critical to properly assessing risk. There will be additional provisions to allow the NSW Police Force to release information of a person's criminal history to the commission both in initial record searches and in continuous monitoring. The bill ensures that relevant State-run agencies work together, which will reduce the amount of red tape and will provide for more detailed briefings. It is essential that we pull out all stops to ensure that children are not at risk. The measures in this legislation will put further pressure on those people applying for work in child-related areas to be not only qualified but also present no risk whatsoever to children.
Numerous instances have occurred in the past where convicted child molesters have successfully gained employment in a child-related sector. That is completely unacceptable. When parents place their child into child care they have every right to expect that their child is in no way at risk. This bill will give them that guarantee and it will also provide children with their basic right to be protected from the more evil people in our society. To ensure that this legislation is achieving those objectives, the Government has committed to a further review in two years time. The bill is the first of its kind to be introduced in Australia and I expect that other States will follow once its success has been reported. I support all measures that offer such protection to children and I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this reform. Mums and dads and grandparents like me will be comfortable that their children and grandchildren are in safe environments. I therefore commend the bill to the House.
Mr TIM OWEN (Newcastle) [1.15 p.m.]: I too am very pleased to support the Child Protection (Working with Children) Bill 2012. I congratulate the Minister and his crusty but trusty offsider the member for Charlestown. The purpose of the bill is to introduce a new Working With Children Check that will provide better protection for children and young adults in New South Wales. I happily welcome the changes that will strengthen and expand background checks on people working with children. As articulated by the Minister for Citizenship and Communities, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the new Working With Children Check improves on the current model in four ways. It provides the same Working With Children Check for all categories. Under the new system all people working with children will get the same check, whether they are paid workers, self-employed, volunteers, carers or other adults living in a foster carer's house.
Additionally, with the proposed changes to the bill, those individuals who apply for the check will have one of two outcomes: They will either be cleared to work with children or be barred. It is important to note that those persons who are cleared will still need to reapply for a check every five years, and new criminal records will be continuously monitored. The last proposed feature of the bill ensures a simple process for employers to verify that workers are allowed to work with children and young adults. Currently there are different Working With Children Check regimes that apply for paid workers, self- employed people and volunteers. The new model will apply the same regime for all types of engagement, which will make it simple for parties to apply. Presently, volunteers are not currently subject to a background check, and this means children are placed at risk. Children-related volunteers will now be checked.
I note that the volunteer check is free while the non-volunteer check involves a fee of $80.00. This amount will work out at just $16 a year over five years and is below the national average. This approach will coincide with working with children checks for most of the other States. The fee allows the Government to expand the check to volunteers. As I stated previously, this bill will provide two very clear outcomes for the applicants: They will either get approval to work with children or be barred. In the current model, some people who present a serious risk to children cannot be barred. With the proposed changes it is important to emphasise that those people presenting any level of risk to children will be banned from any further work with children. There will be penalties for employers who retain a person who is either barred or not authorised to work with children. The commission will actively follow up employers to make sure they are not putting children at risk by employing barred employees.
I note the new Working With Children Check will introduce an online paperless check, where applicants will be able to download an application form and fill it out. Applicants unable to do this online will 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13263
have the option of contacting the commissioner's helpline and officers will complete the form for them. I add that the New South Wales Commissioner for Children and Young People, Megan Mitchell, has openly welcomed the Minister's Working With Children Check. Ms Mitchell noted that the check will give employers a simple yes or no answer as to whether they can employ someone in a child-related role. Furthermore, the commissioner added that the portable and renewable Working With Children Check will continually monitor New South Wales criminal records to manage emerging risks to children. A person with a new record that indicates risk to children can be barred as soon as the record is created. Ms Mitchell said:
The community is looking forward to the introduction of an online system that reduces the extensive paperwork and duplication with the current check, while increasing safety for children. The Working With Children Check is just one of many tools that employers should use to keep children safe.
Furthermore, the checks will be supported by an enhanced monitoring program to ensure that children-related workers and employers know what they have to do. Finally, to ensure that the proposed changes are successful the New South Wales Government will evaluate the new system after two years. The review will be informed by data about the actual operations of the Working With Children Check, identified risks and case reviews. Background checks on workers are an important safeguard for protecting children and young adults, and most importantly children in child care, school and recreational activities. These improvements are welcomed by kids and their families in the Newcastle electorate and across New South Wales. I commend the Minister for his outstanding work on this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr VICTOR DOMINELLO (Ryde—Minister for Citizenship and Communities, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [1.21 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members for the electorates of Charlestown, Menai, Blue Mountains, Myall Lakes, Port Macquarie, Cronulla, Pittwater, Granville and Newcastle for their contributions to the debate. I also thank the shadow Minister and the member for Bankstown for her contribution. I acknowledge the bipartisan support of the Opposition for the provisions in this bill. I will provide some brief feedback for the member for Bankstown on her comments on the bill on behalf of the Opposition. First, the implementation of the new Working With Children Check will be accompanied by extensive information and communication initiatives aimed at ensuring that stakeholders—employers, affected government agencies, people who will need to get checks, or volunteer organisations—understand the changes being introduced, the opportunities and responsibilities that affect them and the time lines that apply. I encourage all members of this House to engage in the program that will inform the community about these important reforms.
Secondly, the member sought clarification as to whether the new Working With Children Check is being implemented on a cost-recovery basis. I wonder if that is what she is advocating. The reality is that the check will be funded on a partial cost-recovery basis to in part address many of the improvements that the member acknowledged. But there will also be ongoing government funding for what is clearly a public good— the safety of our children. Thirdly, the member raised aspects associated with staffing. I inform the House that the new Working With Children Check is based on the development of a new centralised unit to conduct checks. The commission will have additional staff for the new check and there will be no net reductions in staff numbers. Fourthly, the member raised concerns about exempting from the check parents working in situations that involve their own children. We would of course share her abhorrence at any act of child abuse by a parent; however, in these sensitive matters we need to be guided by the child experts.
In this regard the expert advice provided to the Government by the Commission for Children and Young People is that the risk associated with parent volunteers is very low and that the extension of the check at this stage to that category of people would represent unnecessary impediments to community participation and volunteering. None of us would want that as an unintended consequence. This bill establishes a new Working With Children Check that will keep our children safer by checking a broader range of workers and by allowing more high-risk applicants to be barred. This bill ensures fair and transparent decision-making. It establishes processes for applicants who are refused a Working With Children Check clearance to appeal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. This bill simplifies and clarifies employer and worker obligations for the Working With Children Check. In my opening address I articulated some of the key aspects of this reform. It is important to revisit some of them because our children are our future and the most important asset we have in our State.
On any given day in this Parliament someone will recite the platitude that our children are our future, but it is important to give substance to that statement. This legislation will enshrine the protections that must be afforded to one of the most vulnerable groups of people in our society. I am proud of this legislation because it provides protection for the children of our great State and also provides leadership for other States to follow. An ingenious aspect of the Federation model is that it creates competitive tension between the States. New South 13264 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
Wales was at the forefront of this issue when many years ago we introduced the first provisions for a Working With Children Check. Other States have slowly come on board and three or four other States now have their own checks in place. New South Wales has now seen how the checks in other States have worked and learnt how we can improve ours. I believe that the bill that we have provided for the people of New South Wales is at the cutting edge of child protection. It provides the best practice in Australia. The Working With Children Check is online and paperless. The process will be much quicker and much more efficient.
We have a centralised group of experts who will quickly and more efficiently assess applications. There will no longer be that grey area that puts a question in the mind of employers as to whether they should employ people that may be a risk or may be at different degrees of risk. Employers will no longer have to wrestle with what they need to put in place to make sure that children are protected. This is a black and white system that enables people to be employed with confidence. People are either cleared or they are not. The reality is that if the commission regards a person as a serious risk then that person will not get clearance and will not be entitled to work with children. That not only provides comfort to Government and Opposition members, because there is bipartisan support for this legislation, it also provides comfort to the most important people—the parents of the children. They are the ones that seek this level of comfort. I again commend everybody who participated in the development of this bill. I am proud that our State has taken the lead for the rest of Australia in relation to the innovations that have led to the creation of this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Motion by Mr Victor Dominello agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
[Acting-Speaker (Mr John Barilaro) left the chair at 1.30 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]
ASSENT TO BILLS
Assent to the following bill was reported:
Health Services Amendment (National Health Reform Agreement) Bill 2012
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motions
Private Members' Business Notices of Motions (for Bills) given.
[During the giving of notices of motions]
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hawkesbury will come to order.
QUESTION TIME
[Question time commenced at 2.20 p.m.]
NORTH WEST RAIL LINK
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: My question is directed to the Premier. Why is he dumping a substandard rail line, with no direct services to the city, on Sydney's north-west? 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13265
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: One has to admire the gall of Opposition members—those who had 16 years in office and who repeatedly promised the people in Sydney's north-west that they would build them a rail link. Indeed, they put a finish date on when it would be up and running—2010, which is two years ago. Instead they built zip, zero, zilch. We are getting on with the job of building the North West Rail Link. As I have said on other occasions, the Minister for Transport has done more in the past 14 months to progress that long-promised rail link than any Labor Minister who sat on the Treasury bench. It is necessary because every day people from the north-west either catch a bus, which can take an hour and a half, or they drive to the city and add to the congestion on Sydney's roads. Members would be aware that congestion costs our economy about $9 billion a year. This Government is focusing on journey times and on giving the people of the north-west the rail link that they were promised by both sides of politics. This Government is getting on with the job.
Mr John Robertson: This is not what they thought they were getting.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: They thought they would have a finished rail link by 2010 under Labor, but it failed to deliver that rail link. Under Labor seven rail lines were promised for western Sydney but not a single rail line was delivered. The Minister for Transport is getting on with the job. Next week there will be an industry briefing and we will commence a process that will result in tenders for tunnel, surface and operational work.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: As I am sure I will be asked later in question time, some things will happen on the North West Rail Link that will be relevant to people across the CityRail network. We have consulted the experts and the community to ensure that what we invest in will be state of the art and that what we build in the north-west is the future of rail across this city. Unless one is a member of the Labor Party one does not commit to building a nineteenth century rail system in the twenty-first century. The Minister for Transport announced that under this Government's 20-year vision there will be rapid transit services all the way into the city. That staged process is in stark contrast to the lack of action by Opposition members who conveniently fail to acknowledge that almost half the people who are estimated to use the North West Rail Link will never cross the harbour. They will either get off before Chatswood or get off between Chatswood and North Sydney. Forty-four per cent of people from the north-west who want these rail services will get off before they cross the Harbour Bridge.
Mr John Robertson: They'll all get off under your plan.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: For 16 years the former Labor Government demonstrated that it could not run a rail service.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The former Labor Government changed the definition of on-time running to mask the fact that trains were taking longer and were not travelling on time. Labor's vision is to lock everyone from the north-west on those strains and not let them get off until Central, regardless of whether or not they work at Macquarie Park, Macquarie University, in North Ryde or in Chatswood. Opposition members do not like the fact that we are getting on with the job of building and investing in this State. They do not like the fact that the Minister for Transport is getting on with the job of delivering what was promised by those opposite. We are determined to deliver the best possible services to the people of the north-west.
NORTH WEST RAIL LINK
Mr RAY WILLIAMS: My question is addressed to the Premier. Will the Premier update the House on the progress of the North West Rail Link?
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I should have known after the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition that the member for Hawkesbury would take this opportunity to ask for an update on the North West Rail Link. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge students in the gallery from Airds High School and 13266 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
from All Saints in Maitland who are represented in this place by great local members—the member for Campbelltown and the member for Maitland. It would be remiss of me also not to acknowledge Chris Brown from Bondi Vet and the Charlestown vet who is our version of Chris Brown. My wife says that one of them is better looking than the other but I will not tell members which one. My wife, the Bondi vet and the member for Charlestown have one thing in common—a football team.
I thank the member for his question and for giving me an opportunity to tell the House again that the North West Rail Link is not only being built but also will provide a snapshot of the future of Sydney rail. What matters most to rail commuters are regular and frequent services offering enough seats to provide them with a comfortable journey. Most people do not want to worry about a timetable. That was particularly the case when Labor was in office because trains never ran to a timetable. People want to turn up to their railway station and know that within a few minutes a comfortable and clean train service will be provided. I know the thinking of the Minister for Transport on this topic.
From day one on the job, and even before that when she was shadow Minister, she was determined to reduce what she calls the factor-in time for commuters—the timetable says one thing but in order to ensure that one gets to one's appointment or to work on time, one has to allow extra travel time in case the train is late or the bus misses its stop because it is full. That is extra padding that we do not need and that in this day and age not too many people can afford. By providing more frequent and reliable services people will enjoy a seamless journey. The factor-in time is reduced, as is one's stress because commuters know they can turn up, jump on a train and get to the other end on time.
The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The North West Rail Link will be the first rail line to feature new-generation, single-deck, high-frequency trains as part of Sydney's rail future. The new generation trains will mean faster services along the North West Rail Link because it takes less time for passengers to board and disembark, compared to double-decker trains, and they accelerate faster. The first single-deck trains will operate from the north-west to Chatswood, providing customers with at least 12 trains an hour in the peak, or one every five minutes. This exciting development for Sydney comes after extensive industry consultation and, as I stated earlier, after extensive community consultation. There will be further industry consultation about the North West Rail Link next week to outline the contract structure, which will allow the Government to get on with the job of delivering this vital new infrastructure for the people of the north-west.
I am delighted to announce today that around 300 industry representatives from around 160 different companies have registered to attend the briefing at the Castle Hill RSL. Next week, expressions of interest also will be called for the multibillion dollar construction contract to build the 15.5 kilometre tunnel between Bella Vista and Epping. The first tunnel boring machines will be in the ground as promised, on schedule, by 2014. We are now beginning the tender process for the multibillion dollar construction contract to build the longest and deepest underground rail tunnels in Australia. There will be three major contracts for the construction of the North West Rail Link project: tunnelling; surface construction works; and rail systems, trains and operations. We are delivering a revolution in our rail services. We are doing the work, we are working with industry to get the best possible result, we are adopting the best ideas from the community as well as those from overseas and we are investing the $3.3 billion set aside in this budget to get on with a project that was meant to be operational under those opposite by 2010.
NORTH WEST RAIL LINK
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: My question is directed to the Premier. Will the Premier guarantee that fares on the north-west rail line will not be higher than the rest of the rail network as a result of his decision to privatise the service?
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The short answer is that I can happily say that because our model is the model of franchising ferry services.
Mr John Robertson: So you will guarantee it?
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he is on two calls to order. 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13267
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: We now have, or are about to have next month, ferry services that are operated by the private sector, as they have been operating high-speed services from Manly for the past couple of years that not only meet customers' needs and deliver on time, but—the member for Manly can correct me— even at one stage enabled passengers to get a drink on the way home, which certainly is needed after a hard day's work from time to time.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Especially as Treasurer.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Especially as Treasurer, the Minister for Education says. Under the franchising model for the ferries, the Minister for Transport is in control of fares. The private sector operates it, but the fares are set across the entire system. That will be the case.
Mr John Robertson: Will they be higher?
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Fares are set across the entire system and that will be the case under the model being offered. Those opposite are doing as they always do in this House. They come in to represent—
Mr John Robertson: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. So far the Premier has not been relevant and is refusing to answer whether he will guarantee that the fares will be the same as the rest of the rail network.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr John Robertson: So far he has weaselled his way out.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. In fact, the Premier has been answering the question.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: As with ferry fares, they will be system-wide fares that apply across the whole system. There is no expectation or anticipation that the fares on one line, whether it is this line or some other line, will be higher than the rest of the system.
Mr John Robertson: So you can't guarantee?
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I can. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is not representing commuters in this Chamber. He is representing again the rail unions because that is all those opposite ever represent.
Mr John Robertson: Guarantee it.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: They have not learned the lesson of 26 March last year. It is time to put public interest forward. It is time to be innovative.
Ms Linda Burney: That's not what you said.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: If franchising ferry services can deliver more reliable and better services at a cheaper cost to taxpayers, that is something we should do regardless of what the ferry unions say.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canterbury will come to order.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: If contracting out services on the north-west rail service is going to deliver better and cheaper services for taxpayers, that is a good thing to do.
Mr Clayton Barr: Give them the guarantee.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Cessnock to order.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: It is not something that taxpayers or commuters are concerned about, but certainly it is something the Leader of the Opposition representing unions in this place is concerned about. 13268 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
Ms Linda Burney: Are you guaranteeing it?
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Canterbury to order.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: This week I noticed that the member for Canterbury had returned. Last week was so peaceful. It helped also that the member for Wollongong was not here for a couple of days.
Ms Noreen Hay: I am offended, Barry.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wollongong is not offended at all.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I think the member for Wollongong was stacking numbers in Shellharbour. I happened to chance upon the website of the member for Canterbury.
Dr Andrew McDonald: Point of order: My point of order is under Standing Order 129. The last time I looked, Canterbury is nowhere near the North West Rail Link. I ask that the Premier be directed to return to the leave of the question.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I am yet to hear what the Premier is going to say. There is no point of order.
Dr Andrew McDonald: Let me tell you, it is not going to be about the North West Rail Link.
The SPEAKER: Order! It is question time. The member will resume his seat. There is no point of order at this stage. So far the Premier has been entirely relevant to the question. I am yet to hear what he has to say.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The Rail Futures Plan may not understand the connection, but I happened upon Labor's website and saw the details on the member for Canterbury. It says, "Linda Burney was elected member for Canterbury in 2003."
Ms Kristina Keneally: She was.
Ms Linda Burney: That is correct.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: And currently she is the New South Wales Labor Leader of the Opposition.
The SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the member for Canterbury will adjust that. Members will come to order. I call the member for Kiama to order. I call the member for Cessnock to order for the second time. The member for Kiama and the member for Oatley will remain silent.
Ms Linda Burney: You are such a comedian.
The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order so that I can hear what the member for Baulkham Hills has to say. I warn members that the next person who disrupts the proceedings will be out of the Chamber.
Ms Noreen Hay: Yes.
The SPEAKER: Order! Given my good relationship with the member for Wollongong, I will not remove her on this occasion.
RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr DAVID ELLIOTT: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. What are the Government's plans to provide better train services?
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13269
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I thank the member for this important question and congratulate him on his great advocacy on behalf of his good constituents. I digress for a moment. We love it when those opposite pretend to care about the north-west. They sat in government for 16 years and did nothing. In fact, they wasted half a billion dollars on the CBD Rozelle Metro rather than build the North West Rail Link. Today I am pleased to announce that the Government has announced the biggest changes to our rail network in 80 years. Since coming to office the Government has been working hard on its long-term master plan. We have been talking to the community, we have been talking to experts and we have been talking to industry, something that side knew nothing about.
Dr Andrew McDonald: And Treasury.
The SPEAKER: Order! I have warned the member for Macquarie Fields about his behaviour.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: We have been talking about what our customers need from public transport and the best way to deliver that. Today we announced our plans for Sydney's rail future ahead of the draft master plan because we are getting on with the important job of building the north-west rail line. As the Premier outlined, we are very pleased that next week we will brief industry on the multibillion dollar tender process to construct the north-west rail line and to dig the tunnels. It is something that those opposite are not familiar with, a construction tender for a rail line. Those opposite are used to press releases and glossy brochures and failed projects like the central business district to Rozelle metro.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Macquarie Fields to order. I call the member for Macquarie Fields to order for the second time.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: The Government is getting on with the job. Our plan is to modernise Sydney's trains so that services will grow with our population. This will benefit not just the good residents of north-west Sydney but all residents who use the rail network. The Government's strategy is to increase capacity, to invest in train services and to upgrade our infrastructure. This is about putting the customer first. That is something the Opposition does not understand. The Opposition did not care about the customer or the community. The Opposition cared, first and foremost, about the union bosses. Sydney's rail future will be a staged approach to fixing the trains, and the Government already has said quite a lot about how we will do that.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Wollongong to order.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: Even though the Government has outlined our vision for a long-term rail strategy, improvements will be implemented immediately. Customers will notice benefits from next year. There will be more services across the rail network following a rewrite of the timetables—something the Opposition could not be bothered doing when they were in government. In the short term the Government has identified a range of measures that will help increase the number of services. That will be welcome news to commuters who are doing it tough. The Government will finish the South West Rail Link. The Government also will finish the North West Rail Link and introduce new single-deck, high-frequency trains. Planning work will begin on a future second heavy rail crossing under Sydney Harbour and a new line with stations under the central business district.
This will link the north-west directly to the central business district, unclogging the central business district and lines from the west. It will ease congestion at Town Hall and Wynyard, which will be welcomed by residents in western Sydney. In the future the Government will convert the existing Bankstown line and Illawarra line between the central business district and Hurstville to allow for the fast single-deck train services. This Government does its homework. It has been working on this since coming to Government in March last year. It has a plan that will see short-term improvements for customers and a vision that will futureproof our rail network for generations to come. It will mean a 60 per cent increase in services across all parts of the network. It also will mean an extra 14 trains an hour on peak lines to the west and an extra eight services for south-west Sydney.
I want to make it clear that this is a Government that focuses on delivering these changes. We will not waiver. From day one the Government has been working hard to deliver the South West Rail Link and the North West Rail Link. As the Minister for Transport I am pleased with the progress made so far. Sydney deserves a world-class transport system. If those opposite had been left in charge of the transport system it would continue to operate as a nineteenth century transport system. This Government is about the future. So many global cities 13270 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
around the world have fantastic transport networks. Why not Sydney? Sydney is a global city that deserves much better when it comes to public transport, and it is only this side of the House that will ensure delivery of a high-quality transport system.
ROAD TOLLS
Mr ROBERT FUROLO: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Does the Deputy Premier stand by his promise in October 2010 that:
Our plans for Sydney's roads do not involve making anyone pay any more on any road and that includes roads that are currently tolled.
Mr ANDREW STONER: I thank the shadow Minister and member for Lakemba for his question.
The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting and allow the Deputy Premier to answer the question.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The member for Lakemba is intimately acquainted with Sydney's roads as he drives around them in his Lamborghini.
Ms Linda Burney: He drove that car—
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Canterbury to order for the second time.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The voice that sank a thousand ships is back.
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Madam Speaker, in relation to the member's question about tolls, the Premier's earlier comment about the gall of those opposite comes to mind.
The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will come to order. If members persist with their disruptive behaviour those who are on two calls to order will be deemed to be on three calls to order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: These members are the remnants of the New South Wales Labor Government which during its 16 years in Government increased tolls across Sydney's road network.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lakemba will come to order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: It put in place road toll projects, including the cross-city tunnel and the Lane Cove tunnel that had as part and parcel of its project the infamous "tunnel funnel". It closed off public roads to force motorists into a tolling situation. This is the remnant of the Government that increased the toll on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and tunnel in peak periods.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Heffron will come to order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: In relation to road tolls, I am advised that the Government has committed to consulting with the community and experts in the field through its long-term transport master plan. Can I recommend to the member of Lakemba that he hop online, have a look and educate himself?
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Fairfield will come to order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: We released the draft Long Term Transport Master Plan in February.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Lakemba to order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Transport planning forums are currently being held across New South Wales in regional and metropolitan areas to ensure we are engaging with the community in the discussion process.
Dr Andrew McDonald: Quick, quick. 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13271
Mr ANDREW STONER: Don't you want to hear the answer? Why do you ask the question if you are just going to sit there and heckle?
The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier has the call. All Opposition members and the one Government member who are on one or two calls to order are now on three calls to order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: I would love to advise the House about this important issue.
