Post on 11-Aug-2020
ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................................................................. 7810
AERIAL WEED SPRAYING ................................................................................................................ 7794
AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS .............................................................................................................. 7789
ALBERT (TIBBY) COTTER WALKWAY AND ANZAC OBELISK ................................................ 7791
ALBERT (TIBBY) COTTER WALKWAY ...................................................................... 7788, 7790, 7795
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE ................................................................................................................ 7774
CENTENARY OF FIRST WORLD WAR ............................................................................................ 7773
COAL INDUSTRY JOB LOSSES ......................................................................................................... 7788
CRIMES (DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL VIOLENCE) AMENDMENT (NATIONAL DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE ORDERS RECOGNITION) BILL 2016 ........................................................................... 7809
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS ............................................................................................................... 7785
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AMENDMENT (ADVANCED METERS) BILL 2016..................... 7775, 7808
ESSENTIAL ENERGY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT ........................................................................ 7811
FARM TRESPASS................................................................................................................................. 7786
HARMONY DAY .................................................................................................................................. 7787
HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS ..................................................................................... 7793
INCLOSED LANDS, CRIMES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
(INTERFERENCE) BILL 2016 ............................................................................................................. 7773
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE ............................................................................................. 7775
M5 UPGRADE ............................................................................................................................. 7785, 7795
MEMBER FOR EAST HILLS ..................................................................................................... 7786, 7792
MR COLIN ALLEN, INTERNATIONAL DISABILITY ALLIANCE ................................................ 7774
NSW LOCAL LANDCARE COORDINATORS INITIATIVE ............................................................ 7794
NSW SENIORS FESTIVAL .................................................................................................................. 7793
OVERHEIGHT HEAVY VEHICLES ................................................................................................... 7791
PETITIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 7775
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ....................................................................................................... 7785
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ............................................................................................................... 7812
SOROPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL ANNUAL SYDNEY EDUCATION GRANTS ......................... 7774
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES ............................................................................... 7796
STATEMENT ON PARLIAMENTARY STAFF .................................................................................. 7784
SYDNEY CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT LOCK-OUT LAWS .................................................... 7813
TRIBUTE TO JOHN POSNAKIDIS ..................................................................................................... 7813
VOLUNTEERING ................................................................................................................................. 7810
WATER AND SEWERAGE SERVICES PENSIONER REBATES .................................................... 7792
WORKER CONSTRUCTION SITE SAFETY ...................................................................................... 7785
7773
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Monday 21 March 2016
__________
The President (The Hon. Donald Harwin) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.
The President read the Prayers.
The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them
for their custodianship of this land.
INCLOSED LANDS, CRIMES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
(INTERFERENCE) BILL 2016
Protest
The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following communication from the Official Secretary and
Chief of Staff to His Excellency the Governor to the Clerk of the Parliaments:
Office of the Governor
Sydney 2000
Thursday, 17 March 2016
The Clerk of the Parliaments
Dear Mr Blunt,
I write, at His Excellency's command, to acknowledge receipt of the Protest made on 17 March 2016, under Standing Order 161
of the Legislative Council, against the Inclosed Lands, Crimes and Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Interference) Bill 2016, by the following honourable members of the Legislative Council, namely:
• The Hon. Adam Searle, MLC, Leader of the Opposition • The Hon. Walt Secord, MLC, Deputy Leader of the Opposition
• The Hon. Sophie Cotsis, MLC
• The Hon. Greg Donnelly, MLC • The Hon. Courtney Houssos, MLC
• The Hon. Daniel Mookhey, MLC
• The Hon. Shaoquette Moselmane, MLC • The Hon. Peter Primrose, MLC
• The Hon. Penny Sharpe, MLC
• The Hon. Ernest Wong, MLC • The Hon. Mick Veitch, MLC
• The Hon. Lynda Voltz, MLC
I advise that His Excellency the Governor notes the protest by the honourable members.
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Sullivan
Deputy Official Secretary to the Governor of New South Wales
CENTENARY OF FIRST WORLD WAR
The PRESIDENT: War produces many innovations and the Great War particularly so. This was the
war in which the tank, chemical weapons and the submarine first emerged as major factors on the battlefield.