The SPEAKER: Order! I place the member for Keira on three calls to order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: I am further advised that parts of the discussion paper included issues such as road pricing. This Government wants the community to have its say on issues such as conventional road user charges and other initiatives such as distance-based tolling. Within the paper there is also discussion about placing a toll on some parts of the motorway network that are not currently tolled in an effort to introduce fairness and equity into the system and to deliver funding needed for new road infrastructure. I say to the member for Blacktown, the Leader of the Opposition, and his shadow spokesman on roads that they ought to stop the hysterical scaremongering over the New South Wales Long Term Transport Master Plan discussion paper.
Instead of hypocritical bleating designed to scare people, they should try to add something constructive to the debate. That is why the Government has released a discussion paper, not an election manifesto or an election commitment. Government transport plans for the next 20 years are a matter for community discussion. The Opposition track record in this space was abysmal. Over a period of five years under Labor there were seven roads Ministers who were unable to make any decisions. They were David Borger, David Campbell, Michael Daley, and Eric Roozendaal.
Mr Chris Hartcher: Michael Daley?
Mr ANDREW STONER: Yes, Michael Daley, the middle manager's mentor, and Michael Costa and Carl Scully. Unlike those opposite, this Government is getting on with the job of delivering a better road network for Sydney and New South Wales.
EDUCATION REFORM
Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Education. What is the New South Wales Government doing to improve teacher quality for all schools in New South Wales?
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I thank the member for Camden for his question. I had the opportunity to visit Armidale yesterday. I am not sure whether I should say it is in the electorate of Northern Tablelands or New England. The diversion of the plane to Tamworth gave me the opportunity to eat spaghetti bolognaise cooked by the member for Tamworth. The recipe will be in on the member's website later this afternoon. The reason I was in Armidale was to address the Council of Deans of Education. The most critical in-school influence on a student's performance is the quality of the teacher standing in front of the class. We in Australia, and obviously in New South Wales, must recognise that research and international results are telling us that we are slipping in performance compared with other jurisdictions around the world, and particularly compared with a couple of Asian jurisdictions to our north.
We have slipped back about half a year against some international standards and we have an increasing proportion of low-performing students and not as high-quality performance at the top end as well. That is why it is always important to be reforming education in New South Wales. Since coming to Government the Liberals and The Nationals have engaged in a number of education reforms. These are systemic reforms that improve the performance of every single school. New South Wales has 2,200 public schools and about 800 or 900 non-government schools, and we need to improve the performance of every single school. That is why the Government made reforms to the School Certificate and introduced a record of school achievement. Local Schools, Local Decisions, a systemic reform, will benefit every student in every school and support students with disabilities.
Ms Carmel Tebbutt: Cutting funding.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Tell that to the 2,000 schools whose funding increased. Numeracy and literacy changes support students who are having difficulties in those areas. We have implemented program 13272 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
reforms. Connected Communities is tapping into 15 schools, and we are supporting those schools to do even better than they now do. The most important aspect is quality teaching. New South Wales has a world-class education system and a world-class education and teaching workforce. I acknowledge the people from Airds High School and All Saints Maitland who are here today. That is why I have asked Mr Patrick Lee, Chief Executive of the NSW Institute of Teachers, Mr Tom Alegounarias, President of the Board of Studies of New South Wales, and Dr Michelle Bruniges, the Director-General, Education and Communities, to put together for me a discussion paper on quality teaching.
That discussion paper will address the issues that New South Wales must deal with to improve the State's quality of teaching. The discussion will affect the entire teaching workforce in government, independent and Catholic sectors, and it will be broad and deep. The reforms we want to make will be significant. The discussion paper will be released in late July, and the rest of the year will be a period of consultation. The Government will look for a response towards the beginning of next year. The types of questions that we need to ask are: Do we attract the best and brightest in the teaching education courses in New South Wales? Do we accept students with an Australian Tertiary Admission Rank score that is too low? How can we ensure that graduates from university courses have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in the classroom?
Do entrants to teacher education need more in the way of prerequisites—not just English, but also maths and science? Do we graduate too many physical education teachers and not enough maths and science teachers? I think we already know the answer to that question. We will look for the answers to those questions during the consultation process. When does practical teaching take place? Is it soon enough in the courses? With whom should student teachers be placed when they do that practical teaching? Should it be any teacher who volunteers or a certified expert and mentor? Can we continue to place every undergraduate into schools for practical teaching? Will that lead to the best outcomes for us all? And how do we know that the lecturers are using or modelling great teaching behaviours? [Extension of time granted.]
The discussion paper will not be just about teacher training. It will be about professional development and leadership development—the entire spectrum of what makes great teaching in New South Wales. This discussion paper will lead to one of the most significant reforms in education in New South Wales. We need to do this because every parent who sends a child to school—I have two children of my own—has two important questions. Is the school able to respond to the needs of my child? We are addressing that through Local Schools, Local Decisions. And who is the teacher who will stand in front of the classroom to teach my child?
We as legislators and the Government have a responsibility to answer those questions so that parents, whether their child is in a government, Catholic or independent school, can be confident that the answers to the questions are, yes, the schools will be responsive and, yes, the highest quality teacher will stand in front of your child's class. We have a responsibility to do that. Significant changes will need to be made. This will shake up a few organisations and institutions, but the House can be assured that I do not lack the courage to make the changes necessary to give parents in this State absolute confidence in the education their children receive.
NORTH WEST RAIL LINK
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: My question is to the Premier, given his interest in websites. The North West Rail Link website still states that the North West Rail Link will deliver savings of up to 3½ hours a week in journey times to the Sydney central business district as well as frequent, reliable, direct rail services between the north-west and Macquarie Park, Chatswood, North Sydney and the city. Will the Premier now apologise to the people of Sydney for yet another broken promise?
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: As I said in response to the first question of the day, the long-term aim is for those services to go direct to the central business district. As I said, it will be a staged process. And as I said, our focus is on journey times. The expert advice and the demands of commuters mean that this is the best way to deliver those shorter journey times. I correct the record at 2.55 p.m.: the Labor Party's website about the new Labor leader has not been changed. As I was sitting listening to the interjections from those opposite, I looked at the website of the Leader of the Opposition—sorry, the website of the member for Blacktown. It is fascinating to see what appears when you click on the "Team" button. I recall that the Coalition website when we were in opposition listed all the shadow Ministers, all their titles and all their contact details. All you get when you click on the "Team" button of Leader of the Opposition's website is a photograph of the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know whether that reflects the lack of confidence that those opposite have in the Leader of the Opposition or the confidence that opposite— 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13273
Mr John Robertson: Point of order: If the Premier took as much interest in the North West Rail Link as he does in the websites of others he would be able to answer the question as to whether he will apologise for yet another broken promise.
The SPEAKER: Order! What is the member's point of order?
Mr John Robertson: It is relevance, under Standing Order 129.
The SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. I ask the Premier to return to the question.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: As I said, we are getting on with the job of building the North West Rail Link, which is something those opposite did not do. The apologies are due from those opposite for the promises they made to the people of north-west Sydney. Today commuters take 1½ hours on bus travel or sometimes as long in cars, paying three sets of toll, all because those opposite failed to deliver that rail line by 2010. The Minister for Transport—a good Minister—is getting on with the job, as outlined today, of not just the plans for the North West Rail Link but next week a further stage. We have had the environmental impact statement from April engaging the community in relation to the route, and we have tenders that we will talk to the industry about in relation to the tunnelling, the surface works and the way in which the service will be operated. We are delivering; they failed.
STATE BUDGET AND SERVICES
Mr MARK COURE: My question is directed to the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services. How will the New South Wales budget benefit people with disabilities, their families and carers?
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: Last week I, together with the Minister for Family and Community Services, attended a committee forum held with local community services. It was a wonderful forum. Last week's budget was not just about providing money for disability services; the O'Farrell Government is seeking to transform lives by building a greater capacity for services in the wider community and by building the National Disability Insurance Scheme. In last week's budget the Government recognised the enormous challenges facing people with a disability across our community in relation to gaining access to supports. In some instances those supports are not always available. It is for that reason that in last week's budget we sought to allocate an additional 9,125 places for people with disabilities across this State. That means we have set regional spending at unprecedented levels, and I will inform the House of those levels.
In metropolitan Sydney we will expend $390 million and in western Sydney alone $620 million on disability services. In the St George Sutherland area we will expend $170 million, in the Hunter we will expend $280 million, on the Central Coast $100 million, and in the Illawarra $120 million. In country areas—areas that are hard to service—we are going to invest in unprecedented ways. Up on the North Coast and in northern New South Wales the figure has been set at $200 million, in western New South Wales we will expend $270 million and in the south-east of New South Wales we will expend $74 million. We want that money to go out into the community to support people with disabilities and to help them achieve their aspirations and their life goals. That means ensuring that we have the services available to provide the innovations and the types of services that people want within their local communities.
In relation to our capital works program that, likewise, has been set at unprecedented levels— $148.5 million. That means we will be able to build supported accommodation places across all communities in the State—group home facilities and cluster-style housing—and to develop new ways forward in the Supported Living Fund, which provides for 100 places. These measures will enable people to pick and choose for the first time in their lives. We have set the program at about 530 supported accommodation places. In the area of respite we will provide an additional 860 places, recognising the enormous challenges facing carers who all too often become increasingly tired because of the nature of the 24/7 care role they are providing their loved one.
As I said, this budget provides an additional 9,125 places. It is about providing greater capacity, particularly as we move towards individualised funding and an individualised planning model, which we are currently in the process of developing. We are already starting to roll out individualised packages. We are seeing an enormous appetite for moving towards an approach in which the decision-making lies with the individual, allowing them to pick and choose the services they want. That brings me to my next point. This Government is embarking on a reform agenda designed to build a National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is why we are 13274 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
rolling out local area coordination at the level we have set and that is why we are moving to individualised funding. That is what underpins a National Disability Insurance Scheme, and we are getting on with the job in relation to those reforms. The entire State will have available to it individualised funding by 1 July 2014.
We are preparing for and building the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and we are putting the money in to be able to do so. At a State level, in the forward estimates more than $9 billion is to be expended on disability services. That means we can build greater capacity once the National Disability Insurance Scheme is operational, if the Commonwealth responds to the Productivity Commission recommendations. Investing more than $9 billion is one thing, but currently negotiations are taking place in relation to the launch sites amongst the States. We have said that we want to see an adherence to the Productivity Commission recommendations. As I said, we are building the National Disability Insurance Scheme and we are currently in negotiations about the launch sites, who is eligible to host them and where they will be located. [Extension of time granted.]
We want to ensure appropriate governance and that the correct eligibility criteria and funding levels are set for those launch sites. As I said, as well as an expenditure of $9 billion over the forward estimates, we are preparing for individualised planning and individualised funding and building the National Disability Insurance Scheme. In particular, at the heart of the discussions concerning launch sites is the setting of funding levels. At this stage the Commonwealth has not indicated to the State what funding model will be placed—
The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: They could ask a question, but they have not done so. We are waiting for an indication from the Commonwealth in relation to the nature of the funding required for a launch site. We are putting in $2 billion of growth money, and this year alone we are expending $620 million in western Sydney. When one compares that with the Commonwealth, which in its Federal budget outlined $1 billion over four years—of which $650 million is going to back-office functions and bureaucrats, as opposed to $350 million to the front line—it is a little bit rich to expect the New South Wales Government to back into a corner on this issue. This Government wants the scheme in place. That is why we are developing the individualised funding model and that is why we are steering every dollar possible towards this national reform which is built on individualism, allowing individuals to pick and choose what they need to reach their life goals. We make no apologies for wanting the Commonwealth to adhere to the Productivity Commission recommendations and we will keep it to account to do so.
SYDNEY LIQUOR LICENCE FREEZE
Ms CLOVER MOORE: My question is directed to the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing, and Minister for the Arts. Could the Minister extend the liquor licence freeze in inner-city hotspots for another year to allow the joint city and State research to be finalised so action can be taken to address serious problems and ensure a safe night-time economy?
Mr GEORGE SOURIS: I thank the member for Sydney for her question and her interest in this matter. A liquor licence freeze has been in place in three areas of the city of Sydney since 25 June 2009. The initial one-year freeze will be extended for a third time. I am pleased to inform the House that the current freeze that was due to expire on 24 June 2012—this Sunday—has been extended by regulation for a further six months. The primary goal of the freeze is to reduce alcohol-related violence in areas within the Sydney local government areas that take in the following three precincts: Kings Cross; the Oxford Street, Darlinghurst, precinct; and the central business district south precinct. The Government has extended the freeze to allow for the completion of research currently underway into the cumulative impact of liquor licence density. Part one of the independent review of the freeze has been completed by the Allen Consulting Group. This review is the first stage of a larger piece of research into liquor licence density.
The review has involved extensive consultation with NSW Police and various other departments, as well as interested stakeholders including NSW Health, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, local councils, businesses and resident action groups. The report confirmed that the Sydney local government area has the highest density of liquor outlets in New South Wales and the highest rate of alcohol-related incidents. The report also indicated that alcohol-related assaults in the freeze precincts are significantly higher than in the rest of the Sydney local government area. I note that a number of strong regulatory policies have been implemented during the period of the three-year freeze to curb alcohol-related violence.
The Liberal-Nationals Government has introduced measures, such as strengthening the move-on powers and introducing the new offence of drunk and disorderly and the three-strikes legislation, in order to 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13275
reduce the negative impact of alcohol on local communities around the State. The impact of these and other regulatory measures will be taken into account in this research so that future policy decisions are based on the most accurate and up-to-date information. During the freeze period there has been an overall reduction of violence in the Sydney local government area. Density is a complex issue and this is why research has been conducted in this area. It is critical that there is strong evidence on which to base effective liquor licensing and compliance decisions. It is anticipated that the final research will be presented towards the end of the year and provide a more definitive position on this significant determination.
CANCER SERVICES
Mr GREG APLIN: My question is directed to the Premier. What is the Government doing to improve treatment for cancer patients in New South Wales?
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I thank the member for Albury for his question and acknowledge his efforts to ensure that residents in his region have access to the best possible facilities and treatment when they are affected by this insidious disease. In May last year the member for Albury, along with the Minister for Health, and Minister for Medical Research successfully lobbied the Federal health Minister for funding for a $65 million integrated regional cancer centre in Albury. That was a tremendous result for the member's community and I congratulate him on it. Tragically, about 40 people across New South Wales die from cancer every day. That is hundreds—perhaps even more—relatives and friends who are impacted by this disease every day in this State.
This Government is committed to ensuring our best scientists have the support and resources they need to take their ideas and potential cures out of the laboratory and into the community to offer the light on the hill of a hope for a cancer cure. This is known as benchtop to bedside. In other words, transferring knowledge, expertise and, it is hoped, cures from research facilities to patients. Scientists call this translational research. That is a slightly cumbersome term to describe the process of delivering the best that medical science can offer to our patients. The Government is funding this sort of research across the State. In fact, this year more than $11 million will be invested to support seven translational cancer research centres to focus on research that will link the work done in laboratories with treatment for cancer patients. We are also supporting a statewide cancer information network to make New South Wales an international leader in cancer research, using linked biometric, clinical and population health data to improve patient care. As well, we are investing $9 million in career support so we can attract and retain the best researchers.
We will bring to New South Wales nine talented researchers from other jurisdictions to complement the work of our existing medical researchers. We want the best and the brightest, and we are prepared to spend money to make sure they come to New South Wales. When they are here, we will support and foster their incredibly important work. The funding will also allow us to support 54 established researchers already in New South Wales to focus on independent cancer research that is nationally and internationally competitive. As well as backing our research centres and researchers—and pinching some of the best from other States—we have budgeted another $7.3 million to support 52 nurses and data managers to bring suitable patients into clinical trials of cancer therapies; conduct groundbreaking trials to evaluate new cancer therapies, covering the spectrum of cancers; and recruit technical staff, including those who will work on cancer equipment.
There would not be a person in this Chamber who has not been touched by cancer. This is an issue close to all our hearts and it attracts bipartisan support in this Chamber. This morning at St Joseph's Maronite Catholic Church at Croydon I attended the funeral of Sonia Farah, along with the members for the electorates of Lismore and Granville. The Farahs came to this city 40 years ago and are one of the great multicultural success stories. They did not just build a fantastic family; they built good businesses and engaged in tremendous community work. They are another example of people benefitting from the opportunities they are offered here. They are another reason to support the strong migration program that thankfully has bipartisan support.
I have to say that Sonia's husband, Peter, can take comfort from what he and Sonia achieved over those 40 years. Unfortunately, Sonia was another casualty of this terrible disease. But as we heard today, even in her final days, she, like so many cancer patients, displayed inspirational courage. She expressed more concern for her family and grandchildren than for herself. The New South Wales Government is committed to making sure we have the best people on the job of cracking the cancer code and ensuring they have the equipment and facilities they need to do their vital work. Today I pay tribute to the staff of Concord Hospital, in particular its cancer centre, for their work in caring for Sonia Farah. The family today asked that donations be made to the Concord Cancer Centre in lieu of flowers. I encourage members and the public to participate.
Question time concluded at 3.15 p.m. 13276 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
CHAMBER SUPERVISOR IAN DELAHUNTY
The SPEAKER: Order! We have heard about the quality of teachers, and I would like to focus on one of our quality members of the Legislative Assembly staff, whose birthday it is today, Mr Ian Delahunty. He is 51—very young. Happy birthday, Ian.
PETITIONS
The Clerk announced that the following petition signed by fewer than 500 persons was lodged for presentation:
Teacher Qualifications
Petition requesting a review of the current selection procedure and implementation of the Professional English Assessment Test [PEAT] or the implementation of the test as a requirement of teaching qualifications for all teacher graduates and further requesting that testing is offered in regional centres, received from Mr Richard Torbay.
The Clerk announced that the following petitions signed by more than 500 persons were lodged for presentation:
Bobin Public School
Petition requesting the retention of Bobin Public School, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.
Bickham Coalmine Project
Petition requesting the rejection of Bickham Coal Company's renewal applications for Exploration Licences EL5888 and EL5306 and the amendment of State Environmental Planning Policy 2007 (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 to also prohibit underground mining at the Bickham Coalmine Project site, received from Mr George Souris.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Precedence of Business
Motion by Mr Andrew Cornwell agreed to:
That General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 1869 have precedence on Thursday 21 June 2012.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Business Lapsed
The SPEAKER: Order! I advise the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 105 (3), General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 132 either not having commenced or not having been completed will lapse tomorrow.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Withdrawal of Business
General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 1865 withdrawn by Mr Craig Baumann.
General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 1867 withdrawn by Mr Tim Owen.
General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 1868 withdrawn by Mr Garry Edwards.
General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 1864 withdrawn by Ms Sonia Hornery.
General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 1906 withdrawn by Mr Clayton Barr.
General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 1866 withdrawn by Mr Greg Piper. 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13277
CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO BE ACCORDED PRIORITY
Pinch Point Program
Mr CHRIS SPENCE (The Entrance) [3.19 p.m.]: My motion that the House supports the Government's pinch point program, which aims to make life easier for motorists by improving traffic flow at key congestion points on major arterial roads, should be accorded priority.
The SPEAKER: Order! There will be no interjections while members are seeking priority for their motions.
Mr CHRIS SPENCE: This motion should be accorded priority because it is a priority for this Government and for motorists in New South Wales. It is a priority for the people of New South Wales who have sat in their cars idling in traffic gridlock for far too long. The New South Wales Government has committed $125 million to easing traffic flow at key congestion points on major arterial roads, with $17.5 million allocated in the 2012-13 budget. For too long we have heard the frustrations of New South Wales motorists who are stuck at bottlenecks on a daily basis. The Pinch Point program is all about improving the efficiency of traffic flow through major congestion points. For residents on the Central Coast who commute to Sydney, a major pinch point is the F3 interchange at Wahroonga. Peak periods result in cars lining up in a long queue, just waiting to get through the intersection. This Government is not just a government of talk. Work began in February this year.
On the Central Coast we are working to fix traffic congestion along Wyong Road, but unfortunately the member in the other place, the Hon. Greg Donnelly, does not think so. I am confused. First he was the Australian Labor Party spokesperson for the Central Coast, then he was the MLC for the Central Coast, then he was the member for the Central Coast, and now he is the shadow Minister for the Central Coast. The Premier mentioned this earlier. I too looked at the website of the shadow Minister for the Central Coast, which quite clearly states "New South Wales Labor Leader of the Opposition". That caused me further confusion because I thought Captain Solar was the Leader of the Opposition. But, as the Premier showed, the website of the Leader of the Opposition has only one person as a member of the team. If there is one saying "Robbo" likes it is "There is no 'I' in team". There is only "me"—is that not right, Robbo? There is only Robbo.
The SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber.
Mr CHRIS SPENCE: The other peak hour traffic hotspots that will benefit from this year's budget will be the Concord Road-Parramatta Road intersection, the Cumberland Highway-Hume Highway intersection, the Hume Highway-Campbelltown Road intersection, the Hume Highway-Hoxton Park Road intersection, the Hume Highway-Liverpool Street intersection, the widening of Powers Road at its intersection with Old Windsor Road, the Hume Highway-Horsley Drive intersection, the Parramatta Road-Frederick Street intersection, localised road widening at the Cumberland Highway between the Great Western Highway and the M4 Motorway, and the widening of Boundary Street between the Pacific Highway and Archer Street. This motion should be accorded priority because the motorists of New South Wales should be accorded priority. [Time expired.]
North West Rail Link
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON (Blacktown—Leader of the Opposition) [3.21 p.m.]: The motion I seek to have accorded priority states:
That this House condemns the Government for breaking its promise to deliver a north-west rail service to the Sydney central business district.
The SPEAKER: Order! There will be no interjections while the member is seeking to establish priority for his motion.
Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: This Government continues to break promises, but today we have seen the single most significant broken promise in 15 months. This Government has broken the iconic promise of the 2011 election—delivery of the North West Rail Link. I cite the website of the North West Rail Link:
The North West Rail Link will deliver savings of up to 3½ hours a week in journey times to the Sydney CBD as well as frequent, reliable, direct rail services.
13278 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
I notice that the member for Hawkesbury is sneaking out of the Chamber with the Minister for Transport. They do not want to hear this. They are slinking away because they know this is a broken promise. The North West Rail Link website clearly states that there will be direct services to the city. Today we should debate this issue as a matter of priority because a second-rate rail service will be provided to the people of the north-west. They are not getting an integrated rail service, contrary to what they were told, and they are not getting direct services, contrary to what they were told. But worse than that, they are getting a privatised rail network. I note the presence in the Chamber of the Treasurer, and that is appropriate. The last time New South Wales got a privately operated rail service was the Airport Rail Link, which was introduced by the Treasurer's father when he was the Minister for Transport. Passengers on the Airport Rail Link pay $11 a trip above the fares paid for journeys elsewhere on the rail network.
Today the Premier was given an opportunity to guarantee north-west Sydney commuters that they will not pay more than anyone else using the rail network. There was a lot of hot air and weasel words, but at no point was there a guarantee. My motion deserves priority so the guarantee can be given this afternoon. Government members do not want this motion to be accorded priority because they know it will be a dud service—a second-rate service. Government members have broken their promise. They cannot guarantee that north-west Sydney commuters will not pay more as a result of the rail line having a private operator. Worse than that, on the previous occasion the Coalition was in government, the Airport Rail Link was constructed and it went broke. That will probably happen to the north-west rail service as well.
Question—That the motion of the member for The Entrance be accorded priority—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 64
Mr Anderson Mr Flowers Mr Roberts Mr Annesley Mr Gee Mr Rohan Mr Aplin Mr George Mr Rowell Mr Ayres Ms Gibbons Mrs Sage Mr Baird Ms Goward Mr Sidoti Mr Barilaro Mr Grant Mrs Skinner Mr Bassett Mr Gulaptis Mr Smith Mr Baumann Mr Hartcher Mr Souris Ms Berejiklian Mr Hazzard Mr Speakman Mr Bromhead Ms Hodgkinson Mr Spence Mr Brookes Mr Holstein Mr Stokes Mr Casuscelli Mr Humphries Mr Stoner Mr Conolly Mr Issa Mr Toole Mr Constance Mr Kean Ms Upton Mr Cornwell Dr Lee Mr Ward Mr Coure Mr O'Dea Mr Webber Mrs Davies Mr Owen Mr R. C. Williams Mr Dominello Mr Page Mrs Williams Mr Doyle Ms Parker Mr Edwards Mr Patterson Tellers, Mr Elliott Mr Perrottet Mr Maguire Mr Evans Mr Provest Mr J. D. Williams
Noes, 22
Mr Barr Mr Lynch Mr Robertson Ms Burney Dr McDonald Ms Tebbutt Mr Daley Ms Mihailuk Ms Watson Mr Furolo Ms Moore Mr Zangari Ms Hay Mr Parker Ms Hornery Mrs Perry Tellers, Ms Keneally Mr Piper Mr Amery Mr Lalich Mr Rees Mr Park
Question resolved in the affirmative. 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13279
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Order of Business
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [3.32 p.m.]: I thank all members for their indulgence last night when the House had to sit considerably later than normal to deal with legislation that was imperative to be dealt with. It is important that all members be informed as to the Government's intentions over the next two days. This evening there will be the usual break for dinner at 6.00 p.m. and we will resume at 7.00 p.m. for private members' statements. Last night a number of members did not have the opportunity to deliver their private members' statements. They will be added to tonight's list of private members' statements. We will then proceed with the matter of public importance and at the conclusion of that discussion we will return to private members' statements. I understand that matters of an imperative nature to the Government are being debated in the upper House this afternoon and possibly into the small hours of Thursday morning. It may be that the Government will need to address one or both of those issues tomorrow morning in lieu of general business. That will depend on what happens in the Legislative Council this evening. There is also a possibility that the House may have to sit on Friday for a period, but I will indicate that to members tomorrow.
NORTH WEST RAIL LINK
Personal Explanation
Mr RAY WILLIAMS, by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation. Earlier, when he was trying to establish priority for his motion, the Leader of the Opposition chose to impugn my character by suggesting I was sneaking out of the House. I advise the House that at that time, while the Leader of the Opposition was misleading Parliament, telling mistruths and generally perpetrating lies about the North West Rail Link, I became quite ill and had to leave the Chamber because I felt I was going to throw up.
Mr Michael Daley: Point of order—
Mr RAY WILLIAMS: On returning to the Chamber, when the Leader of the Opposition finished his contribution I felt somewhat better.
Mr Michael Daley: That is not a personal explanation.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! That is a decision for the Chair to make. I remind the member for Maroubra that he is the Leader of Opposition business.
Mr Michael Daley: You ignored my point of order too.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member should seek the call if he wishes to take a point of order. I could not hear him.
PINCH POINT PROGRAM
Motion Accorded Priority
Mr CHRIS SPENCE (The Entrance) [3.37 p.m.]: I move:
That this House supports the Government's Pinch Point program, which aims to make life easier for motorists by improving traffic flow at key congestion points on major arterial road corridors.
For years, the former Labor Government concocted pie in the sky ideas that were roads to nowhere.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Hansard is having trouble hearing the member for The Entrance. Members who wish to have private conversations should do so outside the Chamber.
Mr CHRIS SPENCE: Announcements were made by people wearing fluorescent vests and hard hats. Plans and blueprints were prepared that reached far into the future. Ministers were self-congratulatory and patted themselves on the back. Copious amounts of money were spent on planning schemes that one after the 13280 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
other gathered dust on the bookshelves of the revolving office door of the roads Minister. The Pinch Point program is all about making life easier for motorists and it is all about making the commute to and from work every day that bit easier, increasing capacities and in turn reducing delays, increasing safety and creating more reliable and consistent travel times. While the former Labor Government had a serious case of more-ism, our Government recognises that small improvements can make all the difference. Not only does it have a positive impact on residents in New South Wales who directly benefit from an easier and far less stressful commute, it also delivers benefits to businesses and industries.
The Central Coast knows only too well how it feels to be stuck in gridlock. Does the F3 debacle ring any bells? In 2010, motorists were trapped on the F3 for up to eight hours following a crash at Mount White. This was despite the $28 million contraflow system finally being completed around six months earlier, and two years after it was first announced. I am pleased to say that thanks to the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government, further initiatives have been implemented swiftly in an effort to tackle further debacles by establishing an F3 response unit based north of the Hawkesbury River to be on call to manage major incidents. Electronic message signs are being rolled out on the F3 between Ourimbah and Stockrington to keep drivers up to date with information and will be linked to the 24-hour transport management centre.
The F3 is a major arterial road and carries thousands of Central Coast residents to and from their employment every day. For years we fought to get it right and this Government is doing something—not just talking about it. However, Central Coast residents are not the only people who find daily commuting a frustrating and stressful ordeal. Recent trends on major corridors in Sydney show an estimated 2.6 per cent increase in traffic volume over the past five years, and an estimated 7.5 per cent increase over the past 10 years. Clearly, this illustrates how 16 years of Labor rule and neglect have adversely impacted our major roads. The West Gosford intersection has long been a headache for Central Coast residents with daily gridlock and congestion during peak hours. The former Labor Government knew about the problem and four days before the 2007 election then Premier Morris Iemma made a special visit to Gosford and solemnly promised the locals that the intersection would be fixed within the parliamentary term. There were talks of a flyover, but the New South Wales Labor Government was too busy changing Premiers to bother following through on that promise.
The member for Gosford is pleased that our Government can deliver with $17 million allocated in the 2012-13 budget to continue planning and for preconstruction works. Central Coast residents, particularly those in The Entrance and Wyong electorates, have long suffered delays at the Tuggerah interchange with Wyong Road, which is a major arterial road. This major bottleneck is downright dangerous with cars running the gauntlet to get to the F3. This Government is doing something about fixing the problem by providing an $18 million upgrade—not promised, and not a pie in the sky idea. This is a real, honest, practical delivery of a solution that the Central Coast so desperately needs. In 2008 Chris Hartcher, the then shadow Minister for the Central Coast, in response to the November 2008 mini-budget said:
"It's not about what's in it for the Central Coast, it's more about what's not going to happen on the Coast."
That is not the case under this Government. The 2012-13 budget will invest a total of $96 million into Central Coast roads. Our region is one of the fastest growing areas in the State and this Government is delivering far more than the previous Labor Government did.
Mr ROBERT FUROLO (Lakemba) [3.42 p.m.]: I welcome the motion and thank the member for The Entrance for moving it for a few reasons. One reason is that it gives me a chance to talk about the Roads budget and to highlight some of its failures. Another reason is that the motion refers to the Pinch Point Program which, of course, was started by the former Labor Government in 2006 with a commitment of $100 million towards important projects. This motion gives me a chance to highlight particularly the massive cut in this year's budget. Last year Government members bragged about their record Roads budget of $5.4 billion. This year's budget is only $5 billion when, taking into account the 3.6 per cent increase in annual road costs, it needed to be $5.6 billion. Effectively, this year's budget is a $600 million cut on last year's budget.
Mr Nathan Rees: It's quality, not quantity.
Mr ROBERT FUROLO: Some members are interested in the Pacific Highway upgrade, but this year's budget has cut $95 million from that upgrade. Last year $2.5 billion was allocated to new roads; this year $2.2 billion has been allocated—a $300 million cut. The budget spells out also a $45 million cut to traffic network improvements, a $4.5 million cut in road safety, and a $105 million cut for western and south-western Sydney roads compared to last year's allocation. These cuts are made, despite an 8 per cent increase in revenue 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13281
thanks to the Government's 12.5 per cent increase in traffic fines and a massive increase in the number of speed cameras around Sydney. Roads and Maritime Services has published on its website the following feedback about the Pinch Point Program:
I am writing to congratulate you and your team on the successful completion of the Princes Highway and President Avenue, Kogarah, intersection Upgrade project.
That project was started and funded by the former Government. Another piece of feedback states:
Just wanted to say what a great improvement you've made to the west to east traffic flow on Mowbray Road where it crossed the Pacific Highway.
That is another project started and funded by the former Government. Another Pinch Point Program received this feedback:
Thank you for the work done at the intersection of Darcy Road and Cumberland highway.
Mr Stephen Bromhead: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. This motion is about the pinch point areas in Sydney, not about past glories of Labor.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I have heard enough on the point of order. I am sure the member for Lakemba is about to return to the Pinch Point Program, which aims to make life easier for motorists.
Mr ROBERT FUROLO: I am entirely on the topic. Indeed, the program did make life easier for motorists when we started it. I am pleased to say that, although not enough money is being spent on the program, it continues to be a good one. Obviously, we supported the program when we introduced it and we are pleased that it continues to operate. Unfortunately, for Sydney motorists, traffic congestion continues to get worse. Recently, we heard that peak hour now extends for 10 hours each day—10 hours when motorists across Sydney sit in traffic rather than being at home with their families or being productive at work. The NRMA also referred to the Pinch Point Program in its submission on the budget and called for work to start on Pennant Hills Road, James Ruse Drive and Silverwater Road. After reading the budget papers and all the media releases issued by the Minister for Roads and Ports, not one of those projects—identified by the NRMA as critical in addressing the pinch point problems and traffic congestion—is funded.
Unfortunately, while the Pinch Point Program is good, the Government's targets are misdirected and road congestion will continue to deteriorate. What are we really talking about with Pinch Point Programs, congestion and people sitting in their cars waiting to get home or to work? We are talking about projects such as the M4 East, the M5 East and the M2 to F3 project. What does the budget contain for these projects? Nothing— zero, zip, nil. What has the Government done? Government members promised to get these jobs done, but they have done diddly-squat. The Government has the opportunity to stand up and own this issue, but instead it wants to blame its decisions on the past. Unfortunately, those opposite are now in government and they have the capacity to fund these projects. They have put $30 million in this year's budget to fund— [Time expired.]
Mr ANDREW ROHAN (Smithfield) [3.47 p.m.]: I support the motion of the member for The Entrance, which states:
That this House supports the Government's "pinch-point program" which aims to make life easier for motorists by improving traffic flow at key congestion points on major arterial road corridors.
This motion should be supported by all members of this House because hundreds of thousands of Sydney motorists travel along our major arterial roads that resemble car parks more than roads. This situation became so bad because for 16 years the previous Labor Government neglected infrastructure, roads and motorists. On 26 March 2011 the people of this State—the motorists of this State—who were stuck in the Campbelltown or Parramatta Road car parks trying to get to work, or the Cumberland Highway car park in my electorate, voted for change. They voted for a new Government that would take this predicament seriously. They voted for a new Government that promised to make their lives easier by improving traffic flow at key congestion points on major arterial road corridors.
This motion is about supporting the Government's Pinch Point Program, which delivers another key promise to make New South Wales number one again. This motion should be supported because the New South Wales Government's traffic network management strategy, or Pinch Point Program, targets peak hour 13282 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
traffic hotspots and investigates ways to relieve traffic congestion. I refer particularly to the Cumberland Highway, which crosses the electorates of Smithfield and Granville. Last week the member for Granville and I had the pleasure of welcoming the Premier and the Minister for Roads and Ports to the corner of the Great Western Highway and Cumberland Highway to announce the upgrade of that intersection. This project is part of the New South Wales Government's $125 million Pinch Point Program that will be rolled out over the next five years.
Of that $125 million, $17.5 million has been allocated in 2012-13 to improve traffic flow at 11 key congestion points on major arterial roads across Sydney. It was a refreshing change for a Premier of this State to come to our electorates and to make such a significant announcement. The last four Labor premiers did not take Smithfield or Granville seriously, nor did they make such a significant announcement. The Premier has already visited Smithfield five times and is just over one year into his term in government. I thank the Premier for giving the people of Smithfield the attention they deserve after 16 years of neglect by the previous Government. This motion should be supported because it supports a program that makes the life of motorists much easier. If Opposition members do not support this motion they are demonstrating to the motorists of this State— [Time expired.]
Mr NATHAN REES (Toongabbie) [3.50 p.m.]: This is a matter of great interest to the electorate of Toongabbie. The Pinch Point Program was a Labor initiative. I know this because in February 2006, as a fresh-faced candidate, I stood at the corner of Fitzwilliam Road and Old Windsor Road with Premier Morris Iemma who launched that program. It has been a successful program.
Mr Chris Hartcher: A good Premier?
Mr NATHAN REES: A very good Premier. The budget papers for 2012-13 indicate that only $17.5 million of this Government's $200 million commitment will be delivered. The projects that this Government asserts will be funded in 2012-13 include the Concord Road and Parramatta Road intersection, extension of the right-turn bay on Concord Road; the F3 off-ramp on the Pacific Highway, widening of the south-bound ramp to provide three left-turn lanes with the aim of reducing the queue back to the F3; the Cumberland Highway and Hume Highway intersection, local widening to increase the capacity of the intersection and a matter to which the member for Smithfield alluded earlier; the Hume Highway and Campbelltown Road intersection, extension of right-turn bays; the Hume Highway and Hoxton Park Road intersection, extension of right-turn bays; the Hume Highway and Liverpool Street intersection—the Hume Highway is doing all right—provision of a new right-turn bay to benefit through traffic on the Hume Highway; and a project of interest to the electorate of Toongabbie, the widening of Powers Road at the intersection of Old Windsor Road to improve operational performance of the intersection.
Earlier the member for Lakemba referred to the tribute that had been paid to the previous Government. The intersection of Darcy Road and Cumberland Highway will have additional right-hand turn lanes at the instigation of the local member, which happens to be me. I live 100 yards away from that intersection. However, I do not have a drivers licence. That intersection has created problems for my colleague the member for Parramatta whose electorate is on the other side of Darcy Road. Other projects include the Parramatta Road and Frederick Street intersection, extension of right-turn bays to benefit through traffic on Parramatta Road; and the Cumberland Highway between the Great Western Highway and the M4, localised road widening—another location that happens to be on the fringe of my electorate. This good program was commenced by the Labor Government under Morris Iemma and any number of communities around greater metropolitan Sydney have benefited from it. The Opposition will keep the Government to account on the projects that were announced in this year's budget. The Opposition wants to see them finished this year. This Government must spend the money.
Mr Chris Hartcher: This year?
Mr NATHAN REES: That is why they are pinch points and that is why this is a relatively minor works program. The Opposition wants to see every cent of that $17.5 million spent on the programs that have been outlined and it wants to see those projects completed.
Mr CHRIS SPENCE (The Entrance) [3.53 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members representing the electorates of Smithfield, Lakemba and Toongabbie for their contributions to the debate. Perhaps the member for Toongabbie could get the member for Smithfield to drive him around. However, he should not go jumping any Lamborghinis as that could be dangerous. 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13283
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member was referring to the member for Lakemba.
Mr CHRIS SPENCE: The only thing of any relevance in the contribution of the member for Lakemba and shadow Minister for Roads, if he is serious about road safety, would be if he handed back his licence and promised never to drive a Lamborghini again. I certainly would not hop into the car of the member for Lakemba. The New South Wales Government is delivering the Pinch Point Program and is committed to building infrastructure that was left wanting in the 16 years in which the former Labor Government was in office. This program is part of this Government's $5 billion Roads budget. This record investment in our roads goes over and above anything ever offered by State Labor. Of that $5 billion, $3.8 billion is earmarked for rural and regional roads across this State. This Government is not focusing simply on metropolitan areas.
The Pinch Point Program will fix the Concord Road and Parramatta Road intersection; the F3 off-ramp onto the Pacific Highway; the Cumberland Highway and Hume Highway intersection; the Hume Highway and Campbelltown Road intersection; the Hume Highway and Hoxton Park Road intersection; the Hume Highway and Liverpool Street intersection; widen Powers Road at the intersection of Old Windsor Road; fix the Hume Highway and Horsley Drive intersection; the Parramatta Road and Frederick Street intersection; the Cumberland Highway between Great Western Highway and the M4; and widen Boundary Street between the Pacific Highway and Archer Street. I commend this motion to the House.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
MOTOR ACCIDENTS AND LIFETIME CARE AND SUPPORT SCHEMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2012
Second Reading
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [3.55 p.m.], on behalf of Mr Mike Baird: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
As this bill was introduced in the other place on 30 May 2012 and it is in the same form—the second reading speech appears at pages 12178 to 12181 in the Hansard of that day—I commend the bill to the House.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [3.56 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Motor Accidents and Lifetime Care and Support Schemes Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and state at the outset that the Opposition will not be supporting this bill for a number of reasons. The Opposition supports those amendments in the bill relating to the Thiering case. The Opposition moved amendments in the other place that were unsuccessful. Because of what happened in this place yesterday and what will go on in the other place today in relation to injured workers in New South Wales, the Opposition will vote against this bill. Some of the provisions in this bill are unnecessary. The Lifetime Care and Support Scheme is recognised universally as a good scheme and one of the best achievements of the former Labor Government.
Before this scheme was introduced it fell to insurers, through the green slip process, to care for people who had been injured in motor vehicle accidents, but as a result questions of fault and difficulties arose. This self-contained scheme was established to provide for the treatment and care of those people—all too often young people—who have suffered catastrophic injuries from motor vehicle accidents in New South Wales. The issue of fault was removed. For example, if someone was catastrophically injured in New South Wales, whether or not he or she was at fault, this scheme would ensure that person received all the care that was needed for the rest of his or her life. I do not think anyone would take exception to that.
Prior to the introduction of the scheme, injuries in motor vehicle accidents were dealt with under the green slips scheme, the costs of which were increasing. Under the scheme introduced levies were collected attendant upon the payment for a green slip, and a small levy was paid. The levy was wholly remitted to the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme, which paid for all costs incurred during the lifetime of the injured person. One of the former difficulties was that judges and courts—where too often these questions ended up—had difficulty predicting with any great degree of accuracy the costs for ongoing treatment and care needed in 13284 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
particular by seriously injured young people who would need care for some decades. There also was the requirement to establish fault. Under the old system, the burden of caring for those people fell upon the health system of the State. So the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme was a very good scheme.
The case of Thiering posed difficulties for questions of administration around the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme. I will speak about that briefly. We support the Thiering amendment because it is clearly necessary and supported. However, the provisions of the bill—which seek to extend the powers of the Lifetime Care and Support Authority to determine absolutely what is reasonable and necessary to support injured people—are not supported. I agree with the Minister that the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Act 2006, in hindsight and in light of the Thiering decision, now has in it ambiguities in relation to scheme participants' entitlements to recover for attendant care and domestic care, and services of that nature provided gratuitously. The resolution of that difficulty is supported. Opposition members regard it as unacceptable to have both compulsory third party insurers and the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme collecting premiums to cover potential liabilities. That was never envisaged by the scheme. We do not want a return to that regime.
So the insertion of proposed section 141A into the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, to make it clear that a green slip or compulsory third party insurer is not liable for any treatment or care needs for Lifetime Care and Support Scheme participants, is supported. However, it has been put to me—in the time that I have had to discuss these provisions with those in the private sector and legal providers—that there are some reservations about the amendments proposed by the insertion of section 11B, which provides that the authority is not required to make a payment for any gratuitous services. It has been put to me that when the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme was introduced, it was publicly declared by those who designed and promulgated the scheme that the scheme would be fully funded at all times; and that when questions about gratuitous services arose—and I was not party to these discussions—statements were made that there would not be any requirement for gratuitous services because the scheme was designed to meet all the participants' care needs on a paid basis, and therefore gratuitous services would simply be not required or applicable.
Some members of the public have put to me that the experience since 2007 has shown that not to be the case; that the authority has in fact issued and approved plans relating to the care of injured people, with significant components of that care being provided gratuitously by non-profession providers—families and others. They say that if the authority is fully funded to pay for all the participants' care needs then gratuitous services should not be needed. We would like the opportunity to put that question to the Minister and discuss it with the Minister. I know there are parties outside this place who would like the same opportunity. The argument then proceeds that the insertion of section 11B further risks entrenching this undesirable aspect of scheme management.
If a treatment, support, care or service is reasonable and necessary, the argument then goes—and I have to say I am not entirely persuaded by it—why should not the scheme reimburse the person who is gratuitously providing that service? If the authority is fully funded to pay for reasonable and necessary treatment, the argument is that the authority should have no objection to paying for such gratuitous services at a rate lower than it would otherwise pay for the commercial provision of such services because the authority is saving money when it pays a lower rate. I have to say I am not entirely persuaded by that argument. But it is a legitimate question and I would like the Minister to answer it, at least when replying to debate on this bill.
We moved amendments to this bill in the other place to remove all but the Thiering amendments. Those amendments were rejected. However, prior to the introduction of the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme those catastrophically injured in a motor accident who could establish fault were entitled to recover, as a lump sum for their future, reasonable and necessary treatment care needs. What was reasonable and necessary was determined by a judge, who evaluated the available evidence. The judge's decision—as was correct and appropriate—was subject to review on appeal. When the present Lifetime Care and Support Scheme was introduced, section 6 provided that the Lifetime Care and Support Authority was to pay the claimant's reasonable and necessary and care needs; and that the authority had the power to make guidelines for the provision of treatment and care. But those guidelines, as they should have been, were always subject—for want of a better phrase—to judicial review where necessary.
So injured people who had a dispute about treatment and care needs could challenge the care plan promulgated by the authority in front of, first, a single assessor, with a limited right of review by a panel of three assessors. However, the restriction on the authority's decision was a legislative guarantee under the Act that participants in the scheme were entitled to reasonable and necessary treatment. So they always had the option of arguing, on administrative appeal in the Supreme Court, that the authority's determination as to what was 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13285
reasonable and necessary was not correct. The amending bill now being discussed changes that regime, and potentially gives the authority absolute, unfettered and discretionary power to make its own judgements about what is reasonable and necessary.
New section 5A (2) provides that, despite the claimant being entitled to treatment and care needs, the authority shall have the power to declare by regulation any form of treatment or care which may be excluded. The Opposition does not like that provision. New section 11A provides that the Lifetime Care and Support guidelines may determine which treatment and care needs of a participant in a scheme are reasonable and necessary. The effect of these proposed changes are that the authority will have the power to declare whatever it wants and could determine that treatment and care that previously had been funded was no longer reasonable and necessary. I have been given examples by people as to possible consequences. The first example provided to me states:
For example, the Authority would have the power to declare as follows:
(i) That a sporting wheelchair for a paraplegic was not a "reasonable and necessary" need.
(ii) That parents should be expected to provide overnight care for a brain-injured child and that it is "unreasonable" to have paid care provided [even though the child may be waking five or six times a night and attending to the child during the night would be destructive of the parents' capacity for daytime employment].
(iii) That it is reasonable and necessary for all scheme participants to live in a townhouse or apartment and thus, the Authority will not pay for gardening services for a paraplegic's suburban home.
(iv) That deliberately damaged equipment will not be replaced inside its life expectancy, even where the damage was caused as a result of the uncontrollable mental illness (or brain injury) of the scheme participant.
(v) That the latest prosthetic technology should not be provided to an amputee on the basis that older and cheaper technology is "adequate" for the scheme participant's needs.