The submarine, a quintessential image and element of modern warfare, was first used in a military context in the
American Civil War but by the outbreak of the Great War all major naval powers had come to recognise its
deadly potential. This was evident on 24 March 1916 when a German submarine torpedoed the unarmed French
ferry SS Sussex in the English Channel, causing the loss of 50 lives, including the notable Spanish composer
Enrique Granados. Following the sinking of the RMS Lusitania 10 months earlier, this act further alienated
feeling against Germany in the United States and was to lead to Germany's formal abandonment of unrestricted
submarine warfare soon after.
7774 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
For the first time the term "U-boat" came into the vernacular and that distinct corps of men the
submariners emerged as significant warriors in battle. At the outbreak of the war Germany had a fleet o f only
20 submarines compared with Great Britain's 74, although the German submarines were better designed and
more intelligently deployed. Australia had but two such vessels, the first being the ill -fated HMAS AE1,
which disappeared without trace in September 1914 off Rabaul and whose fate continues to intrigue
historians and searchers. The second was the famous HMAS AE2, the exploits of which in the Gallipoli
campaign had a major impact on General Hamilton's decision to push on regardless after the thwarted
landings of April 1915. We should recognise and pay tribute to the special qualities of those members of the
Royal Australian Navy who have served and continue to serve in this unique part of the "silent service".
Lest we forget.
Pursuant to sessional orders Formal Business Notices of Motions proceeded with.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Formal Business Notices of Motions
Private Members' Business items Nos 558 and 617 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as
being taken as formal business.
MR COLIN ALLEN, INTERNATIONAL DISABILITY ALLIANCE
Motion by the Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS agreed to:
(1) That this House notes that:
(a) on 5 March 2016 Mr Colin Allen, President of the World Federation of the Deaf [WFD] since July 2011 and a
WFD board member since 2003, became Chair-elect of the International Disability Alliance [IDA];
(b) Mr Allen became Chair-elect at the IDA Annual General Assembly held in Bangkok, Thailand; and
(c) Mr Allen's two-year term as IDA Chair will start on 1 July 2016 and continue until 30 June 2018, with him
succeeding Ms Maryanne Diamond, AO, immediate past President of the World Blind Union.
(2) That this House congratulates Mr Colin Allen on his appointment as the Chair-elect of the IDA and wishes him every
success over the next two years.
SOROPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL ANNUAL SYDNEY EDUCATION GRANTS
Motion by Dr MEHREEN FARUQI agreed to:
(1) That this House notes that:
(a) Soroptimist International is a global volunteer movement working together to transform the lives of women and
girls, with a network of around 80,000 club members in 132 countries and territories;
(b) Soroptimist International of Sydney held its annual Sydney Education Grants for Girls presentation, which
provides support grants to school leaders in the inner city and inner west areas of Sydney in their final two years of study, at Parliament House on Monday 7 March 2016; and
(c) the 2016 recipients were:
(i) Rachel Want-Yuet Lin, Alexandria Park Community School;
(ii) Nuch Chhean, Dulwich High School of Visual Arts and Design;
(iii) Naomi Gouveia, Marrickville High School;
(iv) Roxanne Templeton, Tempe High School; and
(v) Lili Hiller, Leichhardt Campus of Sydney Secondary College.
(2) That this House congratulates the recipients of the Soroptimist Education Grants for Girls and wishes them the best of luck in their studies.
(3) That this House thanks Soroptimist International of Sydney for its work in supporting education for women and girls.
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7775
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Report
The Hon. Greg Pearce tabled the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest 16/56", dated 21 March
2016.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce.
PETITIONS
Greyhound Racing Ban
Petition calling on the Government to ban all greyhound racing in New South Wales, to assist industry
employees to find new work, to facilitate the rehoming of dogs and to prohibit the export of greyhounds for
racing or breeding purposes, received by Dr Mehreen Faruqi, on behalf of Dr John Kaye.