Another matter we are concerned about relates to approved providers. I listened to and read carefully the Minister's second reading speech and the debate in the other place. A reasonable case has not been convincingly put for restricting the obligation of the authority to make payment to anyone other than approved providers, except in what the legislation says are "special circumstances". In relation to concerns raised with me, the following questions have been posed: Will an injured person be able to continue visiting their regular treating general practitioner post accident without the need to authorise that general practitioner as a provider? Where a scheme participant requires sudden emergency treatment, will that person be able to go to the nearest or most capable provider without having to worry about whether it is an approved provider?
Why should the authority be given the power to control the market for the provision of equipment, treatment and services to the catastrophically injured through the power to withhold approved provider status? I also have been asked about the supply of prosthetics and so on. We are sympathetic to the requirement to amend the bill to put into legislative effect a remedy to the difficulties that were raised in the Thiering case. However, my colleague in the other place the Hon. Adam Searle proposed a raft of carefully considered amendments in response to the concerns that have been raised with us by members of the public. The issues that arise in relation to the amendments and the mischief that they seek to remedy in the bill were not addressed by the Minister for Finance and Services in his reply.
Particularly in light of events in this place over the past couple of days and the amendments to the workers compensation legislation, we simply do not trust the Government when it comes to legislative provisions relating to injured people. If we had debated this legislation two days ago I am not sure that I would have taken the same position, but all goodwill and trust that may have resided on this side of the House in relation to the Government's treatment of injured people, whether they are catastrophically injured or not, have been entirely eroded. With that mistrust central to our thoughts, we will not support this bill. I hope the Minister in his reply will do a better job of answering the questions I have raised than his colleague the Minister for Finance and Services did in the other place.
Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD (Myall Lakes) [4.15 p.m.]: I speak in support of the Motor Accidents and Lifetime Care and Support Schemes Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. The object of the bill is to clarify the operation of the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme under the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Act 2006 in relation to the treatment and care needs of participants in the scheme. The bill makes it clear that while a person who is a participant in the scheme is entitled to have certain expenses relating to treatment and care needs paid for by the Lifetime Care and Support Authority, the authority is only obliged to pay for assessed 13286 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
treatment and care needs and is not obliged to pay for certain treatment, care, support or services provided on a gratuitous basis or by a person who is not an approved provider or for any treatment, care, support or services of a kind declared by the regulations to be excluded treatment and care needs.
The bill makes it clear that participation in the scheme abolishes a participant's right to claim damages for economic loss or to receive payment under chapter 3 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. In respect of treatment and care needs, including those treatment and care needs that are not assessed treatment and care needs or in respect of which the authority is not required to make a payment, the bill provides that the amendments are to operate from the date of introduction into Parliament. The bill comes about as a result of the Lifetime Care and Support Authority, which was established in 2006 by the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Act 2006. The purpose of the authority is to operate a scheme that will provide for the treatment and care needs of those who are catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident in New South Wales, irrespective of fault. During the second reading speech on this bill, the Minister for Finance and Services in the other place stated that in the court case of Thiering v Daly in 2011 Justice Garling had found it impossible to reconcile the statements of the then Minister for Transport with the actual words in the Act. The Minister for Finance and Services stated:
There are also concerns that the decision in the Thiering case has left open the possibility that in some cases the compulsory third party insurer may be liable in damages for the costs of some of the lifetime care scheme participant's future treatment and care needs. Compulsory third party insurers have calculated their premiums on the assumption that they were no longer liable for any of the treatment and care expenses of participants in the lifetime care scheme. This was a reasonable thing to do, considering the clear intent of the original legislation as clearly expressed by Minister Watkins in his speech introducing the original legislation. The compulsory third party insurer representatives have told me that the decision in Thiering has the potential to place a significant burden on the current level of both premiums and levies collected. It has been suggested to me that premium costs may need to rise substantially in order to accommodate the likely increase in damages payouts if the Thiering decision is allowed to stand.
The amendments make clear that the Lifetime Care and Support Authority is obliged to pay for the treatment and care needs of participants that it has assessed as being reasonable and necessary and that relate to the relevant motor vehicle accident, but that it is not required to meet the expenses of treatment and care that is excluded by regulation or that has not been assessed as reasonable and necessary. The bill also provides that the authority is not required to make payments for: any treatment, care, support or service that is provided gratuitously; and any treatment, care, support or service that is required by the Act to be provided by a provider approved by the authority but was provided by a person who was not an approved provider. The amendments also provide that attendant care services can be provided only by approved providers and that the guidelines make provision for other forms of treatment and care to be provided only by approved providers. The definition of "treatment and care needs" is updated and amended within the bill.
The amendments further clarify that participants in the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme cannot claim payments or damages and treatment and care needs, or any excluded treatment and care needs, under the Act that relate to the motor accident injury which has led to the participant being in the scheme. The operative provisions apply whether or not the treatment and care needs are assessed treatment and care needs under the lifetime care Act, whether or not the Lifetime Care and Support Authority is required to make a payment with respect to the treatment and care needs of concern, and whether or not the treatment, care, support or service is provided on a gratuitous basis.
Turning to the provisions of the bill, schedule 1 [3] of the bill updates the definition of treatment and care needs and allows for the making of regulations to declare any treatment, care, support or services to be excluded treatment and care needs—being treatment and care needs in respect of which the authority is not obliged to make a payment. New section 11A makes it clear that the authority is to pay for all of the reasonable expenses incurred by or on behalf of a person in relation to the assessed treatment and care needs of the person—being those that are assessed by the authority to be reasonable and necessary and that relate to the relevant motor accident—while the person is a participant in the scheme. The proposed new section also makes it clear that no expenses are payable by the authority in relation to excluded treatment and care needs and treatment and care needs that are not assessed treatment and care needs.
Schedule 1 [6] will insert new sections 11B and 11C. New section 11B provides that the authority is not required to—but may elect to—make a payment in relation to gratuitous treatment, care, support or services and treatment, care, support or services that are provided by a person who is not an approved provider. New section 11C replaces current section 10, which is repealed by schedule 1 [5]. The new section requires attendant care services to be provided by an approved provider along with any other services identified in the guidelines 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13287
as services that are to be provided by an approved provider. The new section also defines an approved provider as a person approved by the authority, or by any other person specified in the guidelines, to provide the service under the scheme.
Schedule 2 [2] substitutes section 43A of the Act to make it clear that chapter 3, which requires insurers to pay for certain treatment expenses, does not apply in respect of any treatment and care needs of a participant in the scheme whether or not the authority is obliged to make a payment in respect of the treatment and care needs and whether or not the treatment and care needs are provided for on a gratuitous basis. Schedule 2 [7] inserts new section 141A into the Act to replace current section 130A, which is repealed by schedule 2 [5], to make it clear that a person who is a participant in the scheme cannot claim damages in respect of any treatment and care needs, whether or not the authority is obliged to make a payment in respect of the treatment and care needs and whether or not the treatment and care needs are provided for on a gratuitous basis. Schedule 2 [3] and [4] transfer existing provisions to another part of the Act, and schedule 2 [6] makes a consequential amendment. This legislation is necessary to fix the problem that was highlighted in the Thiering case. Mr Deputy-Speaker, I know that you would like me to talk about 16 years of Labor neglect but I will not do so on this occasion. Instead, I will commend the bill to the House.
Mr CHRIS PATTERSON (Camden) [4.24 p.m.]: A recent decision of Justice Garling has found that it is impossible to achieve the intended purpose of the then Minister for Transport when he introduced the Motor Accident (Lifetime Care and Support) Bill in 2006. As a result of Justice Garling's findings this Government must rectify the anomalies in the legislation. Therefore, we have introduced the Motor Accidents and Lifetime Care and Support Schemes Legislation Amendment Bill. In 2006 Minister Watkins, when he introduced the bill, said:
The bill clarifies that for a participant in the scheme, the CTP insurer dealing with the claim is no longer required to meet any of the person's treatment and care expenses as those expenses are now required to be met solely by the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme.
He also said:
The Motor Accident Compensation Act is also amended to exclude a lifetime participant in the scheme from recovering economic loss damages for any treatment and care needs.
The intent and purpose of the legislation at the time was the establishment of the Lifetime Care and Support Authority by the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Act 2006. The intent of the authority was to establish a scheme and then operate that scheme to provide total treatment and care for anybody who was catastrophically injured in a motor accident within the jurisdiction of New South Wales, regardless of who was to blame for the accident. A number of people have required the services of this scheme. As at the end of April this year there were 638 participants. Of that number, 564 were adults and the remaining 74 were children. To break down the specifics of the child participants, seven suffered a spinal injury and the remaining 66 suffered a traumatic brain injury. Of the 564 adults in this scheme, 134 suffered a spinal cord injury, three suffered amputation, two suffered serious burns and the remaining 419 participants suffered a traumatic brain injury.
Sadly, as is the nature of motor vehicle accidents, no age bracket is exempt from the tragic effects of being catastrophically injured in such accidents. A huge 20 per cent of all participants in the scheme are between 16 and 20 years old, followed by the 20-to-25-year-old age group. Young people with these injuries require long-term treatment and ongoing care, potentially for the rest of their lives. It cannot be forgotten that the core objective of this scheme is to help the courts which will encounter any number of difficulties to adequately predict and then make provision so that the costs of ongoing treatment and care for young, seriously incapacitated people can be suitably met.
A problem arose with the need to establish the fault of another person so that the catastrophically injured person could receive such an award in a court. This meant that it was possible that people severely injured in a motor vehicle accident would not receive the necessary ongoing treatment and care as awarded in a court because it was not possible to establish under the Act that in fact a third party had caused the accident. Justice Garling's recent decision in the matter of Thiering v Daly has found that it is not possible to fit the statements of the then Minister with the words in the Act. Justice Garling raised questions as to whether a person who becomes a lifetime care participant has a right to damages for gratuitous care or whether that provision had been abolished.
The next question was: If the provision had not been abolished, who was liable for the compensation payment for the services that would be administered to the person and alternatively provided, mostly by family 13288 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
or friends, without the expectation of a returned benefit such as monetary compensation? Justice Garling found, after posing these questions, that the Act does not stop a lifetime care participant from recovering damages for attendant care services, but at the same time the Act lacked the provision for the Lifetime Care and Support Authority to be obligated in the provision or payment for all of the assessed needs of the participant in the scheme. The decision by Justice Garling has raised the possibility that the compulsory third party provider may be liable in some cases for damages for some of the lifetime care scheme participant's future treatment and care needs. That could have a significant impact on the people of New South Wales through green slip prices. Insurers previously have quoted premiums on the assumption that under the Act they were not liable for the costs of certain treatment and care for participants in the scheme.
Pursuant to the decision handed down by Justice Garling and the potential liability now being insinuated to compulsory third party providers, which was not the intention of the original legislation, premiums have the potential to blow out for the people of New South Wales. Taking into account all the factors I have mentioned, it is clear that this is a responsible bill that will ensure green slip prices, which New South Wales households struggle to afford, do not increase because of the findings in the matter of Thiering v Daly. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr NICK LALICH (Cabramatta) [4.31 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I participate in debate on the Motor Accidents and Lifetime Care and Support Schemes Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. The primary object of this bill is to clarify the operation of the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme under the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Act 2006 in relation to the treatment and care needs of participants in the scheme. In particular, the bill makes it clear that while a person who is a participant in the scheme is entitled to have certain expenses relating to treatment and care needs paid for by the Lifetime Care and Support Authority, the authority is obliged to pay only for assessed treatment and care needs, and is not obliged to pay for certain treatment, care, support or services provided on a gratuitous basis or by a person who is not an approved provider, or for any treatment, care, support or services of a kind declared by the regulations to be excluded treatment and care needs.
The bill also makes it clear that participation in the scheme abolishes a participant's right to claim damages for economic loss, or to receive payment under chapter 3 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 in respect of treatment and care needs, including those treatment and care needs that are not assessed treatment and care needs or in respect of which the authority is not required to make a payment. The bill provides that the amendments are to operate from the date of introduction into Parliament of the bill in relation to claims made on or after that date. The Lifetime Care and Support Authority was established by the former Labor Government in 2006 under the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Act 2006. It was introduced into this House by the then Deputy Premier and Minister for Finance, John Watkins, with the intention that comprehensive third party insurers will no longer be required to meet any of the person's treatment and care expenses when dealing with a claim because those expenses would be met solely by the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme.
That meant that there would be an encapsulated or self-contained scheme to provide for all treatment and care needs of people who had been catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident in New South Wales, regardless of fault. As pointed out by the Minister who introduced the bill in the other place and members of this House, a recent decision by Justice Garling in the matter of Thiering v Daly in 2011 opened the possibility for injured persons in New South Wales to now claim for gratuitous care, which is care provided by family and friends outside medical and rehabilitation care otherwise envisaged by the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme. The possibility now arises that compulsory third party insurers, despite the original intentions of the scheme, may be liable in damages for the costs of some of the injured person's future treatment and care requirements.
Furthermore, in his judgement Justice Garling pointed out that the current legislation may not oblige the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme Authority to provide or pay for all of the assessed needs of the participant. Serious motor accidents have devastating effects on an individual's health, mind and livelihood, affecting not only that person but also their family. This House has a responsibility to look out for those who encounter difficult circumstances and to protect them as much as possible. But we have concerns about some aspects of the bill, which we think goes too far. Moreover, at the heart of this matter, when it comes to injured people we do not trust this Government.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [4.35 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Maroubra, the member for 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13289
Myall Lakes, the member for Camden and the member for Cabramatta for their contributions to this very important debate on the Motor Accidents and Lifetime Care and Support Schemes Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. Obviously the Government has listened intently to the issues raised by the member for Maroubra and the member for Cabramatta. I give them the Government's assurance that we have no intention to diminish entitlements of individuals who are aggrieved in motor accidents; rather, the bill simply clarifies the scheme, particularly following Thiering's case.
The primary object of this bill is to clarify the operation of the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme in relation to treatment and care needs of participants in the scheme. As such, there is no change in the policy. I emphasise that there is no change in the policy intent that led to the establishment of the scheme. The bill will simply ensure that the policy is given effect. In particular, the bill makes clear that the scheme is obliged to pay for the assessed treatment and care needs of scheme participants, but is not obliged to pay for certain treatment, care, support or services provided on a gratuitous basis or by a person who is not an approved provider. In addition, the scheme will not be obliged to pay for any treatment, care, support or service that is declared by regulation to be excluded treatment or care.
The bill also makes clear that participation in the scheme abolishes a participant's right to claim damages for economic loss or receive payment under chapter 3 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 in respect of treatment and care needs, including treatment and care needs of non-assessed treatment and care in respect of which the authority is not required to make payment. It has been suggested that the power to exclude certain treatment and care needs from both the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme and the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme by regulation is inappropriate and that the power should be left in the hands of the Legislature. Mr Justice Garling made clear in Thiering's case that in his view the issues of who, as between the Lifetime Care and Support Authority and the compulsory third party insurer, should be liable for the cost of gratuitous care to a Lifetime Care Scheme participant is a policy issue—I emphasise: a policy issue—that should have been sorted out by the Government, rather than becoming the subject of litigation before him.
Permitting matters such as Thiering to be determined by costly litigation in the future, particularly in the light of those comments, is not desirable. This regulation-making power will enable the Government to make effective policy decisions without the necessity for private citizens to resort to costly litigation. Again I emphasise that this legislation is in response to concerns expressed by Mr Justice Garling in Thiering's case. As the Minister for Finance and Services made clear in the other place, medical and technological changes are occurring at a rapid rate. This regulation-making power will allow the Government to exclude unforeseen advances in treatment and care from the expenses to be paid to participants by either the Motor Accidents Scheme or the Lifetime Care Scheme and which, if payable, would threaten the viability of the schemes.
The proposed regulation-making power will put the Government in a position to make timely and cost-effective decisions about these matters in conformity with the objects of the schemes to provide just compensation and access to treatment and care for those injured in motor vehicle accidents. The making of such a regulation will not be undertaken lightly. The Government will need to be persuaded that there is a real problem to be addressed, and that the benefits of making the regulation outweigh the disadvantages. The fact that regulations can be disallowed by Parliament will always ensure proper parliamentary oversight of an exercise of this power.
New section 11A makes it clear that assessed treatment and care needs are those treatment and care needs that are assessed by the authority, pursuant to the treatment and care needs assessment it is required to do in section 23 of the Act. New section 11A (2) simply defines as "assessed treatment and care needs" the treatment and care needs assessed as reasonable and necessary and relating to the motor accident in which the person is a participant, thereby mirroring the criteria in section 23 (2). Once the assessment is complete, as required by section 23, they become the assessed treatment and care needs of the participant referred to in new section 11A. Should a participant not agree with the assessment conducted pursuant to section 23, the review mechanisms available to the participant pursuant to sections 24 through to 29 remain available, as does judicial review in the Supreme Court. I stress that to the member for Maroubra, because I think that addresses his concerns.
New section 11A (1) also has the purpose of clarifying that the authority is required to pay for the assessed treatment and care needs of a participant in the scheme. For completeness, new section 11A (3) sets out what the authority will not pay for. These provisions address a criticism of the Act made by Mr Justice Garling in Thiering—which I am sure the member for Maroubra has read thoroughly and understands fully—that there was no specific provision in the Act that required the Lifetime Care and Support Authority to provide or pay for all of the assessed needs of a participant. These amendments clarify that concern of Mr Justice Garling. New 13290 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
section 11C will take the place of section 10 in the Act and requires that attendant care services be provided by approved providers. This change, when read together with new section 11B, ensures that, post-Thiering, it is clear to all participants that all of their attendant care needs will be met by properly trained, professional attendant carers. The provision makes this clear on the face of the Act, rather than requiring participants to go to guidelines to understand who will be providing their attendant care needs.
New section 11B provides some flexibility, so that participants in special circumstances that may preclude them from accessing attendant care from an approved provider can still access paid care in circumstances in which the authority determines that a payment that it is otherwise not liable for should be made. The arrangements in section 10 for the guidelines to provide details of the types of service—other than for medical practitioners—to be provided by approved providers is restated in new section 11C (1) (b). I believe each of the matters the member for Maroubra has raised has been more than adequately addressed in this reply. I stress that in ruling out certain items for care and treatment it is also feasible that certain items will be ruled in as technology changes. This is simply a clarifying bill. It does nothing to change the intent of the original legislation that has the bipartisan support of the Parliament. On the basis of such a substantive response I ask the member to review his position with regard to dividing on the second reading, as the matters have been fully and comprehensively addressed.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 65
Mr Anderson Ms Gibbons Mr Roberts Mr Annesley Ms Goward Mr Rohan Mr Aplin Mr Grant Mr Rowell Mr Ayres Mr Gulaptis Mrs Sage Mr Baird Mr Hartcher Mr Sidoti Mr Barilaro Mr Hazzard Mrs Skinner Mr Bassett Ms Hodgkinson Mr Smith Mr Baumann Mr Holstein Mr Souris Ms Berejiklian Mr Humphries Mr Speakman Mr Bromhead Mr Issa Mr Spence Mr Brookes Mr Kean Mr Stokes Mr Casuscelli Dr Lee Mr Stoner Mr Conolly Ms Moore Mr Toole Mr Cornwell Mr O'Dea Mr Torbay Mr Coure Mr Owen Ms Upton Mrs Davies Mr Page Mr Ward Mr Dominello Ms Parker Mr Webber Mr Doyle Mr Patterson Mr R. C. Williams Mr Edwards Mr Perrottet Mrs Williams Mr Elliott Mr Piccoli Tellers, Mr Evans Mr Piper Mr Maguire Mr Gee Mr Provest Mr J. D. Williams
Noes, 18
Mr Barr Mr Lynch Ms Watson Mr Daley Dr McDonald Mr Zangari Mr Furolo Ms Mihailuk Ms Hay Mrs Perry Ms Hornery Mr Rees Tellers, Ms Keneally Mr Robertson Mr Amery Mr Lalich Ms Tebbutt Mr Park
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time. 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13291
Third Reading
Motion by Mr Brad Hazzard agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Council without amendment.
PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT (PROCUREMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES) BILL 2012
Second Reading
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [4.52 p.m.], on behalf of Mr Baird, I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
As this bill was introduced in the other place on 23 May 2012 and is in the same form, the second reading speech appears at pages 11719 to 11722 in the Hansard for that day, which, I am sure, all members have read closely, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [4.53 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Procurement of Goods and Services) Bill 2012. That was the best speech the Leader of the House has ever given in this place. My contribution will be brief. The Opposition does not oppose the bill, but raises a few concerns. The object of the bill states:
The object of this Bill is to establish a new scheme for the procurement of goods and services by and for government agencies in New South Wales. The Bill abolishes the State Contracts Control Board and establishes the NSW Procurement Board ... [which] will oversee procurement across all government agencies, which includes Government departments, statutory bodies and certain other public authorities. The new scheme applies to the procurement of goods and services by and for government agencies, including goods and services required by government agencies to exercise statutory functions, and also to procurement carried out pursuant to statutory powers of procurement. Under the new scheme, a government agency will, subject to accreditation by the Board and Board directions, be able to procure goods and services for the agency or for other agencies.
When in opposition the Coalition made an election commitment to centralise around 60 per cent of government expenditure by 2015 stating it would save around $1 billion. I wish the Government good luck on that because that is as ambitious as it gets for procurement. Some of the Opposition's concerns were contained in amendments that were moved and lost in the other place. I do not intend to move amendments but, unlike misadventure or lack of activity with the Motor Accidents and Lifetime Care and Support Schemes Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 that would prejudice or hurt injured people, if there is any nefarious misadventure with this bill the Government will have no-one to blame but itself. New section 141 on page 5 of the bill states that the board can establish advisory groups, which may comprise members from the public and private sectors to advise the board on such matters that relate to the procurement of goods and services as are referred by the board to those advisory groups.
The Opposition does not object to that mechanism, but does no more than suggest that limiting membership of advisory groups to members from the public and private sectors could be too restrictive. Those categories could be broadened to include the non-government sector, which, of course, could comprise industry associations and other representative groups that may have particular expertise to offer on the subject matter. Another of our concerns relates to new section 142 dealing with delegation of the board's powers. The board may delegate to an authorised person any of its functions other than the very power of delegation. New subsection (3) sets out who an authorised person may be and the provisions are largely the same in section 141 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. However, new subsection (3) (e) in this bill includes within its definition:
any other person or body, or person or body of a class, prescribed by the regulations.
Potentially that is too broad. Conceivably, the entirety of the board's functions, other than the power to delegate, could be contracted out to some other private sector body. We do not believe that is desirable and say that provision goes too far. If the Government wishes to have the ability or capacity to contract out entirely the scope and operations of the board, it should spell that out clearly and simply say so. Nevertheless, the Opposition will 13292 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
not oppose the bill. The final area with which we have concern relates to part 7.3, "Objectives and functions of Board". In about 2009 a Premier's circular or memorandum referred to this and a policy was developed by the previous Government regarding local content.
Building into legislation something more akin to the previous Government's "NSW Government Procurement: Local Jobs First Plan" would be beneficial. That policy recognised that procurement and the acquisition of goods and services was not simply value for money and lowest price; rather a broader economic social element should have been discussed—particularly, and this is what we tried to embed into the legislation in the other place, a concentration and concern for regional areas of New South Wales. However, the Government and its mates in the other place rejected that. In any event, we do not oppose this bill.
Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD (Myall Lakes) [5.00 p.m.]: I support the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Procurement of Goods and Services) Bill 2012. I am pleased the Government has brought forward this bill to reform the procurement system. It is a reform that is long overdue. The object of the bill is to establish a new scheme for the procurement of goods and services by and for government agencies in New South Wales. The bill abolishes the State Contracts Control Board and establishes the New South Wales Procurement Board, which will oversee procurement across all government agencies, including government departments, statutory bodies and certain other public authorities. The new scheme applies to the procurement of goods and services by and for government agencies including goods and services required by government agencies to exercise statutory functions and also to procurement carried out pursuant to statutory powers of procurement. Under the new scheme the government agency will, subject to accreditation by the board and board directions, be able to procure goods and services for the agencies or for other agencies.
The bill repeals the Public Sector Employment and Management (Goods and Services) Regulation 2010 and makes amendments to the Public Sector Employment and Management Regulation 2009 and other legislation. The Government is one of the largest purchasers in this country. That expenditure must be properly managed to protect the interests of New South Wales taxpayers. It can also be harnessed to help local industry and local jobs. It is a great thing for regional New South Wales. Better government purchasing of goods and services is critical to aiding small business. The Government is restoring confidence in the New South Wales economy. One way to do this is to provide opportunities for small business to thrive in today's highly competitive and versatile marketplace. Small businesses are key drivers for the New South Wales economy, employing more than 1.8 million people in metropolitan and regional areas.
I do not think anyone in this Chamber would doubt that the current procurement system presents challenges to those seeking business opportunities with government. The system is old and much modified with overly complex procurement structures and requirements. Red tape discourages businesses from seeking government procurement opportunities. The bill before us does away with that complexity. This is a vital next step by this Government to assist small- and medium- sized enterprises. I remind members of the other steps we are taking to help small business. The Minister is requiring simpler government contract arrangements that better meet the needs of small suppliers. The Government has appointed the State's first Small Business Commissioner. The State now has the Office of the Small Business Commissioner. The Government now requires its agencies to pay their bills to small companies within 30 days.
The feedback the Government has received from those small companies is that this makes a significant difference to their cash flows. This is another example of a Government delivering on its election promises. This Government is known as the postman: it always delivers. Every one of its promises is being delivered and delivered on time; unlike the former Labor Government. We had 16 years of Labor broken promises: promises to repair roads, and to build tramways and railways followed by axing of those projects. This Government is living up to its promises. Throughout regional New South Wales people are talking about this Government and how it is delivering on its promises. These are the kinds of innovations that business has been seeking for some time. More workers need it.
In coming months the Government will be bringing forward further proposals for aiding local businesses through government procurement. I look forward to seeing them. The bill provides the legislative means to have policies that apply to all procurement of goods and services. I know from talking to small business operators in my electorate over the past few years the difficulties they were having. For example, a business in Taree that provided photocopy and facsimile machines and stationary needs, and serviced the machines had a government contract to supply schools with those goods. Notwithstanding they had a contract to supply the goods, the Government of the day allowed other companies to also enter into contracts to supply them. 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13293
As a result of that the business in Taree had to close its doors. Not only that, under the previous system there were companies that did not have contracts that were going into schools and selling equipment in opposition to those that had contracts to do that work. This bill will prevent that from happening—it is long overdue. This bill provides the legislative means to have policies that will apply to all procurement of goods and services. The bill will not only cover government procurement of goods and services for the public sector but will also cover goods and services required by agencies in the exercise of their statutory functions and the provision of services to the citizens of New South Wales. It means the Government can use its purchasing power where it may best assist the State's economic growth. I support the bill.
Mr TONY ISSA (Granville) [5.05 p.m.]: It gives me pleasure to support the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Procurement of Goods and Services) Bill 2012. The bill being debated here today marks an important step in the Government's drive to make New South Wales the place to do business and a place that encourages and promotes business opportunities. The proposed amendments to the legislation will make the operating model for government procurement much more flexible. Currently the Government spends $13.7 billion on goods and services each year. For some months the Government has been looking to overhaul a system that has often been criticised as outdated. Not only is it outdated, it is also unnecessarily complex and bound up in red tape. It turns businesses off wanting to apply for State contracts and hampers new business opportunities for small- and medium-sized businesses. It is those small- and medium-sized businesses that need help in the current economic climate.
The amendments will make it more accessible for these businesses to be part of the State Government's procurement procedures. It is only fitting that a Liberal-Nationals Government would continue to look at ways to make doing business in the State more flexible and open to those seeking contracts with the State. I will take members through the current provisions. The current framework combines a centralised procurement system along with a range of decentralised procurement opportunities. The Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 established the State Contracts Control Board and made it responsible for the supply and disposal of goods and services. It operates by means of an open tendering process, with a view to obtaining whole-of-government long-term contracts and accounts for roughly one-third of the total New South Wales procurement. A number of problems have been identified arising from this centralised approach.
This Government is proud of the achievements it has already delivered for the State by making dealing with government more flexible and user friendly; for example, allowing school principals to buy locally for goods and services up to the value of $5,000. This legislation is the next step in that process. One problem that has been identified is the limiting nature of panel contracts in terms of achieving long-term value for money. The lengthy contract process often discourages suppliers from bidding and a lack of compliance may lead to a rise in corruption. The remaining two-thirds of government procurement is undertaken at an agency level. Agencies are permitted to purchase goods and services outside the regulations, up to a certain amount, from suppliers that are members of the State Contracts Control Board [SCCB].
Some agencies have their own legislative power to undertake procurement activities. This raises concerns that the two systems are disconnected and a single point of authority is lacking. The State Contracts Control Board is presently responsible for the purchase and disposal of goods and services on behalf of the public sector agencies. Under the present arrangement, some agencies can make purchases up to a certain level without State Contracts Control Board approval. State Contracts Control Board contracts are mostly set up for a fixed term and include standard terms and conditions with additional terms outlined in separate customer contracts with individual suppliers. Those agencies with independent procurement power may utilise the State Contracts Control Board standard terms and conditions. As a precursor to this legislation, in January this year the New South Wales Government established the NSW Government Procurement Discussion Paper.
The Government consulted with a range of interested parties including agencies and other key stakeholders in both the public and the private sector. Since January this year the Government has begun the process of overhauling the procurement process based on the results of the discussion paper. In the discussion paper the Government set out proposals for a new procurement framework that includes a new overarching governance structure and operating procedures for procurement. Central to this and provisions in the proposed legislation is the abolition of the State Contracts Control Board and replacing it with the NSW Government Procurement Board. The board will consist of the Director General of Finance and Services, who will act as chair, plus at least six directors general of the principal departments appointed by the Minister for Finance and Services. This is an extremely experienced and talented team, and it will need to be to ensure implementation of this new framework for providing goods and services to the public sector and its agencies. 13294 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
The procurement board will not, unlike the State Contracts Control Board, be a contracting body; rather, it will oversee the system, set policy and ensure compliance. Its key role will be to make decisions on which categories of goods and services should be procured centrally, and it will charge specific agencies with leading that central procurement role. It also will have statutory powers to make directions to agencies and accredit agencies to undertake procurement independently. The legislation primarily is designed to create more flexible mechanisms for sourcing government goods and services. It also wants to bring the conditions and structure of government contracts into line with modern commercial practice. As I mentioned before, we are talking about $13.7 billion worth of goods and services each year, so improved commercial strategies must be introduced to help stimulate the New South Wales economy.
Under present conditions, many private companies are turned off by the sheer amount of red tape they must go through to obtain a government contract. If we make this process more relaxed and flexible, more companies will want to become involved. The new NSW Procurement Board will have the power to issue directions to government agencies regarding the procurement of goods and services. It will be subject to control by the Minister for Finance and Services in the exercise of its functions. The bill also repeals the Public Sector Employment and Management (Goods and Services) Regulation 2010 and makes consequential amendments to the Public Sector Employment and Management Regulation 2009 and other legislation. This will have massive ramifications as it will make applying for government contracts easier and more transparent.
Under the legislation tendering no longer will be the prescribed means for acquiring government goods and services. It will be replaced with approved methods of sourcing goods and services, which will be set out in the NSW Procurement Board directions. This applies to such large-scale purchases as energy, motor vehicles, certain information technology purchases and travel. Importantly, government agencies accredited by the board may also be authorised to procure goods and services for that agency or for other government agencies. Government agencies also will be able to carry out specified procurement of goods and services without board accreditation.
The bill opens the way by giving agencies greater freedom to contract goods and services without the need to work through a central contracting agency. Agencies are best placed to recognise their own needs and seek the market to provide for them. They also have the most direct interest in the outcomes of the procurement. As I said at the outset, this bill provides important opportunities for government to reconsider how it approaches procurement to gain better results for both the public and the private sectors. These reforms work toward a more streamlined and unified approach to government procurement with the aim of minimising the risk of corruption in the New South Wales public sector. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr MARK SPEAKMAN (Cronulla) [5.14 p.m.]: I support the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Procurement of Goods and Services) Bill 2012. Our Government is overhauling the system for purchasing goods and services. We face a system that is old and complex, with mounting red tape discouraging businesses from seeking government procurement opportunities. We want to solve that problem. Before producing this legislation, the Government consulted widely on proposed reforms through the release of a procurement discussion paper, seeking public comment on a proposed new operating model for government procurement and better, more flexible ways for government to source goods and services from the market.
Four principles build the model that the Government introduces in this bill. The first is that sourcing and procurement of goods and services is more efficient and effective if it is devolved to agencies that have specialist knowledge of the category supply chain and supply sector and that have proximity to both business requirements and the end point of the supply chain. The second principle is that sourcing strategies for procuring goods and services is more effective if the strategies are developed by those with direct interests in the service delivery and financial outcomes. The third principle is that the profile of procurement should continue to be raised within the Government, and thereby contribute further to achieving the Government's goals for service delivery and value for money. The final principle is that procurement capability development should be treated as a priority, with emphasis being on procurement policy and strategy.
I turn now to some of the provisions in the bill. The bill will abolish the State Contracts Control Board and, by section 137, will establish the NSW Procurement Board. Under section 138 the board will consist of the Director General of the Department of Finance and Services, as chairperson, and at least six directors general of the principal departments appointed by the Minister for Finance and Services. This places responsibility for procurement with those responsible for the delivery of government services. The objectives of the board are set out in proposed section 144. They are: to develop and implement a government-wide strategic approach to procurement; to ensure best value for money in the procurement of goods and services by and for government 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13295
agencies; to improve competition and facilitate access to government procurement business by the private sector, especially by small and medium enterprises and regional enterprises; to reduce administrative costs for government agencies associated with procurement; and to simplify procurement processes while ensuring probity and fairness.
The functions of the board are set out in proposed section 145. Those functions are: to oversee the procurement of goods and services by and for government agencies; to develop and implement procurement policies; to issue directions to government agencies; to monitor compliance by government agencies with the requirements of the new chapter in the Act; to investigate and deal with complaints about the procurement activities of government agencies; to develop appropriate procurement and business intelligence systems for use by government agencies; to collect, analyse and publish data and statistics in relation to the procurement of goods and services by and for government agencies; and other functions conferred or imposed on the board by the principal Act or any other Act.
The board will be subject to ministerial direction and control in the exercise of its functions. It will be able to establish subcommittees and advisory groups. It will be supported by the Procurement Leadership Group and the Industry Advisory Group and procurement category working groups. The bill will do away with the current arrangements whereby the State Contracts Control Board is responsible for procuring goods and services for public sector agencies. The board will have overarching responsibility for the government procurement framework, but the procurement board will not itself be a contracting body. The main effects of the repeal by the bill of the Public Sector Employment and Management (Goods and Services) Regulation 2010 will be to the current regulatory requirements.
Tendering will no longer be the prescribed means for acquiring government goods and services in every case, and complex approval processes for methods other than tenders for the supply of government goods and services no longer will be required. Instead, approved methods of sourcing goods and services will be set out in NSW Procurement Board directions. Tendering will still be used relatively frequently but there will be more flexible approaches to sourcing goods and services. These approaches include mechanisms such as greater engagement with the market prior to tendering. Such outcome-based procurements will give agencies an opportunity to identify what is currently being offered in the market, to access current research and to see what the private sector may be capable of designing or offering. This will be done within an overarching framework of probity and fairness.
The goals of the Government are to achieve better value for money, better value for the taxpayer and the consumer, better budgetary outcomes from government procurement and a government-wide strategic approach to procurement, and to foster procurement as a business enabler. The Government wants to reduce administrative costs, duplication and red tape, to improve competition and to simplify access, especially for small and regional enterprises. The Government wants to simplify the regulatory framework and focus on compliance, probity and equity in order to build procurement competence within government. This bill will go a long way towards achieving those goals. I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs ROZA SAGE (Blue Mountains) [5.20 p.m.]: I make a contribution to debate on the Public Sector and Management Amendment (Procurement of Goods and Services) Bill 2012. This Government is getting on with the job of putting in place reforms that will result in efficiency, reduce red tape and simplify bureaucratic processes that provide disincentives for business to interact with government. This is particularly so in the area of government procurement. This bill will address many of the inefficiencies in the policies and processes of government procurement and maximise opportunities for Australian business to access the system, in particular, small to medium enterprises.
In the immediate past there was much criticism of government procurement as being a closed shop for preferred providers, with anecdotal stories of deals done with little regard for value for money. One has only to note the number of reports that have been generated over the past few years by the Independent Commission Against Corruption relating to procurement activities by CityRail. This bill signals a long-awaited change in the culture of procurement in New South Wales. As part of reforms already undertaken by the Government in the field of procurement, the supply management fee on government contracts has been removed, the mechanisms for businesses to provide services have been simplified and school principals have been given authority to buy local goods and services up to $5,000.
The Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Procurement of Goods and Services) Bill 2012 is the next step in the process of ensuring that government agencies receive the best value for money. 13296 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
The bill is an important step in delivering better government services and it provides the means to achieve three goals. First, government procurement should become the means to buy goods and services required to serve the needs of the public. The money that is used is taxpayer money so the Government needs to be a good steward with public moneys. We do not subscribe to the earlier views that procurement is only a means to supply the needs of the public service, which uses buying methods suited to its own needs in isolation of the market. Rather than the back-office function, procurement must be a tool to deliver services better and more efficiently. Secondly, the Government wants to make procurement opportunities available to businesses to sell their goods and services in a fair and open atmosphere.
Over the years, even before I entered politics, businesspeople came to me and confided that there was a lack of transparency in government procurement processes and that there was no confidence that goods and services were procured by government. Thirdly, we want a procurement system that generally results in more cost-effective purchases for the Government, thereby saving taxpayer dollars. This bill will establish a new system for procuring government goods and services, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and it will make it easier for companies to do business with government, giving small to medium businesses greater opportunities to do so. As part of the proposed changes in the first stage of reforms, the bill seeks to create a new governance structure—the NSW Procurement Board—as a new agency to oversee procurement across government. It abolishes the State Contracts Control Board. The new board will be chaired by the Director General of Finance and Services and will comprise directors general of principal government departments, thus placing procurement at the centre of government responsibility.
The government purchasing landscape in New South Wales is a mixed affair. The system is characterised by red tape and seemingly endless bureaucracy that leave many—including small to medium businesses—feeling excluded from government procurement opportunities. The Government has made a commitment to procurement reform. We said that we would tackle the problem head-on, and that is exactly what we are doing with this bill. Earlier this year the Government released its discussion paper outlining the first round of reforms to the procurement system that supports nearly $14 billion of government spending each year. That is a massive amount of money that needs to be overseen correctly. The discussion paper sets out the first steps to reform. We need a new way for the Government to do business that makes it simpler, easier and more attractive for our supply partners.
The new system is underpinned by a single, whole-of-government approach that will seek mutually beneficial outcomes that are free from suspicion and open to all. The board will oversee the Government's procurement system, set policy and ensure compliance. It will have power in law to issue directions to agencies, and to make decisions and monitor the progress of agency compliance. It will accredit agencies to undertake their own procurement of goods and services. Its key role will be to make decisions on what categories of goods and services should be procured centrally versus those devolved to principal department level. The board will not be responsible for contracting and purchasing goods and services.
Principal government departments will be responsible for sourcing and contract management after being accredited by the Procurement Board. In certain instances they will be leaders in whole-of-government procurement categories. The Department of Finance and Services will be the category manager for those categories that will remain best managed by a central function—usually highly commoditised goods: for example, energy. They will be able to source goods from the most sensible supplier. A procurement leadership group, comprising senior government procurement specialists, will advise the board, and, importantly, private sector advisory or consultative groups also will guide its work. People who are in the best position and have the best knowledge to oversight procurement will be used. The bill provides for all these arrangements which will bring about profound change that is long overdue. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.27 p.m.], in reply: It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the Minister, to speak in reply to debate on the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Procurement of Goods and Services) Bill 2012. As members have heard, the primary object of the bill is to establish a new scheme for the procurement of goods and services by and for New South Wales government agencies. What has been outlined in the bill will achieve that by replacing the State Contracts Control Board with the NSW Procurement Board. The new board membership will comprise the directors general of principal departments. The Director General of the Department of Finance and Services will be the chair of the board.
The Procurement Board will have explicit responsibility for formulating and maintaining the State's procurement policy framework, including establishing standards of conduct or practice, setting procurement 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13297
policy and directions, ensuring compliance and monitoring and reporting on performance standards. Unlike the State Contracts Control Board, the NSW Procurement Board will not be responsible for undertaking procurement of goods and services for public sector agencies. The bill also establishes other aspects of the new operating model for government procurement. Responsibility for procurement will belong with agencies, as they are responsible for the delivery of government services. Agencies will undertake sourcing and contract management after being accredited by the Procurement Board. In certain circumstances some principal departments will be leaders in whole-of-government procurement categories. The new procurement framework will facilitate a specific improvement in the Government's delivery of procurement services and improve outcomes for both agency buyers and suppliers. Ultimately, the Government wants better service delivery. This reform will provide one of the essential vehicles to achieve its goals.
I turn now to specific issues raised by the member for Maroubra. The member suggested that the terms of clause 141 will not cover non-government bodies such as associations. The provision states that any advisory group established by the NSW Procurement Board will comprise members from the private and public sectors. The reference to private sector is more than adequate to allow for membership in the group by non-government agencies such as associations. The member for Maroubra also claimed that clause 142 (3) (i) of the bill, which relates to the delegation of the board's functions, is too broad. This provision will enable the board to delegate to any person or body prescribed by the regulations. This is the critical issue: Delegation by the board pursuant to these provisions is subject to the protection afforded by the regulation process.
I thank all members for their contribution to the debate. I thank the members for the electorates of Maroubra, Myall Lakes, Cronulla, Blue Mountains and Granville. The Government has taken the first steps in a fundamental revision of its management and delivery of government goods and services procurement by establishing a single, well-understood operating and governance structure for the benefit of agencies and other eligible buyers and suppliers. As well as establishing the NSW Procurement Board, the government framework established by the bill will facilitate the establishment of the leadership group, which will advise the board and private sector advisory or consultative groups to provide a channel for industry dialogue and collaboration. With this bill, New South Wales has an opportunity to implement a major reform of government procurement function—one which is more aligned to contemporary procurement practices. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Motion by Mr Geoff Provest agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Council without amendment.
SECURITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL 2012
Second Reading
Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.33 p.m.], on behalf of Mr Greg Smith: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
As this bill was introduced on 13 June 2012 and is in the same form, the second reading speech appears on pages 12643 to 12645 of the Hansard for that day. However, I will take this opportunity to inform the House of some additional information on this important bill. In my previous life as a club manager I often had occasion to deal with security companies and security guards. It was obvious that there was confusion in the industry. At the fabulous Revesby Workers Club in Sydney many years ago, before these Acts were implemented, there was always an issue about who was licensed and who was not licensed. There was also a great gap in the quality and standard of security services provided. 13298 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
Over the past 20 years I have noticed that successive governments have attempted to regulate the industry. The introduction of this bill, which is a great initiative by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, finally creates a high degree of professionalism, focus and direction. It also provides clarification to the Act as it stands. It simplifies the licence process which historically has been confusing. My Nationals colleagues from regional New South Wales know that security services are hard to maintain in those areas. It is hard to attract people to provide those services because of the tyranny of distance. The bill also improves industry's compliance. There are some great and honourable operators within the security industry. Unfortunately, there are some other operators that really should not be there. This amendment will go a long way towards resolving that issue. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr NATHAN REES (Toongabbie) [5.36 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Security Industry Amendment Bill 2012 and indicate that the Opposition supports the bill. The Opposition supports the expansion of the powers that can be exercised by police officers under the current Act and the introduction of new licensing and training requirements. We also support the abolition of the Security Industry Council and the introduction of a master licence, along with the stringent curtailing of the ability to employ subcontractors unless specific conditions are met. We support the expanded list of mandatory and discretionary grounds on which the commissioner may refuse to grant a licence application and also the capacity to take palm prints. The necessary evil in this bill is the provision that allows for the introduction of a business or employment firearms licence for approved employees in approved employment. That is a step away from the national agreement on firearms licensing, but I understand the rationale behind it. This bill arises from a review of the existing arrangements which was commenced by former police Minister Michael Daley. I am perplexed that it has taken 16 months to become manifest in a bill. It was ready to go—
Mr Stephen Bromhead: They could not bring it in because Parliament was prorogued for five months.
Mr NATHAN REES: It was ready to go when this Government came into office. Notwithstanding the well-documented infiltration of the security industry by outlaw motorcycle gangs and other criminal entities, this has languished in the Government's show for 16 months as it moved at glacial pace to fix a glaring exposure in the security industry. Notwithstanding that, this is a sensible bill. Its time has come and the Opposition supports it.
Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD (Myall Lakes) [5.38 p.m.]: I support the Security Industry Amendment Bill 2012, which states:
The objects of this Bill are as follows:
(a) to expand the range of powers that can be exercised by police officers under the Security Industry Act 1997 ... and to authorise those powers to be exercised by other members of the NSW Police Force who are authorised by the Commissioner of Police ... to exercise enforcement officer functions,
(b) to abolish the provisional licensing system under the SI [Security Industry] Act and to make provision for class 1 licences to be issued to persons who have not previously held such a licence, subject to certain conditions, including undertaking certain training and assessment,
(c) to declare that certain provisions of the SI [Security Industry] Act and the Security Industry Regulation 2007 are excluded from the application of section 9 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 of the Commonwealth ... so that the State provisions will continue to apply to certain organisations providing training, assessment or instruction in relation to security activities,
(d) to declare that certain provisions of the Firearms Act 1996 ... are excluded from the application of section 9 of the Commonwealth Act so that the State provisions will continue to apply to certain organisations providing training, assessment or instruction in relation to use and possession of firearms,
(e) to provide for the renewal of licences under the ... Act,
(f) to amend provisions relating to master licences under the ... Act ...
(g) to remove certain subclasses of class 1 and class 2 licences under the ... Act,
(h) to abolish the Security Industry Council,
(i) to make other amendments generally with respect to licences under the SI [Security Industry] Act, including the introduction of additional grounds on which the Commissioner must refuse to grant a licence,
(j) to extend the Commissioner's power under the SI [Security Industry] Act to require that an applicant for a licence provide the Commissioner with fingerprints so that it also includes palm prints,
(k) to create a new provisional pistol licence under the Firearms Act which holders of a class 1F licence under the SI [Security Industry] Act who have not previously held such a licence will also be required to hold.