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AMENDMENT (ADVANCED METERS) BILL 2016
In Committee
The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): There being no objection, the Committee will deal with the
bill as a whole. I have two sets of amendments before me: Opposition amendments on sheet C2016-019D and
further Opposition amendments on sheet C2016-024. I understand the amendment on C2016-024 is, in a sense,
to replace amendment No. 5 appearing on sheet C2016-019D.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Leader of the Opposition) [2.53 p.m.]: Your understanding of the
relationship between the two sets of amendments is correct. I move Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet
C2016-019D: No. 1 Customers with non-market generators not to be billed based on interval metering data
Page 3, schedule 1. Insert before line 2:
[1] Section 15B
Insert after section 15A:
15B Customers with non-market generators to have net billing
Despite anything to the contrary in the National Energy Retail Law (NSW), a
customer who is a non-market generator (within the meaning of the National Electricity Rules) is, whether or not the customer has a type 4 metering installation
(referred to in Chapter 7 of the National Electricity Rules), to be billed for electricity
usage on the basis of the difference between electricity consumed and electricity generated by the customer during the relevant billing period.
This amendment addresses the concern raised by the Opposition during the second reading debate on this bill
about what happens to customers generating rooftop solar post the closure of the Solar Bonus Scheme. A view is
being promulgated in the industry that those who do not have smart meters installed will somehow not be able to
access the best return for the rooftop solar they are generating and passing back into the grid. This amendment is
to make the point that the retail industry currently possesses all of the information needed to continue to provide
people who generate rooftop solar or electricity from other sources with a return for their investment.
Smart meters, although conferring great benefits on retailers and the network as a whole, are greatly
desired by the Australian energy market operator. In my contribution to the second reading debate on this bill,
I indicated that these meters also potentially confer benefits on customers, but customers should not feel coerced
or obliged to take the step of installing smart meters as it is not strictly necessary. The retailers already have the
information they need to work out whether to pay persons with rooftop solar anything post the closure of the
Solar Bonus Scheme—that is, whether people are a net contributor to or net drawer on the electricity network.
As I indicated, my energy company knows how much electricity I generate because it pays me for it, so
it already has that information. The electricity company, through the meter, can already work out how much
electricity my household consumes and therefore it knows whether I am a net contributor to or drawer on the
7776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
electricity network. That means that post the closure of the Solar Bonus Scheme my retailer will know whether
to pay me or charge me for energy. We are concerned that a view has been promulgated that people need to
have smart meters to continue to receive any return. We note that retailers are not strictly speaking legally
obliged to provide a reasonable tariff for those who select to return excess energy back to the grid. Currently
electricity companies are not obliged to pay anything for the energy generated by householders, which
electricity retailers can then on sell to other consumers, although there is an Independent Pricing and Regulatory
Tribunal [IPART] recommendation on this matter.
We note that retailers have voluntarily indicated that they will pay something. We think there should be
a stronger IPART mandate to set a minimum price for rooftop solar energy so that people can get a fair
minimum payment for solar energy fed back into the grid by those households generating excess energy, a
policy we took to last year's election. That policy will have to wait for the next Labor government or until this
Government decides that this is a fair and reasonable course of action. We press this amendment. To the extent
that retailers will still pay for excess solar energy fed back into the grid, this amendment will not provide any
impost on retailers. However, to the extent that some retailers do not intend to take this path, we think there is a
need for some legislative guidance to be laid down so that customers who generate rooftop solar continue to get
some return for their investment.
I note that what is now called the Australian Energy Council, formerly the Energy Retailers
Association of Australia, has made a submission to the Government about this legislation. The council approves
the legislation in its current form in principle. I have had some discussions in interaction with that body and
I note that it is not in favour of this amendment. It is no surprise that the retailers feel that the current market and
regulatory settings are adequate. We beg to differ. We accept that most responsible retailers will take a
responsible course of action and continue to pay a return to households generating excess rooftop solar. But we
think legislative guidance is required because people should not be coerced into having expensive new smart
meters installed unnecessarily. Many of the current meters do not need to be replaced for any other reason.