20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13299
In 2009 the Independent Commission Against Corruption issued its final report on an investigation into allegations of corrupt conduct against a number of businesses that provide training to the New South Wales security industry. The report revealed corruption and poor quality in the provision and certification of security industry training. Many of the amendments in the bill seek to implement the recommendations made by the Independent Commission Against Corruption to address regulatory problems confronting the security industry. The measures will improve the effectiveness and integrity of assessment that is conducted for New South Wales security licensing purposes. Currently, the Act and the regulations stipulate that the Commissioner of Police may determine the training standards required to be met by licence applicants, approve registered training organisations to deliver such training and assessment and impose conditions on such approvals as well as revoke or suspend such approvals.
When one considers the comments of the member for Toongabbie, the point must be made that there are two parts to the introduction of this bill. The Independent Commission Against Corruption presented a report in 2009, and what did the previous Labor Government do? Absolutely nothing. The member for Toongabbie said that the previous police Minister, the member for Maroubra, had prepared legislative amendments 16 months ago. The Coalition won government 14 months ago. Why did he not make those changes? The member for Maroubra did not make those changes because Parliament had been prorogued in one of the greatest attacks on democracy in the history of this State. That was perpetrated by the previous Labor Government, led at that time by the member for Heffron. It was absolutely disgraceful. In contrast, this Coalition Government is once again cleaning up the mess and fixing up the problems left to us by the previous Government. It is all very well for the member for Toongabbie to say the amendments were ready to go 16 months ago. If Labor had not prorogued Parliament, the previous Government could have made the changes.
The bill will preserve the operation of the provisions of the Act and regulations relating to the commissioner's function. The regulations also will contain offences for persons who conduct an approved security industry training course without the approval of the Commissioner of Police and for approved registered training organisations that fail to comply with the conditions of approval imposed by the commissioner. These amendments will counter the unintended consequences of the commencement on 1 July 2011 of the Commonwealth National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, which impacted on the functions of the Commissioner of Police with regard to the regulation of security industry training. The Commonwealth Act renders inoperative sections of the New South Wales Security Industry Act 1997 and regulations that support police regulation of security industry training.
The level of oversight required by the security training industry warrants the retention of regulation of registered training organisations in New South Wales instead of referring it to the national regulator. As provided by sections 10 and 11 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, the bill includes a declaration excluding security industry training so that the commissioner can continue working to implement recommendations made in 2009 by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. In response to recommendations made by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the commissioner will be able to impose further conditions on registered training organisations that have been approved to deliver training for licensing purposes.
These conditions include a requirement for registered training organisations to use mandated assessment materials that are designed to ensure that competence is assessed in a consistent and auditable manner. Section 15 of the Act will be amended so that the commissioner may refuse a licence application supported by a training certificate that has not been issued in accordance with the commissioner's requirements. Amendments also will provide that an application for any licence subclass may be refused if the applicant has not completed or satisfied the training instruction and assessment requirements prescribed by the regulations to the satisfaction of the commissioner.
The bill will be effective in addressing issues identified by the Independent Commission Against Corruption by strengthening the regulation of security industry training. New South Wales continues to have the highest standards for security industry training to ensure quality and consistency in the provision of security services for businesses and the community. This legislation is another part of the suite of legislation that this Government has introduced to stamp out corruption and restore law and order to the streets of New South Wales. This Government introduced tougher consorting laws, gang laws, drive-by shooting laws and tattoo parlour laws, and this legislation adds to the suite of laws that are attacking criminals and organised crime groups to ensure that New South Wales is at the forefront of combating crime.
This bill is yet another example of the Liberal-Nationals Government fixing up the mess left to us by the previous Labor Government. This is another example of the New South Wales Government delivering on its 13300 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
promises and on its election commitments. As I stated earlier, wherever one goes throughout regional areas of New South Wales people are talking about what a great job this Government is doing and saying that the State was overdue to have a Government that fights for the battler, fights for the worker and fights for the people of New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [5.46 p.m.]: I support the Security Industry Amendment Bill 2012. The reforms will enhance the regulation of the security industry in regards to training, assessment and certification. The bill also introduces a number of measures to reduce red tape and streamline administrative processes. That is consistent with the New South Wales Government's State Plan and strategies as well as the O'Farrell Government's determination to increase the competitiveness of doing business in New South Wales, for example, through a 20 per cent reduction in red tape for both the business and broader community by June 2015. Under the Act an application for a licence must be accompanied by two written references vouching that the applicant is a fit and proper person to work in the security industry. Operational experience indicates that those provisions add significant time and cost to the making and processing of applications while not enhancing the quality or probity checking of applicants.
It has been suggested that the security industry has had to put up with red tape. The stoicism displayed by the industry in that regard has been compared to that of Marcus Aurelius. General written references of this nature are considered to be of limited value, particularly in the light of other substantial checks that are in place. Therefore, section 14 (3) (b) will be repealed to remove the requirement for written references. The NSW Police Force engaged Deloitte in 2010 to conduct a management review of the then security industry registry. The review examined opportunities to gain efficiencies by improving licensing processes and technology. It identified that where there have been no material changes in licensee circumstances, the reapplication process could be streamlined. Currently, licences cannot be renewed, but an application for a new licence may be made.
The Act currently stipulates the term of a licence to be five years—or such shorter period as prescribed by the regulations—from the day on which it comes into force unless it is surrendered or revoked or otherwise ceases to be in force. The bill will amend section 24 to provide for a licence renewal process, which will include the continuation of the authority of the old licence, subject to any further particulars required by the commissioner. There is also a provision for a penalty for late renewal. Streamlining licensing processes will enable a reduced wait time, and reducing red tape for applicants will result in efficiency improvements for the Security Licensing and Enforcement Directorate by lowering licence application processing volumes. Surely, this is a win for all and a sensible reform. I note the Opposition, pleasingly, is supporting the bill and this reform.
The bill also facilitates the restructure and realignment of the Security Licensing and Enforcement Directorate, as recommended by the management review, by giving civilians within the directorate the powers they need to conduct compliance audits on the security industry. The directorate will now have both the resources and powers it needs to effectively fulfil its licensing role and its expanded compliance functions. This will result in quicker processing of applications and enhanced customer service. Realignment of the directorate within the NSW Police State Crime Command also allows for closer ties with operational police who are investigating serious crime. The alignment also reflects the expanded regulatory and compliance scope of the directorate. I observe that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, and the Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Tweed, form a great team in the Police portfolio. This bill reflects their positive work for New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ANDREW GEE (Orange) [5.51 p.m.]: I thank the member for Davidson for that marvellous contribution. I note once again he has invoked in one of his speeches to this House the spirit of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. The member for Davidson is certainly a man of letters. It reminds me of some words Emperor Marcus Aurelius once said: "Each day provides its own gifts." In the same way, each day the O'Farrell Government provides New South Wales with the gift of legislation—wonderful reforming legislation that is transforming the great State of New South Wales. That is why I speak in support of the Security Industry Amendment Bill 2012. In 2009 the Independent Commission Against Corruption issued its final report on an investigation into allegations of corrupt conduct against a number of businesses which provide training to the New South Wales security industry. The report revealed corruption and poor quality in the provision and certification of security industry training.
Many of the amendments in the bill seek to implement the recommendations made by the Independent Commission Against Corruption to address the regulatory problems confronting the security industry. The measures will improve the effectiveness and integrity of assessment that is conducted for New South Wales 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13301
security licensing purposes. Currently, the Act and the regulation stipulate that the Commissioner of Police may determine the training standards that are required to be met by licence applicants, approve registered training organisations to deliver such training and assessment and impose conditions on such approvals and revoke or suspend such approvals. The regulation also provides for offences for persons that conduct an approved security industry training course without the police commissioner's approval and for approved registered training organisations that fail to comply with the conditions of approval imposed by the commissioner. The bill will preserve the operation of these provisions of the Act and regulations relating to the commissioner's functions.
These amendments will counter the unintended impact of the 1 July 2011 commencement of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 on the Commissioner of Police's functions with regard to the regulation of security industry training. The Commonwealth Act renders inoperative the sections of the New South Wales Security Industry Act 1997 and regulations that support police regulation of security industry training. The level of oversight required by the security training industry warrants the retention of regulation of registered training organisations by New South Wales over referring it to the national regulator. As provided by sections 10 and 11 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, the bill includes a declaration excluding security industry training so that the commissioner can continue to work towards implementing the Independent Commission Against Corruption's recommendations.
In response to the Independent Commission Against Corruption's recommendations, the commissioner will be able to impose further conditions on registered training organisations that have been approved to deliver training for licensing purposes. These conditions include a requirement for registered training organisations to use mandated assessment materials designed to ensure that competence is assessed in a consistent and auditable manner. Section 15 of the Act will be amended so that the commissioner may refuse a licence application supported by a training certificate that has not been issued in accordance with the commissioner's requirements.
Amendments also will provide that an application for any licence subclass may be refused if the applicant has not completed or satisfied the training instruction and assessment requirements prescribed by the regulations to the satisfaction of the commissioner. The bill is effective in addressing issues identified by the Independent Commission Against Corruption by strengthening the regulation of security industry training. New South Wales continues to have the highest standards for security industry training to ensure quality and consistency in the provision of security services for businesses and the community. This is another example of reforming legislation introduced by this very busy and hardworking O'Farrell Government. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.56 p.m.], in reply: A number of members have spoken today on the Security Industry Amendment Bill 2012. I acknowledge the member for Toongabbie, the member for Myall Lakes, the member for Davidson and the member for Orange. I even feel like thanking Marcus Aurelius for his contribution to the debate. I particularly thank the members representing the electorates of Davidson, Myall Lakes and Orange for their contributions. They obviously know their subject and have researched it. This bill is a great step forward for the security industry, bringing together the various aspects of the industry. The proposed changes to the regulation of the security industry have required extensive consultation with the relevant government agencies and industry representatives. Like many members in this place, I serve on a number of committees.
A cornerstone of the O'Farrell-Stoner Government is its ability to communicate with the wider community and key stakeholders so that we end up with common-sense legislation. That is the real strength and a great attribute of this Government. I hear it on the street, and I read about it in the local media. The security industry plays a vital role not only at venues but also in guarding iconic infrastructure such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge as well as army bases, airports and so on. Security is important, particularly in this ever-changing world. Acts of terrorism are becoming more commonplace across the world. We are fortunate in Australia that we have not experienced terrorist acts as have occurred in other countries. The fine men and women in the security industry are protecting the community and it is important that we implement changes and regulations to ensure their industry has transparency and ease of operation.
We on this side of the House are ever mindful of red tape and the extra cost it places on small businesses. It is important that the Government takes the time to make sure that these proposed reforms to the regulation of the security industry are effective. The member for Toongabbie commented on the time it has taken for this legislation to be brought before the House. It is important to get the legislation right so that we do not have to revisit it time and again. We do not want to destroy the industry; we want to foster and encourage it. 13302 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
As I said, it has been important that we speak to all key stakeholders, both government and non-government agencies, and those active players within the industry in order to get the legislation right. The Security Industry Amendment Bill 2012 is a great step forward for a great industry. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Motion by Mr Geoff Provest agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Council without amendment.
[Acting-Speaker (Mr Lee Evans) left the chair at 6.00 p.m. The House resumed at 7.00 p.m.]
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS ______
RURAL FIRE SERVICE AWARDS
Mrs TANYA DAVIES (Mulgoa) [7.00 p.m.]: On Sunday 17 June 2012 I represented the Hon. Michael Gallacher, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, at the Rural Fire Service Cumberland zone national medals and clasps and long service medals and clasps recognition ceremony. We celebrated the work of 14 Rural Fire Service volunteers, three of whom have given 25 years to the service. Not too many organisations see the level of volunteer service as does the Rural Fire Service, whose members across the State have given over 30, 40, 50 and even 60 years of dedicated voluntary service. Another impressive statistic revealed during the ceremony was that the recipients within the room had provided 252 years of dedicated service. We thanked and recognised also the support and backing offered to the volunteers by family and friends to enable them to do their job exceedingly well, sometimes for many years.
Two recipients received national medals on the day. National medals and clasps are presented to members in recognition of their years of diligent service—15, 25, 35, 45 years, et cetera—for going above and beyond what is expected of active members within their brigades. Justin Back received his medal for 17 years of service. Justin joined the Blaxland Rural Fire Service in August 1995. He was appointed deputy captain in 1997, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Justin has attended many major incidents, including many in the Blue Mountains region in 1997, 2000, 2001, 2007, 2009 and most recently in 2011, the Lithgow fires in 1997, the Wollondilly fires in 2005 and the Canberra fires in 2003, to name a few. Justin was task force commander for storm damage in Wyong and also Rural Fire Service liaison officer and commander for Blacktown storm damage.
Justin's proudest accomplishment throughout his time was developing a community safety group. He continuously promotes and encourages the role of community safety throughout brigades and the community. Shane Bryant was the other national medal recipient for 25 years service. Shane joined the Winmalee Rural Fire Brigade in 1975 and remained a member until 1979. In 1990 he joined the then NSW Bush Fire Council as a plant inspector and then joined the Regentville Brigade in 1996 as a volunteer. Shane attained qualifications to group leader and has made a full commitment to the Rural Fire Service. He has put time and effort into training zone volunteers and at brigade level. He is a NSW Rural Fire Service fire investigator and has travelled all over the State to assist other areas with fire investigations.
Long service medal recipients were Benjamin Keen, 12 years service as a member of Plumpton Rural Fire Brigades; Malcolm Breeze, 13 years service as a member of Communications Brigade; Scott Grinyer, 13 years service as a member of Schofields and Blaxland Ridge Rural Fire brigades; Pieter Van Boheeman, 14 years service as a member of Schofields and Round Corner brigades; Karen Back, 15 years service as a member of Communications Brigade and Blaxland Rural Fire Brigade; Adam Caruana, 15 years service as a member of Dubbo headquarters and Londonderry Rural Fire Brigade; Fredrick McLean, 17 years service as a member of Plumpton Rural Fire Brigade; and Ronald Green, 18 years service as a member of Castlereagh Rural Fire Brigade. 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13303
Recipients of long service medals and 1st Clasps were Garry Osbourne, 21 years service as a member of Erskine Park Rural Fire Brigade; Trudie Truswell, 22 years service as a member of Schofields and Taylors Flat Rural Fire Brigade; Rick Truswell, 25 years service as a member of Schofields and Taylors Flat Rural Fire Brigade; and Phillip Beath, for 25 years service as a member of Schofields Rural Fire Brigade. It was a wonderful morning where we celebrated and rewarded many hours and years of selfless sacrifice that these men and women have given to our community, particularly during times of great stress and crisis. It was an absolute pleasure to represent Minister Gallacher to shake the hands of the recipients, thank them for their dedicated service and wish them well as they continue to serve our community.
Mr PAUL TOOLE (Bathurst—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.05 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to congratulate the member for Mulgoa on attending this ceremony on behalf of the Minister to recognise the hard work of Rural Fire Service members and present awards for their service and dedication. The Rural Fire Service has over 70,000 volunteers in this State. These medal presentations are a way of praising and acknowledging their hard work. These people come from different backgrounds and all walks of life. Whatever event or incident they attend they are determined and show much courage and endurance. They serve not only their brigades but also their communities. Sometimes we may take them for granted but they also assist other agencies when they are called out to house fires, car accidents, et cetera. They are called upon to serve our communities in need.
HOUSING NSW AND MRS EDNA MOORE
Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [7.06 p.m.]: I advise the House of the extraordinary story of one of my constituents, Edna Moore, and the quite outrageous behaviour to which she has been subjected by Housing NSW. Mrs Moore lives in the suburb of Cartwright. She is a 73-year-old widow and has lived at her current address for 45 years. When she first moved there with her husband and very young daughter the landlord was the Housing Commission of New South Wales. Through various corporate alterations the landlord is now Housing NSW. The largest part of her life has been spent at this address. Since living there, she has raised three children, who all attended Cartwright Public School. In more than just a formal sense, this house has been her home for over 40 years. She has been an exemplary tenant not only always paying the rent but often paying it in advance. In the early, harder days sometimes the family would go without food to make sure they kept up to date with the rent.
The Housing Commission-Department of Housing-Housing NSW has done very little with the house. For example, the kitchen and cupboards are the same as those when the house was first built over 40 years ago. That is in contrast to other houses in the Green Valley area owned by Housing NSW which at various times have had new kitchens installed. Earlier this year, Mrs Moore received a letter from Housing NSW saying that a representative would come out and see if there was anything she needed. Someone came out, looked at the house and made notes and Mrs Moore was quietly hopeful that something might be done about the kitchen. Sometime later Mrs Moore received another letter, dated 16 May 2012, but the tone and style of this letter was very different. This letter said someone from her local housing office would visit her on 25 May. It continued:
The purpose of this visit is to inspect the property and discuss various tenancy issues. Please make sure that all animals are restrained during the visit.
A little further on the letter stated:
You can have a friend, advocate or support provider present during the visit. If you are not at home for this visit and you do not arrange another time, we may make an application for an access order to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. An access order will allow us to enter your property.
Of course, this threatening tone was very different to earlier letters. That visit did occur and there have been two separate discussions between Mrs Moore and representatives of Housing NSW. The long and the short of it is that Housing NSW wants Mrs Moore out of the house so it can flog it off to make money. Mrs Moore does not want to move and, frankly, why should she? She has lived in this house for 45 years, raised her family there and has her friends nearby—people like herself who moved in over 40 years ago when the suburb was first established and all the homes were owned by the then Housing Commission. It is not just that she wants to stay in that particular house, but Housing NSW officers to whom she has been talking give her no certainty that they can move her somewhere else in Liverpool, let alone Cartwright. One suggestion was that she could go to Campbelltown. I am sure there is nothing particularly wrong with Campbelltown, but it is not where she has lived for 45 years, where she has raised her family and where she has her friends. 13304 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
She has looked after this house and she is fearful that her reward for doing that will be a move to premises of a lesser standard. The best the Housing NSW officer could do was say, "I'll try to get you something half decent." That hardly fills Mrs Moore, or me for that matter, with confidence. One of the most unsatisfactory aspects of this situation is the reason they want her to move; it is simply to sell the property to the highest bidder. It is not to redevelop the site to create more social housing. It is not to house people in even more necessitous circumstances than is Mrs Moore. It is simply to get some money. It seems to me a case of putting money ahead of people. A further concern relates to some of the comments apparently made by Housing NSW officials. One of them explained that it was a good idea to sell this block because the two neighbouring properties were privately owned and thus there would be consistency in ownership patterns. That, of course, is unmitigated nonsense. All of the Green Valley estate was originally owned by the Housing Commission. It is now widely accepted that that form of development is quite inappropriate.
The best contemporary view is that public and private housing should be intermixed and housing dispersed. Selling off public housing because privately owned properties adjoin it is wrong. It is opposed by every serious commentator and writer on these issues. Mrs Moore has a number of medical conditions. Her doctor is firmly of the view that she should remain where she is. To quote from a report from her general practitioner dated 26 May 2012, "A change or relocation to another place would have adverse effects on her mental and physical wellbeing. I suggest that she should be left in the same house." I call upon the State Government to stop the process of forcing Mrs Moore to leave her home of 45 years. The Government should not behave like a slum landlord. Mrs Moore should be able to remain living in her home in Cartwright.
BATHURST TO SYDNEY RAIL SERVICE
Mr PAUL TOOLE (Bathurst—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.11 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to speak about a pre-election commitment that will be delivered for the electorate of Bathurst: a daily return train service from Bathurst to Sydney. Premier Barry O'Farrell visited the Bathurst electorate a few weeks ago and announced that the election commitment that was given in January 2011 of a daily return train service from Bathurst to Sydney would be delivered. This is fantastic news for the community, which has been pushing for this service for quite some time. History shows the committee has been lobbying for 16 years for this service. It has lobbied well in excess of seven transport Ministers. The committee organised a petition and within a couple of weeks it had gathered 8,000 signatures from people who wanted this service introduced. The service will come into operation in October this year. The return rail service is the result of the Minister for Transport conducting an audit of rolling stock across New South Wales.
The electorate of Bathurst had been told there was no rolling stock and therefore it could not have the service. Following an audit an Endeavour train was found sitting in the yard at Lithgow unused. It had been used for a number of years for spare parts. The train will be refurbished at a cost of up to $7 million. Once the diesel Endeavour train is refurbished there will be a recurring expense of $1 million per year. The train will have up to 200 seats, the carriages will be fitted with toilets and there will be dedicated spaces for luggage. The current CityRail ticket prices and concessions will apply to the service, including pensioner excursion tickets. That is wonderful. The city of Bathurst is a progressive modern town and this demonstrates recognition of that fact and the importance of our region. It fits in perfectly with the council's 2036 strategy for the future of Bathurst. It makes Bathurst more accessible. The service will leave Bathurst at 5.40 a.m. and arrive at central by 9.30 a.m. It will leave in the afternoon by 5.55 p.m. and be back in Bathurst by 9.50 p.m.
In the past people had to catch a bus to Lithgow to catch the CityRail trains. But it is difficult for the elderly, those who have a disability or those who have young families to get on and off the bus to access that rail service at Lithgow. The service will have a maximum of six stops included in the timetable. The Minister has indicated that three of those stops will be for the people of Lithgow, Mount Victoria and Katoomba and another couple of stops will be announced in the coming weeks. I congratulate the committee members of the Rail Action Bathurst Group who were persistent in their efforts: chairman of the committee John Hollis; Margaret Hollis; councillor Ian North; councillor Tracey Carpenter; Christine O'Rourke; Chris O'Rourke; and John Slabaugh. They never gave up. They will be lining up for tickets on the inaugural train trip to Sydney. Several names have been suggested for the train. One suggestion is the "Bathurst Bullet". With a minimum of six stops, the community cannot wait for the fast daily return train service to begin.
Mr TROY GRANT (Dubbo—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.16 p.m.]: I congratulate and thank the member for Bathurst on bringing to the attention of the House the fulfilment of this election commitment. This is another demonstration of a significant need within regional New South Wales that was ignored for far too long. This Government congratulates those on the ground within the community who fought tirelessly and did 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13305
not let the issue go. The community has been rewarded by their election of a most outstanding member, who has delivered on an election commitment. It is another example of how the O'Farrell-Stoner Government, together with the Minister for Transport, is honouring election commitments. New South Wales and the Central West suffered from so many broken promises under the Labor Government. Finally, they have a Government that delivers on its election commitments. Congratulations to the member from Bathurst.
MARRICKVILLE GOLF, SPORTING AND COMMUNITY CLUB
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT (Marrickville) [7.17 p.m.]: I will speak about the Marrickville Golf, Sporting and Community Club on behalf of all of the supporters of the club. Marrickville Golf, Sporting and Community Club is a jewel of green space in my electorate that dates back to the 1940s. I believe that the aunt and uncle of renowned cricketer Adam Gilchrist—Aunty Glad and Uncle Harold—were founding members of the club, which provides an 18-hole golf course for members and non-members. It is located on the banks of the Cooks River and currently has some 775 members. That figure has remained steady over the past three years, which is no mean feat when you consider the other attractions that are available for people. The Marrickville Golf, Sporting and Community Club is one of the busiest clubs in Sydney. Every year 25,000 games are played by public players. That is one of the attributes of the club: it is accessible to everybody.
The 18-hole golf course at Marrickville is only 3.7 kilometres long. A game of golf can be played there in less than three hours, in comparison to a private golf course, which is typically 6.5 kilometres long, where you could spend all day on a game. The wonderful thing about the short course at Marrickville is that it is perfect for families who are busy and have more than one activity to do in a day. It is only nine kilometres from the Sydney central business district, which is a rarity for an 18-hole golf course. The golf course also provides valuable green space in a built-up area; the Cooks River walking and cycling path runs along the opposite side of the river from the golf course. Walking along it you look across the river to the green of the golf course. It is indeed a beautiful view, and it is much appreciated by all who use the cycle and walking path.
Recently, all those who know and love the golf club and all it provides for Marrickville and the broader community have been deeply disturbed by reports that the course should be reduced from 18 holes to nine holes. The recommendation of Marrickville Council's recently commissioned Community Recreational Needs Survey to reduce the course from 18 holes to 9 holes has upset the many supporters and users of the golf club and golf course. The results of the Marrickville Council's survey also find that the golf club is a "semi-private golf course". This is in fact not correct. The President of Marrickville Golf Club, Eddie Larkis, has responded saying that the club is definitely a public golf course and encourages social players. He also has advised that on a weekly basis there are as many social players as members playing golf. That is one of a number of concerning inaccuracies in the survey.
Marrickville Golf Club is not just a sporting club; it also plays an integral role in the community and in promoting golf to a broader audience. The club has been the hosting golf club for Seniors Week events for the whole of New South Wales for the past three years. The golf club was selected for this by the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, and it does a fantastic job. It will also soon start the Jack Newton Junior Golf Cadet program through local primary schools, helping to boost junior membership. The club is hoping to produce a golfing champion. It also will introduce golf to a new generation of young people, encouraging and assisting them to become more active and providing them with the opportunity to learn a new sport. The club frequently puts on charity days and special events days. It has an excellent reputation as a jazz club on Sunday afternoons. In fact, it has been voted one of the best jazz venues in Sydney. The club will be increasing its live entertainment on Friday nights and has a number of social events for inner west choirs and various social community groups.
The Marrickville Golf, Sporting and Community Club has a number of high-profile supporters, such as Grahame Bond, a well-known Marrickville identity. I spoke recently at a Back to Marrickville event for Grahame at which his book Jack of All Trades, Mistress of One was launched. Members of the House would well recall that Grahame was made famous by playing Aunty Jack in the 1970s. He grew up in Marrickville and played golf at the club as a kid. Another high-profile supporter is pop singer and local resident Damien Leith. This is a community club, not just a golf club; it welcomes everyone, not just members. I would like to acknowledge Juliet Barr, Eddie Larkis and others for their passionate support of the Marrickville Golf, Sporting and Community Club and their relentless drive to make sure that this exceptional part of Marrickville and Dulwich Hill remains as it is—a beautiful open green space to be shared and enjoyed by everyone. 13306 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
NEWCASTLE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Mr TIM OWEN (Newcastle) [7.22 p.m.]: It is with delight that I stand here this evening and say that the rejuvenation of Newcastle's central business district is one step closer. The New South Wales State Government's urban renewal body, Landcom, this week purchased two-thirds of the GPT Group's Newcastle city centre landholdings, which is the first key step towards the revitalisation of the Newcastle central business district. Landcom's purchase and project agreement with GPT means that the major city urban renewal project remains intact and will act as a catalyst for the renewal of adjoining areas. Landcom's purchase from GPT will see the two companies enter into a project delivery agreement for the renewal of four blocks of the Newcastle central business district between Hunter, Perkins, Newcommen and King streets. The Chief Executive Officer of GPT, Michael Cameron, said yesterday:
The failure of previous governments to commit to significant infrastructure investment in Newcastle restricted GPT from delivering its proposed development scheme in 2009, leading GPT to redirect its resources into other opportunities. This partnership allows GPT to support Landcom in its goals for Newcastle.
The agreement between Landcom and GPT will see the two organisations work together to develop a plan for renewing the site area, including addressing infrastructure issues and generating third party investment in the site. A mixture of residential, niche commercial and speciality retail is envisaged. This project is of such complexity that it requires significant coordination. Intervention by government is the only way we could make this happen. The Property Council of Australia this week welcomed the announcement, stating that it believes a critical deadlock on central business district redevelopment has now been broken. The New South Wales Regional Director, Andrew Fletcher, said:
Sometimes it takes government to take a leadership position and broker deals which unlock the vast economic potential of our city.
That is exactly what this Government is about. He continued:
The fact the government have driven third party investments proves they want an outcome which delivers a liveable and vibrant city. There is no doubt this announcement will be a boost to confidence in the Newcastle CBD and encourage new investment.
Also welcoming the announcement was the Hunter Business Chamber, with the chamber's Chief Executive Officer, Kristen Keegan, stating;
The issue of renewal of the inner city has long been a hot topic ... This is precisely the sort of collaboration between private enterprise and government that this region needs.
Newcastle Lord Mayor John Tate has welcomed the announcement and is quoted as saying:
This is good news; there's no doubt about that.
As the member for Newcastle, I believe that the momentum will continue, and that this is but the first step towards Newcastle reaching its full potential as Australia's seventh-largest city. I say with confidence that this Government is committed to Newcastle. This view is supported by the New South Wales planning Minister, Brad Hazzard, who said earlier this week:
This project presents a great opportunity for Newcastle and is not just of State but national importance. Particularly, it is important for Landcom as it moves into its new role as Urbangrowth NSW.
The government 100 per cent supports any steps that show Newcastle is a much loved city with great potential.
The Minister said he had been recently reminded that the review work was started under Labor 20 years ago, and that in only 15 months this Government was a heck of a lot further advanced on this project than Labor ever envisaged it would get to, or even tried to get to. Having been involved in the negotiations between Landcom and GPT over a number of months, I congratulate the chief executive officers and boards of both parties for coming to an agreement that will be the catalyst for urban renewal and investment in this great city. The partnership between Landcom and GPT establishes a structure to deliver an excellent outcome for Newcastle and the Hunter community generally, and I am sure the people of this city will join me in welcoming this fantastic announcement.
Mr PAUL TOOLE (Bathurst—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.26 p.m.]: I commend the member for Newcastle for his efforts on behalf of the Newcastle district. I have visited the Newcastle area on many 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13307
occasions. For the 20 years that I was going there I saw a central business district that was dying. The reason for its reinvigoration is that it has a local member who is energetic and enthusiastic and demonstrates leadership. He has lobbied hard the planning Minister, the Hon. Brad Hazzard, who has worked with the member's local community, local business, the business chamber and the council to transfer the Newcastle central business district into a residential, commercial and specialty retail precinct. The member for Newcastle is delivering outcomes. He is not just out there doing the talk; he is actually doing the hard yards with his community. His community can be very proud that it has someone like him representing it.
JAMES STREET EXTENSION, PENRITH
Mr STUART AYRES (Penrith) [7.27 p.m.]: I wish to inform the House about a particular road project of interest to the people of Penrith: the James Street extension. I bring this road project to the attention of the House because it is a particularly important road project for the future growth of the city of Penrith. The city of Penrith is one of those growth regions on the edge of greater Sydney. On the western edge of what is a city of cities is Penrith, a regional city. It is particularly important that this city, which I am lucky enough to represent in this House, have the opportunity to grow. The Government has backed the growth and growth potential of the city of Penrith with a number of projects, but one that we need to work towards is the James Street extension.
For the benefit of members in the House I should say that this is a bypass road that allows a number of cars to leave the file of traffic through the inner streets of the Penrith central business district. The road feeds into one of the primary north-south roads, Castlereagh Road, creating an unfortunate dogleg that is the frustration of many residents of the Penrith region—where James Street intersects with Castlereagh Road. Only very briefly does it intersect again with High Street, or what many would refer to as the Great Western Highway. So in a very small distance there is a convergence of both east-west traffic and north-south traffic. The intersection requires some adjustment and some sort of upgrade, and that will most likely be achieved by the extension of James Street. It is critically important for the future growth of Penrith that this project goes ahead.
Tonight we heard other members speak about Landcom and urban growth. Penrith is the recipient of leadership in that area. On the north side of the Penrith train station on the old Penrith army land is a very innovative development by Landcom that will bring more medium-density type accommodation to Penrith and ensure that it is well located for services and a commuter hub. The development will also include the introduction of terrace-style housing, which will be quite revolutionary and will change the way we view urban development across western Sydney. For this development to work we need to make sure that our north-south transport routes in Penrith work in the most effective way possible. One way to do that is through the extension of James Street, which will take the pressure off the intersection between James Street and the Great Western Highway.
The O'Farrell Government has also committed to a new bridge over the Nepean River for pedestrians and cyclists. The James Street extension will feed into the existing Victoria Bridge and that bridge will continue to have quite a heavy flow of traffic. It is also worth noting that the O'Farrell Government has established the Office of Penrith Lakes to oversee the transformation of the Penrith Lakes sandmining works into a recreational facility. Many members will be familiar with the Sydney International Rowing Centre, which operates on the Penrith Lakes. That is a small indication of wonderful things that can take place at Penrith Lakes. Once again, for us to fulfil the potential of Penrith Lakes, the north-south access along Castlereagh Road we will need to overcome this bottleneck and pinch point.
That is also critically important for many of the residents in the electorate of Londonderry, who will travel along the north-south streets to access services in the Penrith central business district. I am sure that my colleague the member for Londonderry would be supportive of any investment to ensure that the James Street extension goes ahead. In conclusion, I invite the Minister for Roads and Ports to come out to Penrith to have a look at the number of road projects that the Government has already committed to and which are underway— projects such as Victoria Bridge and the Werrington arterial work. I would also like the Minister for Roads and Ports to see some of the challenges that exist for a growth city such as Penrith, and one of the primary challenges in relation to roads is the James Street extension. I look forward to seeing the Minister out in Penrith meeting the local residents and hearing their views on how we can improve roads and traffic in Penrith.
Private members' statements concluded. 13308 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
WORLD REFUGEE DAY
Matter of Public Importance
Mr NICK LALICH (Cabramatta) [7.33 p.m.]: I note and acknowledge that today marks World Refugee Day. In this day and age it has sadly become politically fashionable for pundits, shock-jocks and politicians to criticise the world's most persecuted people—those who are driven in desperation to look for a new life and a fresh start. Although the word "refugee" has sadly become a dirty word to some, and the issue of boat people is often trotted out around election time to scare the electorate, this House should acknowledge the pain and suffering, the sacrifice and risk taken by refugees as they try to gain a new start for their families. I am proud to say that my family came from a refugee background. In 1948 my family came to Australia from Egypt, where we had spent four years in an international refugee camp with refugees from all over Europe. Life was hard in those camps in the middle of the desert outside of Cairo. We were forced to live in tents out of necessity.
Access to water was from single taps spread about 100 metres apart throughout the campsite and sand was in our food and in our clothes—it was everywhere. It was a terrible way to live. Life was not easy for mums and dads at that time. My mum lost three children during that period to sickness, but we were not the only family to suffer in that way; many families suffered similar fates. After the Second World War immigration policies in Australia changed and the Chifley Labor Government brought my family to Australia. The journey was not easy. My family arrived via Melbourne and spent time in two immigration camps, one at Bonegilla and the other at Uranquinty, just outside Wagga Wagga. Finally we settled in south-west Sydney and we have lived there ever since. My family left the former Yugoslavia due to war and famine, looking for a better life. My father would never have guessed that one day this new country would provide the opportunity for one of his sons to sit in the oldest Parliament in Australia and represent his new home.
In my time as Mayor of Fairfield City I was fortunate to preside over citizenship ceremonies at which I bestowed citizenship upon many fellow refugees and immigrants with immense pride. I told them my story and the stories of some of my fellow councillors to inspire them with the great opportunities available in this great land. My hope is that they instil in their children the same can-do philosophy we all share. The theme of World Refugee Day 2012 is "Refugees have no choice. You do". In the spirit of this message, let this House be a shining example of tolerance and acceptance towards the new cultures that have come to our shores, often out of desperation and necessity. To quote United Nations Secretary-General, Ban-Ki Moon:
We must work together to mobilize the political will and leadership to prevent and end the conflicts that trigger refugee flows ... Despite budget constraints everywhere, we must not turn away from those in need. Refugees leave because they have no choice. We must choose to help.
The United Nation's Refugee Agency, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], has marked World Refugee Day 2012 with the rollout of its campaign entitled Dilemmas, which depicts some of the tough choices facing refugees, helping the public to empathise with and understand their dilemma. The figures speak for themselves: Every minute eight people somewhere in the world leave everything behind to escape war, persecution or terror. At the start of 2011 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had identified more than 33.9 million people globally who were considered vulnerable. I acknowledge the hard work and continued contribution of the Refugee Council of Australia in supporting refugees and providing assistance in their transition. It is not easy to give up and move to a new country, but the services provided by the Refugee Council of Australia go a long way to ensuring the transition goes as smoothly as possible. I congratulate the 140 organisational members and more than 500 individual members of the Refugee Council of Australia on doing such a fantastic job of supporting our new refugees. I know this House supports all refugees to this country.
Mr MARK COURE (Oatley) [7.37 p.m.]: I acknowledge the member for Cabramatta for raising this important issue tonight. Refugee Week is Australia's peak activity that informs the public about refugees and celebrates positive contributions made by refugees to Australian society. Refugee Week has been celebrated in Australia since 1986 and the Refugee Council of Australia has been responsible for the coordination of Refugee Week in New South Wales since 2005. Refugee Week provides a platform on which positive images of refugees can be promoted in order to create a culture of welcome throughout the country. The ultimate aim of this celebration is to create a better understanding of different communities and cultures, and to encourage successful integration enabling refugees to live in safety and to continue making a valuable contribution to Australia.
World Refugee Day is celebrated on 20 June annually. This year's theme is "Refugees have no choice. You do". Today is a day on which we should all reflect on our responsibilities and duty to others. Every day 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13309
most people in New South Wales make thousands of choices for themselves and their families. Refugees around the world, in most cases if not all, do not have that freedom to choose; they are fleeing their homes and unthinkable violence. In New South Wales it is the statutory function of the Community Relations Commission to promote community harmony and to assist and assess the performance of public institutions in implementing the principles of multiculturalism. The principles of multiculturalism, which were legislated in 2000, were developed on a bipartisan basis. I believe the implementation of these principles in programs across our State helps to restore choice to those who come to Australia fleeing persecution. For instance, when refugees flee their homelands in the hope of finding freedom from persecution, and safety and security for them and their families, New South Wales policies meet this hope with the decree that people of different religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds are free to profess, practice and maintain their linguistic, religious, racial and ethnic heritage.
The principles of multiculturalism in New South Wales seek to ensure that all individuals have the greatest possible opportunity to make use of and to participate in recent and relevant activities and programs and take advantage of services provided by government. Principles of multiculturalism help to develop citizenship so that all individuals have the greatest possible opportunity to contribute to and participate in public life. As part of our commitment to access, equity and inclusion—including of refugees—the Government has formed ministerial consultative committees. Those committees were established to advise the New South Wales Government on the needs, interests and concerns of multicultural community groups. It is an unprecedented attempt to engage in a serious and structured dialogue with multicultural communities and it shows that we approach those communities seriously and with respect.
There is always an opportunity to improve our services to some of the most vulnerable in our community. The recent Auditor General's report entitled "Settling Humanitarian Entrants in New South Wales" revealed some areas for better service delivery and planning. In response to this the New South Wales Immigration Settlement Planning Committee is under review, with a to view to better coordinating the settlement of refugees in New South Wales and the responses of the New South Wales Government. Celebrating Australia's multiculturalism is critical in a society where we all have our cultural, religious and political differences. However, we all meet on a profound understanding—choosing to call Australia our home. Our cultural diversity is our strength. People who have come to New South Wales fleeing persecution and seeking a new beginning have over the years contributed enormously to every aspect of our society and our economy. Those people are an asset and an example to us all.
Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield) [7.42 p.m.]: The practice of granting asylum to people fleeing persecution dates back to the earliest hallmarks of civilisation. Research has found texts over 3,500 years old that speak of displaced persons being taken in under the ancient civilisations of the Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians. It is with great pride that I speak in debate on this matter of public importance as the member for Fairfield. Fairfield is a melting pot of cultural diversity that traditionally has been seen as a starting point for refugees that have come to Australia fleeing persecution and looking to start a new life. The Fairfield local government area is one of the most diverse in Australia. Over 50 per cent of people in the area come from non-English speaking backgrounds. There are different nationalities, backgrounds and cultures; yet we all come together to celebrate diversity. This includes opening our doors and extending our arms to new migrant communities and, notably today, refugees who have come here for a new start.
According to figures released by the United Nations on 18 June, some of the world's poorest nations were among the most generous in welcoming people seeking asylum in 2011. Of the 1.02 million people who were registered or recognised as refugees in 2011, the largest numbers were received by nations in Africa and the Middle East, including Liberia, Kenya, Tunisia, Ethiopia, South Sudan and Yemen. The 2011 global trends document released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees shows that in 2011 Australia recognised 5,726 asylum seekers as refugees. That represents 0.56 per cent of the global total for individual and group refugee recognition. Paul Power, chief executive officer of the Refugee Council of Australia, said Australia's performance in refugee protection in 2011 was positive.
The transition to a new life, culture and opportunity is not always the easiest thing for our newest Australians. That is why there are important support services in place to assist. Locally we have the Fairfield Migrant Resource Centre that works as part of the Cabramatta Community Centre in providing the support and transitional services that are so important to new arrivals and their families. I, too, acknowledge the good work of the Refugee Council of Australia in promoting humane and sensible policies when it comes to refugee issues, and for being strong advocates on behalf of refugees and refugee groups to the Federal Government by providing these groups with a strong voice of reason. By raising awareness of the plight of refugees the council 13310 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
is helping to get rid of the negative stereotypes that shock jocks employ when they beat up issues such as boat people. I wish all our newest Australians a happy Refugee Week and wish them all the best for this new chapter in their lives.
Mr STUART AYRES (Penrith) [7.45 p.m.], by leave: I thank members for allowing me to contribute to debate on this motion. As representatives of the people of New South Wales it is critical for us to recognise the importance of Refugee Day and Refugee Week. We must recognise also the contribution that many people from diverse backgrounds make to our State. A couple of weeks ago I was extremely privileged to attend the second Whitlam Institute oration that was given by former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. Any student of Australian political history would see the irony in Malcolm Fraser giving the Whitlam Institute oration. But the evening demonstrated that, for all the combative nature that exists in politics, people's strength of ideals and their passion for this country can overcome political differences. A recurring theme of the evening was the work of former Prime Ministers Whitlam and Fraser regarding refugees. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser said that we need to remove ourselves from the race to the bottom when it comes to our treatment of refugees in this country. If we had a different refugee policy in the period after the Vietnam War we would be a lesser country. We would have missed out on the many contributions made by people who have come to this country under dire circumstances.
A number of people across Sydney and New South Wales have benefitted from our quality refugee policy since the end of the Second World War, through to the Vietnam War and today as we witness people escaping the tyranny and oppression of various regimes across the globe. It would be a sorry day if we turned our backs on people who find safe harbour on the shores of Australia. It also would be a sorry day if we turned our back on the words of our national anthem in which we tell people who come across the sea that we have boundless plains to share. It is critical for this House to recognise the important contribution that refugees make to our society. When both sides of politics push aside the theatre of Parliament, they often find a way to work together to navigate their way through appropriate immigration and refugee policies. This issue does not normally come up for debate in this House, but I am sure that all members support equality in immigration and refugee policies.
Mr NICK LALICH (Cabramatta) [7.48 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members for the electorates of Oatley, Fairfield and Penrith for their contributions to debate on Refugee Week 2012. Today is Refugee Day and 16 to 23 June is Refugee Week. Events are happening across Australia to acknowledge and to raise awareness about the plight of refugees. With 58 events registered in New South Wales and 200 nationally, there is ample opportunity for members of the public to learn about our newest Australians. For further information on the events, or on how to become active, people should visit the website www.refugecouncil.org.au, check out the activities, and see how they can become involved.
In conclusion, I am very proud of my refugee background. I am proud of what refugees have achieved. I am equally proud of the contribution made by so many families to this wonderful country of ours. I ask people to think about what it is like to be a refugee. I remember when I went to live in New Zealand for 12 months. I was petrified of going to New Zealand, even though it is a country that is only a two-and-a-half-hour flight away. I went there as a young person to spend some time and to have a good time, but going to a country where I could understand the people, I knew the culture and I knew the language is a very different from going to a country such as Germany or Africa where people do not speak the language that I speak.
I ask members to imagine the fear in the hearts and minds of refugees when they migrate to countries to make new life starts, particularly when they do not understand the language or the culture and the traditions are different. That is certainly the case for African people. I know the problems that African people experience when they come to this country, because it has a totally different culture. Yet they come to this country to make a new start. It is understandable that some of them end up in trouble, because cultures can be worlds apart. However, we must remind ourselves that these people take an enormous risk. What for? Because of the threat of death, famine, or violence from people in their own country. The threat of violence does not come from other groups.
The refugees have to get out in order to save their families and their children. As I said previously, my mother lost three children, but it was the price that had to be paid to get out of the country that we did not want to live in anymore, did not have any faith in anymore and to start a new life in a new country. They were daunting times. However, when I was the Mayor of Cabramatta and performed citizenship ceremonies I could see the refugees were grateful. I told them to tell their stories and to say, "We can do it. Never say you can't do 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13311
anything. If you are given the opportunity to be a mayor, take it. If you are given an opportunity to be a State member, take it. You can make it." We can all make it because this wonderful country, Australia, gives us the opportunity, the know-how and the wherewithal to be able to make it.
Discussion concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS ______
THE OUTBACK ORAL TREATMENT AND HEALTH PROGRAM
DUBBO ROYAL FLYING DOCTOR SERVICE
Mr TROY GRANT (Dubbo—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.51 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House a wonderful program. The Outback Oral Treatment and Health program, or TOOTH, is operated by the Royal Flying Doctor Service. We all know the vital role played by the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Recently that message was reinforced when I spent quite a lot of time at the service's Dubbo base. As part of National Volunteer Week I took the opportunity to thank Royal Flying Doctor Service volunteers at the base. The Outback Oral Treatment and Health program was officially launched by me, and I was very proud to do so. The Outback Oral Treatment and Health program has been made possible by a unique partnership between the Investec Foundation, the Gonski Foundation and the Royal Flying Doctor Service South-East Section. Each partner has recognised the need to urgently address dental issues in rural and remote areas.
The Outback Oral Treatment and Health program will conduct 256 dental clinics and dental therapy clinics in its first year in the remote western New South Wales communities of Bourke, Collarenebri, Goodooga and Lightning Ridge. Half those clinics will be for children. It has been estimated that 1,000 school-age children in north-western New South Wales have had irreversible tooth decay. Dr Hendrik Lai, who recently joined the Royal Flying Doctor Service as the dental surgeon on its new dental care program, was shocked at the level of tooth decay he is seeing in his first clinics. He said that the level of tooth decay he saw in some remote New South Wales communities was a lot greater than he expected, and actually worse even than in some developing countries. The program is part of a larger plan to provide a range of primary healthcare services from the Royal Flying Doctor Service's Dubbo base.
The Outback Oral Treatment and Health program will be the first primary healthcare service to operate from the base, which recently underwent a $1.6 million upgrade. The newly launched program not only will provide oral health care but also will mentor rural dental and dental therapy students through collaborations between the Royal Flying Doctor Service and key university partners, including the Charles Sturt University, the Griffith University and the University of Sydney. My visit to the service's Dubbo base brought home to me the invaluable contribution made by Royal Flying Doctor Service volunteers and the volunteer efforts contributed right across my electorate. Volunteers are to be commended for the time and energy they commit to a range of local activities. Earlier in this House I made it clear that volunteers are the backbone of our community. Without their work many of our sporting clubs, organisations and services simply would not exist. By volunteering these community-spirited people are playing a significant role in strengthening our local community.