I have received feedback from some people who already have so-called smart meters and are being told
by their retailer that the meters need to be upgraded yet again if they are to get the best return for their rooftop
solar generation post the closure of the Solar Bonus Scheme. Retailers have all the information to do this
properly and we think it appropriate that this Parliament give the guidance in the form of this amendment to
provide consumer protection for the 160,000 households that participated in the bonus scheme and for
households which before and since the scheme have contributed to our shared clean energy future by installing
rooftop solar.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.59 p.m.]: The Government rejects
Opposition amendment No. 1 on the basis that the result will be increased prices for consumers and unnecessary
requirements on the commercial matters of retailers. The effect of the provision would be to compel retailers to
bill customers on the basis of netting of electricity generated and consumed. This means, particularly for Solar
Bonus Scheme customers, that retailers will not be able to bill consumers for the full network and generation
costs incurred by the customer. It may not have been the intent of the proposed amendment but that will be the
effect. If a household that exports all its generation under a Solar Bonus Scheme consumes 1,000 kilowatt hours
a month and exports 600 kilowatt hours per month this proposal would then only bill the household for the
difference of 400 kilowatt hours. The customer has consumed 1,000 kilowatt hours from the grid and has
incurred the generation and network costs of doing so, but the retailer will not be able to bill the customer for it.
The retailer will then have to increase prices to cover the difference. This provision will not just apply
to Solar Bonus Scheme customers but also extend to any residential and small customer in New South Wales
with a solar panel. The provision would also potentially capture a range of businesses with on-site generation,
such as manufacturing and agricultural businesses. This is likely to lead to increased business operation costs
that are ultimately passed on to customers. It would also stop customers who wish to contract the sale of
electricity directly with other customers through mechanisms such as peer-to-peer trading. The amendment is
heavy-handed and would stop customers and retailers developing solutions. As proposed, the amendment is a
level of detail that should not exist in the legislation.
The existing metrology procedures that are subordinate to the National Energy Retail Law and the
National Electricity Law provide the market, the network and the retailer with the standard of metering data that
is used for wholesale, network and retail billing. Government should not seek to impose a particular billing
approach on customers in a competitive market environment. Retailers are best placed to determine suitable
tariff options for customers. Retailers will compete to offer innovative and attractive options for customers, who
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7777
can choose the tariff that best suits their needs. There continues to be long-term financial and environmental
benefits to installing small-scale solar generators, and many New South Wales customers recognise the benefits
of unsubsidised feed-in tariffs for solar power.
Since 2011 The New South Wales solar industry has not relied on subsidised and mandated feed-in
tariffs. Following closure of the subsidy scheme to new applicants, a further 174,000 households and small
businesses have installed systems. This demonstrates that there is no need for the Government to mandate a
minimum feed-in tariff. Households can still receive financial assistance for small-scale solar through the
Commonwealth Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme. That is an up-front financial incentive rather than over
the life of a system and recognises the electricity generated by the system for up to 15 years.
The Government is making sure that customers get the best information possible on competitive prices
for feed-in tariffs. It requires that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal undertake a benchmarking
review to determine a fair and reasonable feed-in tariff for energy that is exported to the grid. The benchmark
rate is only a guide for retailers and consumers and is not mandatory. Retailers can choose to offer a feed-in
tariff above or below the benchmark. Most importantly, customers can assess independently whether a retailer's
offer represents best practice. The trend is to move away from mandating energy prices and product offerings,
not towards a government-run market. For those reasons the amendment is not supported.
Question—That Opposition amendment No. 1 [C2016-019D] be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 16
Ms Barham
Mr Buckingham
Ms Cotsis
Dr Faruqi
Mrs Houssos
Mr Mookhey
Mr Pearson
Mr Primrose
Mr Searle
Mr Secord
Ms Sharpe
Mr Shoebridge
Mr Veitch
Mr Wong
Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Moselmane
Noes, 21
Mr Ajaka
Mr Amato
Mr Blair
Mr Borsak
Mr Brown
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Cusack
Mr Farlow
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay
Mr Green
Mr MacDonald
Mr Mallard
Mr Mason-Cox
Mrs Mitchell
Reverend Nile
Mr Pearce
Mrs Taylor
Tellers,
Mr Franklin
Dr Phelps
Pair
Ms Voltz Mrs Maclaren-Jones
Question resolved in the negative.