I acknowledge on the record the contribution made by one volunteer who is involved in so many organisations but primarily with the Royal Flying Doctor Service; that is, Judy Jakins, a former member of the Legislative Council and the first Nationals woman elected to the New South Wales Parliament. Judy Jakins has made an immeasurable contribution to all the wonderful volunteer groups throughout Dubbo, but the contribution she has made to the Royal Flying Doctor Service is outstanding. In my humble opinion the road that leads to the base should be named Jakins Drive in recognition of the contribution Judy Jakins has made. I thank her for it. The Royal Flying Doctor Service counts on volunteers such as Judy Jakins to minimise administration costs and to ensure that more of its fundraising dollar goes directly towards providing health care for those who live in regional areas.
Recently I also took the opportunity to thank long-time volunteers Jack and Ellen Stanmore. Jack, who is a Dubbo resident, was rescued as a premature baby by an early flying doctor pilot and pioneer aviator, Nancy Bird Walton. Ms Walton undertook one of the first air ambulance missions when she flew a medical evacuation in 1938 for Jack, who had just been born at the Ivanhoe hospital in the Far West of New South Wales. Jack weighed only 1.5 kilograms and at that time was not expected to live. The fledgling Ivanhoe hospital did not have the equipment to treat a delicate premature baby with breathing difficulties. However, we have come a 13312 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
long way in the provision of healthcare services in regional areas of New South Wales. The Minister for Health, the Hon. Jillian Skinner, and her wonderful team—Alice Hardy, John McCormack and Adam Zarth and others—have made a significant contribution. I thank them and I thank the Royal Flying Doctor Service.
Mr PAUL TOOLE (Bathurst—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.56 p.m.]: I commend the member for Dubbo for the hard work he does for his community and for acknowledging the hard work done by volunteers in the Dubbo electorate. I make the point that, while the member for Dubbo spoke about the Outback Oral Treatment and Health program and the Royal Flying Doctor Service to acknowledge all the good work and hard work that is being done, we must remember that in Dubbo, other places in the Central West and places right throughout New South Wales, communities pride themselves on their volunteer work. It pulls communities together.
Volunteers contribute a great deal of their time. They spend countless hours in dedicated service to others in the community. The range of volunteer work spans lending support during a natural disaster to helping a single family in a crisis. I note that the member for Dubbo recognises volunteers in his community on his blog site. He is getting the message out that volunteers are not going without thanks for their hard work. They do not ask for thanks, but their contributions are enormous. I also congratulate the member for Dubbo for recognising Dubbo volunteers during his statement tonight.
POTTSVILLE INDEPENDENT GROCERS OF AUSTRALIA STORE
Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.57 p.m.]: Once again, I am 100 per cent for the great Tweed electorate and, once again, I bring good news to the House. It relates to John Wightman who runs the local Independent Grocers of Australia [IGA] in the great suburb of Pottsville, which is known to local people as the Potty. I will take it slowly because this is an important announcement: The Pottsville IGA store is number one in Australia. GapBusters, which is an independent audit organisation, has named Pottsville IGA the number one store across Australia's 826 Independent Grocers of Australia stores. The audit involved checks on every aspect of running the Pottsville IGA. The store was judged on its performance, products, advertising, health and safety and community service. Spot checks were conducted in every department. The final report revealed 100 per cent compliance. We are very proud to have John and his crew in Pottsville.
It would be remiss of me if I did not nominate a few of the great IGA workers. Ali and Col are members of the administration team. Lucas is the operations manager. Debbie, Mel and Shirley are in the delicatessen. Mr Acting-Speaker Barilaro is from an Italian background. I know that he has a warm place in his heart—or should that be his stomach—for the delicatessen. Joy is the fresh food produce manager. Coming from regional New South Wales I know that fresh produce is important. Pam is the dairy and freezer manager and Debbie and Katie are grocery supervisors. Another Katie is the night fill manager, which is important in the organisation. The IGA also has a great trainee program.
Pottsville IGA, which is a tremendous business, employs local people of different ages. I am impressed by the number of community organisations it supports: Tweed Coast Rural Fire Brigade, Pottsville Beach Neighbourhood Centre, Cabarita Surf Life Saving Club, Pottsville Neighbourhood Watch, Pippies Early Childhood Centre, Pottsville Primary School, Feros Care, Seabreeze Community Aged Care and St Mary Ambrose Friendship. It also supports the North Star Social Club, the Tweed Coast Rotary Club, Bok School of Dance, which is important in the local area, the Tweed Coast Tiger Juniors and the Pottsville cricket team. Recently IGA sponsored all the senior awards at the Pottsville Cricket Club awards presentation. Mick Granger, an outstanding bowler, won the seniors award.
Recently the IGA presented awards also to the Pottsville under 12s cricket team. There is a list a mile long of what the IGA puts back into the community. As the grocery world is dominated by two major giants that receive a lot of criticism, it is refreshing to know there are many IGA stores. The member for Menai and the member for Pittwater informed me that they have great IGA stores in their electorates. I am sure the member for Bathurst and the member for Dubbo also have IGA stores in their electorates. IGA stores look after the local people and others who shop there. Regional members would be aware that it is difficult to find employment in small country towns. Unemployment in these areas often is 2 per cent higher than it is in metropolitan areas.
IGA stores employ local people, including local kids. They have traineeships and sponsor local schools and local sporting groups. They promote the great idea that if they keep the community strong their businesses will be strong. I take my hat off to John and his crew at Pottsville or, as the locals call it, the Potty. It is a great store. It always has outdoor markets and it is always looking for that extra edge. It supports our local 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13313
communities. The O'Farrell-Stoner Government is committed to removing red tape. Recently it appointed a Commissioner for Small Business, which will improve small businesses and which in turn will support our local communities. I am sure that the Pottsville IGA would stand beside me and say that it was 100 per cent for the Tweed.
Mr PAUL TOOLE (Bathurst—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.02 p.m.]: The member for Tweed is 100 per cent right: the IGA is a wonderful independent grocer organisation that is servicing our communities, especially in regional centres such as Dubbo, Bathurst, Orange, West Wyalong, Blayney, Forbes and Grenfell. The IGA serves people right across this State. As the member for Tweed said, it is a large employer in our communities. Bathurst is getting a brand new store, which will be the third IGA store in my electorate. The Bernardi family is investing $5 million in my electorate, which will create about 80 local jobs. As the member for Tweed said, the IGA also is community minded, in that it gives back to local organisations and it sponsors sporting events. The enthusiasm of the member for Tweed demonstrates how IGA stores benefit this State and in particular regional New South Wales.
SUTHERLAND RAILWAY STATION
Ms MELANIE GIBBONS (Menai) [8.03 p.m.]: While I have caught the train from many stations, including from Padstow just this morning, my local train station has always been Sutherland station. It is certainly much busier than it was in 1885 when it first opened. In my lifetime I have watched it become even busier since the recent rail line duplication and our general population growth as people travel to and from work. As we encourage cars off our roads and people utilise public transport our train station becomes more and more important and so does the area around it. We need to ensure there is an ease of flow for the movement of pedestrians, buses and cars.
Sutherland is unique in that it is a central hub to the region which services a large majority of the Menai area, which for the most part is without other public transport. It also serves a large number of people in the Wollongong area who choose to take the quicker option to drive to Sutherland and to take the train from there rather than from Wollongong. We need to ensure that they can park their cars. We also need to ensure that buses are a viable option and, importantly, we need to ensure that our stations are accessible. I am an advocate for people with disabilities and stress the importance of having easily accessible train stations. Members of Sutherland Shire Council's access committee have drawn my attention to the difficulty faced by those who have trouble with mobility or who are in wheelchairs coming from the East Parade side of the railway line who want to access platforms 2 and 3. With all these competing interests it is important for the station to receive the attention it deserves.
Parking at Sutherland station has always been difficult. During the election campaign many people asked for that issue to be addressed. I listened to them and then campaigned for more parking at Sutherland station. I am pleased that the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Gladys Berejiklian, also thought that parking was important. Her methodological approach to the studies that were arranged subsequently validated our thoughts. I am pleased that $37 million has been allocated by the Coalition Government to build a new 300-space car park and to make the station accessible to people with disabilities—a huge win for our community and one that I am pleased to see so soon in this term of government.
Other components to these upgrades include a bus interchange, changes to traffic movements and changes to pedestrian crossings—a total of close to $7 million in upgrades and changes. Many members of the community—commuters, people living in Sutherland, people who shop there and business owners—have asked for their ideas and thoughts to be taken into account rather than just the ideas and thoughts of departmental engineers and traffic managers. I encouraged them to put forward their ideas and I was pleased when the Minister agreed to my request for a second round of public consultation. I take this opportunity to thank those staff members who gave up their night to listen to those who know this area best and interact with it daily.
In addition to advertising by the department, I stood at the train station on a few cold mornings and handed out flyers inviting people to attend this second round of consultation and to have their say. As there was a great deal of feedback it has been decided that this part of the project will be put on hold until it can be properly assessed and taken into account and until we can be sure that this is the best proposal for the community. I thank local resident Neil McCormack for his detailed assessments of proposed changes and for his advice on the project. Tonight I commenced my speech by referring to Padstow station. I join my colleague the member for East Hills, Glenn Brookes, in acknowledging that the Minister is budgeting for a new 80-plus car park at Padstow station. 13314 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
When it is completed it will be an asset for the East Hills community as well as for local residents in Alfords Point and Illawong in my electorate who catch the train from that station. The last time Sutherland received a new car park was in the early 1990s when the Liberal Party was in government. That car park was opened by the Hon. Chris Downy, the then member for Sutherland. Unfortunately, Sutherland has been ignored in the intervening years. I am pleased that Padstow and Sutherland are finally being noticed by a State government and I am pleased and proud to be part of a government that does not take people for granted but that listens to them and delivers.
CORRIMAL COUGARS RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB 100TH ANNIVERSARY
Mr RYAN PARK (Keira) [8.08 p.m.]: Tonight it gives me great pleasure to talk about Corrimal Cougars Rugby League Football Club and its 100-year celebration this weekend. I am looking forward to attending this big event. Corrimal Cougars, a working-class rugby league football club, was built with the help of miners who worked in the old South Bulli pit and the nearby Corrimal mine when they were both operating. That club has gone through its fair share of challenges. It cannot pay its players anywhere near the amounts of money that are paid by some of the semi-professional clubs whose players participate in local rugby league competitions. However, despite its challenges, this club continues to achieve great results and receive great support from the local community. It is a pleasure and honour to be invited to attend this very important occasion to be held on Saturday evening.
We all have great sporting clubs in our electorates. Corrimal Cougars is one such club in the Keira electorate. This club has junior and senior teams and, of course, now a team in the very popular women's rugby league competitions in the Illawarra region. Corrimal Cougars club has faced challenges from the local leagues club and difficulties in gaining sponsorship as the local community experiences a difficult economic period. But the work of the club's committee, coaches and volunteers means that the club will enjoy a fantastic celebration on Saturday. The local Corrimal community will have a great opportunity to get behind what essentially is one of its oldest and proudest sporting clubs. Not too many rugby league clubs in this country can celebrate 100 continuous years of existence. Corrimal Cougars has had its faire share of success on the field as well as challenges, especially as it tries to compete with some of the more professional local teams.
It is a great honour to be involved with this club and to continue to see the results of the hard work of the committee, coaches, supporters and all the staff as they continue to try to grow the club and be an integral part of the local community. It is fantastic that this year the club got a number of local sponsors on board to ensure its long-term future. Rugby league has been an integral part of the Illawarra, particularly in the northern Illawarra area: it has been part of our sporting culture since the Illawarra came into its own as it industrialised from the start of the previous century. The mining growth over the last 100 to 120 years has meant that many people have played, watched and been associated with the Corrimal Cougars. I look forward to the celebration at the Corrimal Leagues Club on Saturday night. I congratulate the club, its supporters and everyone involved with what has been 100 years of a great history and contribution to our local community.
Mr TROY GRANT (Dubbo—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.12 p.m.]: I thank the member for Keira for bringing to the attention of the House the wonderful upcoming event in his electorate to celebrate 100 years of the Corrimal Cougars club. The dedication of the club's volunteers and the commitment of its coaches and committee people over many years should be celebrated and recognised. On behalf of the Government I wish the Corrimal Cougars the best for this weekend's function and the best for the season ahead.
GRANVILLE STATION COMMUTER CAR PARK
Mr TONY ISSA (Granville) [8.13 p.m.]: I congratulate the O'Farrell Government on its recent announcement to upgrade the commuter car park at Granville train station. This project, worth nearly $14 million, will enhance the facility and, it is predicted, will triple the number of patrons. Since I was elected to represent the people of Granville I have fought hard for funding to be directed to station upgrades, and now the announcement has been made. The upgrades will make a huge difference to those who use the station daily. The more public transport that becomes accessible, the more incentive people will have to use it. Present arrangements at Granville are not adequate to serve this popular station. Granville station hosts major train connections to the city and the western suburbs as it is a hub for rail commuters across western Sydney. Catching a train at Granville means a quicker trip to the city because of express services.
I have long maintained that increasing the number of car spaces at Granville will have major implications for people wanting to catch a train at Granville station. Tripling the number of travellers who park 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13315
to ride the trains and buses in Granville will automatically create a demand for products and services and bring much-needed benefits to local businesses. Dry cleaners, hair salons, convenience stores, car maintenance, child care and many more businesses will see an immediate boost to their bottom line. Most importantly, if train travel is more accessible and quicker for the daily commute to the city, road congestion will be reduced. I add that this project was a commitment from the previous Labor Government, but funding was never delivered.
This issue has been of great concern to commuters in my electorate for some time. A few months ago I arranged a meeting with the Department of Transport and the Lord Mayor and General Manager of Parramatta City Council to examine possible solutions to the problem. The New South Wales Minister for Transport, Gladys Berejiklian, has always been very supportive of the project. A recent survey conducted by Transport for NSW demonstrated that customers see commuter parking as a key factor when deciding whether to use public transport. Plans for the Granville project will include a new bus interchange, a 27-person capacity lift, new toilets and more user friendly stairs. Lighting and closed-circuit television [CCTV] also will be installed for the safety of passengers and the community. This is an exciting project for the people of Granville and, for that matter, the people of western Sydney. I congratulate the Government, in particular the Premier and the Minister for Transport, on the support that has been given to make this project a reality.
Mr TROY GRANT (Dubbo—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.17 p.m.]: I thank the member for Granville for bringing to the attention of the House the exciting news of this significant upgrade and investment in his electorate. During the election campaign as far west as Dubbo word rattled all the way out over the mountains about the Coalition candidate in Granville and the exceptional work and commitment he was putting in to represent his people. He was becoming a local champion. He went to his electorate and, historically, did a wonderful job in being elected. He is a true champion who gave his electorate a number of commitments. He looked his electorate in the eye and made those commitments to be part of the O'Farrell-Stoner Government team. He said he would deliver key infrastructure, investment and services to his community. I congratulate the member for Granville on attaining the $14 million upgrade he has outlined. I say to the people of the Granville electorate: Your choice has been vindicated.
MACLEAN RSL SUB-BRANCH EIGHTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY
Mr CHRISTOPHER GULAPTIS (Clarence) [8.18 p.m.]: I acknowledge the wonderful achievement of the Maclean RSL sub-branch in reaching its eighty-fifth anniversary. This is a wonderful achievement and deserving of recognition in this place. Prior to the formation of the Maclean sub-branch 85 years ago several ex-service organisations existed. A meeting of veterans was held in December 1917 in Maclean and another in Yamba to form an opinion on how to vote on the prospective reinforcements referendum. We must recall that this is only a few years after the Gallipoli landing. Although no organisation was formed in January 1918, a public meeting was held and the Returned Soldiers and Sailors Patriotic League was formed. Between 1918 and the formation of the sub-branch in 1927 a number of derivatives of the Returned Soldiers and Sailors Patriotic League came into being. It was not until after the show in Maclean in 1927 that the branch of the Returned Soldiers and Sailors Patriotic League was formed and recognised.
The first president was Mr R. H. Till and it was appropriate that his daughter Nola Barnier was able to join in the eighty-fifth birthday celebrations. Vice-presidents of the first committee were Mr R. Courtney and Mr D. K. Beckman, the treasurer was Mr W. Matheson and the secretary Mr A. Hogue. During the 85 years the club has been formed it has had 17 presidents, 21 secretaries and 15 treasurers. H. J. McLachlan served 29 years as treasurer, Gordon Bancroft served 26 years as secretary and Don Baker was the longest serving president with 16 years in the chair. We were very fortunate to have Don's wife, Vera Montague, join us in celebrating the eighty-fifth anniversary of the sub-branch. Vera served for five years as a nurse during the Second World War and saw plenty of action overseas. With 65 years membership, she was the longest serving branch member to attend the luncheon. Let me quote Vera so the members of this place get a better understanding of her dedication to this great country of ours:
I served five years in the army and then got out in 1947 to work in repatriation; I worked with Weary Dunlop.
She goes on:
I wouldn't swap it (my service) for anything; it wasn't easy, we worked 12 hours a day.
Can I say that Vera typifies the members of the Maclean RSL sub-branch. The Maclean sub-branch, as we know it today, took shape on 25August 1972 when the constitution was adopted and the first elected club committee 13316 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 June 2012
opened the premises known as Dunmorvan, offering limited social and sporting activities for members. Dunmorvan was purchased by the Maclean RSL Sub-Branch from the Cameron estate in 1948 for the sum of £2,559.
Dr Geoff Lee: How much?
Mr CHRISTOPHER GULAPTIS: For £2,559. After experiencing all manner of problems with obtaining a liquor licence, building approvals and funding shortfalls, building commenced in April 1981 and was basically completed in November 1981 at a cost of £175,000. Further renovations and extensions have been carried on since that time to produce the club facilities we know today. The club premises stands over the road from where my survey office was located and I can assure members that my frequent visits on a Friday afternoon were most enjoyable, and they definitely contributed to the club's extensions. The club sits on the eastern bank of the Clarence River and enjoys majestic views of the river, with cane fields in the background—a very typical Maclean vista.
The club has provided immeasurable service to Maclean and the lower Clarence for a long time. It has always supported veterans and their families, the hospital and numerous sporting and community groups. The members of the Maclean RSL sub-branch are to be congratulated on their contribution to the social fabric of Maclean and the lower Clarence and also commended for their club reaching its eighty-fifth birthday—a difficult achievement for a small club in a country town. In particular, I acknowledge the work of the executive of the sub-branch in making the eighty-fifth anniversary celebrations such a wonderful success: president Kevin Reid, vice president John Stubbs, treasurer Max Phillips and secretary Bob Noonan. I also acknowledge Col Jealous, Trevor Plymin and Kevin Jones, OAM, who worked very hard to make sure the eighty-fifth anniversary celebrations went off without a hitch.
Mr TROY GRANT (Dubbo—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.23 p.m.]: I make a brief contribution in support of the member for Clarence. I thank him for bringing to the attention of the House the wonderful anniversary celebrations for Maclean RSL sub-branch and the detail with which he acknowledged the contribution of club members and the broader community. The member makes a wonderful point that the Maclean RSL sub-branch is an example of the contribution that sub-branches have made, are making and will continue to make to our communities. I commend the member for the work he does in his electorate with important institutions such as the clubs in his electorate. I extend my best wishes to Maclean RSL sub-branch on its eighty-fifth anniversary.
WIN STADIUM
Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong) [8.24 p.m.]: I today inform my colleagues that the much-anticipated opening of the new western grandstand at WIN Stadium in my electorate of Wollongong occurred last Friday. However, it is with great disappointment that I relay that the official opening lacked protocol and acknowledgement of those who played an important part in seeing this grandstand come to fruition. I refer to the former Illawarra Venues Authority, under the chairmanship of Chris Christodoulou, and the people who were an integral part of the venues authority, such as Vicki Tiegs. Sadly, they were not acknowledged. It is disappointing that they were not extended the courtesy of an acknowledgement of their contribution.
On 16 October 2009 the then State Labor Government announced a $28.9 million commitment to build a brand new western grandstand. The Illawarra football community was thrilled, the St George Illawarra Dragons were thrilled, the people of Wollongong were thrilled and the stakeholders and consultation groups were thrilled. I was proud that, after much lobbying by me and then Minister Kevin Green, the Labor Government saw that the 50-year-old stadium and its facilities desperately needed an upgrade and delivered almost $30 million in funding. The New South Wales Labor Government State budget again delivered for the Illawarra. The then Treasurer Eric Roozendaal, whom the Government likes to criticise, announced that a world-class sporting facility for Wollongong was to become a reality, with major funding allocations and demolition works starting as part of WIN Stadium's $28.9 million western grandstand redevelopment.
The 2010-11 budget also allocated $600,000 for the grit blasting and repainting of all the steelwork on the northern grandstand as well as $120,000 for the purchase and installation of a new steel palisade fence around the southern and western perimeters of the stadium. Contracts were awarded and away we went with this exciting development. The new western grandstand created 640 direct and indirect full-time equivalent jobs during construction and an additional 81 jobs once it was completed. The finished product provided up to 6,000 extra seats as well as ticketing, catering, media and toilet facilities, two large function rooms and 20 June 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13317
improved access. Upgrades to the southern grandstand included change room facilities for first grade and lower grade visiting teams, a shared first aid room, improved security and improved patron access to seating. The redevelopment has increased stadium capacity to 23,000 and is expected to lift the WIN Sports and Entertainment Centre's total economic output by $8.5 million a year.
All of this was provided by the former New South Wales State Labor Government, yet we have heard not one word, not one acknowledgement of this investment from the Minister for the Illawarra, Greg Pearce, or the Minister for Sport and Recreation, Graham Annesley, who swanned into Wollongong last Friday afternoon claiming credit for the outstanding stadium and new facilities. I note that when there was a problem with the roof, due to severe weather conditions, the Ministers distanced themselves from the project, seeking to cast blame on the Labor Government. As the local member I do not seek accolades and awards for doing what I can to secure the best for my community. However, I found that the grandstand opening by the Government smacked of arrogance and blatant disregard for an achievement that was not theirs to claim.
Mr Troy Grant: Deary me.
Ms NOREEN HAY: It was quite mean, you are quite right. As the local member I expected better from the Ministers in relation to an achievement that was not theirs to claim. It is fine by me that they do not acknowledge Noreen Hay, but as an elected representative in the State Parliament the office I hold deserves respect. On a lighter note, the grandstand is a state-of-the-art facility. I congratulate all those involved in its construction, from the guys who demolished the old stadium to the designers and engineers who drew up the plans and the construction workers who saw the plans become a reality. I conclude by saying that only a little less disappointing than the Ministers' attitude on the evening was the Dragons narrow loss to the Bulldogs, despite an outstanding second half. Go the Dragons.
Mr TROY GRANT (Dubbo—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.29 p.m.]: I would hate tonight's session to finish on such a note. I congratulate the Illawarra Venues Authority. I am pleased that the taxpayer dollars of New South Wales were put towards such a magnificent facility and the creation of jobs. I congratulate all those involved. It is vital that these significant projects receive the credit they are due. I know the Minister was honoured to open the stadium on behalf of the taxpayers of New South Wales, who provided the funding. Although I cannot support the Dragons, I thank the member for Wollongong for raising this matter about the new western grandstand at WIN Stadium and the impact the provision of sporting facilities has in the Illawarra region.
Private members' statements concluded.
The House adjourned, pursuant to standing and sessional orders, at 8.30 p.m. until Thursday 21 June 2012 at 10.00 a.m.
______