Opposition amendment No. 1 [C2016-019D] negatived.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Leader of the Opposition) [3.14 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition
amendments Nos 2 and 3 on sheet C2016-019D in globo: No. 2 Contestable network services
Page 3, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 31A (2), lines 17–20. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 3 Contestable network services
Page 3, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 31A (5). Insert after line 31:
(b) the installation, maintenance or replacement of an electricity meter, and
7778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
These amendments are directed to page 3 of the bill and to the new section 31A dealing with accredited service
providers. In the Minister's second reading speech the Government indicated that at the moment accredited
service providers [ASP] level 2 and above are required to have that accreditation to do the installation work on
meters. The Government indicated that it wishes to create a wider market for the provision of these services by
providing that qualified electricians other than ASP level 2 and above could perform this work. The Government
said that those performing the work would still have to be accredited to Australian/New Zealand standards.
I note the in-reply speech indicated that the Government did not propose any sort of lesser standards.
At the moment, as we understand the National Electricity Rules and the current requirements and so on, that
level of accreditation by those installing the meters is necessary both to be sure about the skill of those performing the
work and also to guarantee worker safety and the safety of the public and households. I note that on 19 February 2016
the National Electrical and Communications Association [NECA] made a submission on the rollout of smart meters in
New South Wales. It indicated on page 9 of the submission that metering work has the potential for serious, specific
dangers, including electrocution and arc blasts, which have the potential to cause serious injury not only to the
workers but also to householders and members of the public, for example, through house fires.
That proposition is elaborated on in some significant detail to lead to the conclusion that in the view of
that industry association the current situation should prevail—that is, in order to install these meters the
requirement that that work be restricted to ASP level 2 and above should be maintained. Government members
in their speeches on the bill suggested that there should be a different standard but they have not indicated what
that standard will be or how it addresses the concerns outlined by NECA, the Electrical Trades Union and
others. Those concerns are about how you ensure worker safety and the safety of householders and the general
public if you allow other qualified electricians without that accreditation to do the work. That is a significant
concern that is given rise to by new section 31A of the Electricity Supply Act.
We do not want any tragic events to unfold in the days, weeks and months to come simply because of
the Government's desire to have the potential for smart meters to be rolled out in New South Wales. As
desirable as that may be for some, the group of amendments that the Opposition has proposed—including the
one that was just unsuccessful—would secure a situation in which there is no need for a rushed mass rollout. It
could be done in a more orderly and staged fashion. Notwithstanding the lack of success of the Opposition's
amendment No. 1, Labor still thinks these two amendments are necessary. The second amendment removes new
section 31A (2), which provides that:
The regulations may exempt the provision of specified, or a specified class of, contestable network services from the requirement
that the services must be provided by an accredited service provider.
This is the mechanism that the Government will use to achieve its approach. Again, the Opposition wants to
know in advance, before it signs off on this change, what those exemptions will be and exactly who will be
permitted to do this work if it is not to be restricted to ASP level 2 and above, as it is at present. We ask the
Government to be frank with us, Parliament and the community, about what its plans are. Sometimes facilitative
legislation is passed, and therefore regulations and other documents are provided in the future to flesh it out.
I understand this is one of those provisions, but the potential hazard to those performing the work, to households
and to the general public is such that it needs to be resolved with clarity at the legislative stage rather than down
the track. We are concerned about this issue. We ask that the Government be clear about what it is proposing
and that it ensures safety for all concerned. We urge Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 3 on the House and ask
honourable members to join with us in support of them.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [3.20 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I speak in support of Opposition
amendments Nos 2 and 3 on sheet C2016-019D, which concern contestable network services. We join the Hon.
Adam Searle to voice our concerns. The Greens consider those amendments to be the most important of the
Opposition amendments. Representatives of the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union and other experts
have raised concerns about the regime of accredited installers under the new Electricity Supply Amendment
(Advanced Meters) Bill 2016, particularly paragraphs (2) and (3) of new section 31A. Paragraph (2) states:
The regulations may exempt the provision of specified, or a specified class of, contestable network services from the requirement
that the services must be provided by an accredited service provider.
Alarm bells are ringing for a lot of people. The Government is dealing with this issue in haste. It was not
necessarily a problem of its making, but it has left it quite late to deal with. Exempting specified network
services from the requirement that they be provided by an accredited service provider, as the Hon. Adam Searle
said, is fraught with danger. The Government knows there will be a larger number of people wishing to switch
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7779
to smart meters than there are accredited installers. Currently this State has only 1,800 level two technicians and
they can install approximately 50,000 meters per year, which leaves 80,000 meters out of the potential
130,000 meters uninstalled.
However, we take the Government at its word that an appropriate level of accredited installer will be
required. The appropriate level of accreditation is level two. Therefore, exempting that specification is not
necessary. The Government will not be able to provide training for technicians to be accredited in time and
people who are feeling the bill shock may have their meter installed by someone without the necessary skill.
People should not muck around with electricity. A house that has been electrified unintentionally is a fire
hazard, which has serious ramifications. The Greens support the Opposition's amendments for that reason. The
Government should specify the level of accredited technician that is required rather than exempting accredited
technicians from the regulation. Where electricity is concerned, things need to go wrong only once to have
serious ramifications. The Greens support Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 3.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.24 p.m.]: The Government rejects
Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 3. With respect to amendment No. 2, contestability is about a customer's
right to choose who carries out the work to the services provided by the network. It is about giving customers
the opportunity to shop around. Work will be carried out only when safety is not compromised. Careful
consideration has been given to the impacts on the network. The inclusion of a regulation-making power for
contestable network services is a sound approach for balancing safety and contestability in the provision of
network services. One benefit of the regulation-making power is that it provides flexibility to be able to respond
to future technological developments. There is no argument that the traditional end-to-end large-scale generator,
transmission network, distribution network and customer is changing. The uncertainty is what the future will
look like. The CSIRO Future Grid Forum has undertaken substantial work looking at potential pathways for the
electricity network to 2050. The forum's website notes:
Australia's electricity landscape has huge potential for transformation as we move towards 2050 and the greatest changes will be
defined by consumer choices. Australians could have unprecedented opportunity to tailor their electricity use and better meet
individual needs.
The transformation that is likely to occur in our electricity consumption is also highlighted by recent work by
the Australian Energy Market Operator. In its Emerging Technologies Information Paper, the market operator
predicts that within the next 20 years more than 70 per cent of solar systems will be integrated with storage. This
will see substantial changes to the roles of consumers and networks. With technology moving rapidly, the
Government should be able to respond quickly to the need to change contestability arrangements to support
safety, competition and changes in the network services. This regulation-making power does not change the core
safety requirements that only accredited service providers can undertake live work. The Work Health and Safety
Regulation 2011 prohibits persons other than distributors or accredited service providers from carrying out work
on electrical equipment while the equipment is energised. That remains unchanged.
The safety of workers, households and businesses is a core feature of this entire framework. In addition, a
core objective of the legislative amendments introduced by the Government is to reduce costs. The proposed
Opposition amendments will totally negate the cost savings that the Government is trying to implement, which
could result in higher costs due to the pool of qualified electricians able to install smart meters not being expanded
to meet the expected demand. The effect of amendment No. 3 would be to reinstate the current arrangements so
that meter installations would be carried out only by accredited service providers, which would reduce competition.
The amendment would impact not only on the Government's policy for a voluntary market-led rollout of smart
meters, but also on new national metering rules that will come into effect on 1 December 2017.
Expanding the pool of available meter installers is fundamental to ensuring the success of a market-led
rollout of smart meters, and underpins consumer choice. Safety will not be compromised by removing metering
from contestable network services and, therefore, the accredited network provider scheme. Existing electrical
standards for metering installation will remain unchanged under the new arrangements. The safety standards are
set out in the Electricity (Consumer Safety) Regulation, which applies the following safety and technical
requirements: first, the Australian/New Zealand Wiring Rules 3000:2007; and, secondly, the Service and
Installation Rules of New South Wales.
These safety standards will continue to apply to all types of residential meter installations. Retailers and
metering providers who are rolling out advanced meters will be required to have a safety management system in
place. The arrangements are similar to those applied in other jurisdictions. The bill ensures that accredited
7780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
service providers can continue to install meters. Furthermore, the bill continues to ensure that only accredited
service providers can undertake network services. I understand that a number of retailers and metering providers
already contract accredited service providers to support their metering businesses.
Retailers and metering providers are well aware that they need to ensure they have contractors who are
fully qualified to undertake live work. For any business wanting to deliver services to customers in a timely
manner it makes sense to continue to have a strong relationship with an accredited service provider. If for any
reason it becomes necessary to do live work, access to an accredited service provider will be critical to minimise
costs and support the timely delivery of customer services. For those reasons the Government will not be
supporting either amendment.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Leader of the Opposition) [3.30 p.m.]: The Government wants to have it
both ways. On the one hand it is saying, "Do not worry; there will be no change. Only accredited service
providers will be able to do live work, so there will be no substantive change in this area", which is why the
Opposition moved these amendments. On the other hand, and despite this, the Government is saying that the
Opposition's amendments will create problems. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either it changes the
current situation where only level 2 or above accredited service providers can do this work, or it does not. If the
Government is not changing that situation it should embrace the Opposition's amendments and put it beyond
doubt and allay any concerns that may exist in the industry or in the community.
The fact that the Government is not willing to embrace our amendments suggests, despite what was
said by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the Government's plan is to have different and lower standards for
those who are performing this work. With the exception of level 2 accredited service providers, electricians in
New South Wales have never installed electricity meters. To ask electricians to undertake this kind of work
without proper training and accreditation could risk serious injury or death.
I mentioned two potential risks—arc light incidents and transposition. An arc light develops during and
following an electrical fault and results in the ignition of oxygen surrounding an installation or a plasma cloud.
It is characterised by temperatures in excess of 15,000 degrees Celsius and a cocktail of superheated toxic gases
and airborne molten metal from melted conductors and steel released by the components within an electricity
assembly fault. It can result in a rapid energy release with a pressure wave of significant magnitude developing.
If a person is standing in front of an installation during an incident a plasma cloud will envelope that person.
Obviously, a serious arc flash incident has the ability to cause loss of life and property damage.
Transpositioning is an electrocution shock hazard and occurs when there is interposed wiring or the
active and neutral wires are switched. A practical outcome of this mishap could be that metallic gas and water
pipes—reinforcing in concrete showerheads and the water that comes out of showerheads—and every metallic
appliance in a house would become live as a result of transpositioning. Electric shock or electrocution could
occur if a person comes into contact with any of the items to which I have referred. It would be stating the
obvious to say that that could also result in a serious injury or loss of life. Our two reasonable and practical
amendments will ensure that there is no dilution of the current safety regime or of the level of skill and
accreditation required by those who perform this work.
The Government says, "Do not worry; that will not change," but Government members seem to be fencing
with words because they are saying there will be no change to those who can perform live work. They seem to be
drawing a distinction between live work and the rest of the work involved in the installation of meters. The idea of
being able to parcel out the work in that way is misleading. If the Government does not intend to change the way in
which this work is performed and the resultant maintenance of standards in this area it should embrace the
Opposition's amendments. If the Government does not embrace the Opposition's amendments it means that it
intends, through the regulation power under section 31A, to have a different and lesser regime of accredited
professionals performing this work. That gives rise to the significant safety concerns that we raised—safety concerns
for householders and the wider public, and safety concerns for the individuals who are performing this work.
Obviously, a significant number of people—up to 160,000 with respect to the solar bonus scheme
alone—may wish to change to advanced meters which will create a potential demand for work. It may be that a
number of qualified electricians will want to participate in that market, which is not unreasonable, but if they do
not have the proper level of training and skills it would create a recipe for disaster and tragedy, unless
appropriate safeguards are put in place. The Opposition is proposing, constructively, to implement those
safeguards. We urge the Government—if not the Government other members in this Chamber—to join us in
putting public safety first.
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7781
The Hon. RICK COLLESS (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.35 p.m.]: The Government takes seriously
this issue of safety and will not compromise standards. New South Wales is the only State in which
non-accredited service providers are prohibited from installing smart meters. Other jurisdictions allow qualified
electricians to install smart meters with no major issues involved. There is a difference between working on
meters and working live. The accredited service providers will still be required to work live. Retailers and meter
providers already have training systems in place for meter installers. They have been operating effectively in
other jurisdictions where retailers and meter providers are already actively rolling out smart meters. The bill
reinforces those existing training regimes by making them a legal requirement.
Question—That Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 3 [C2016-019D] be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 16
Ms Barham
Mr Buckingham
Ms Cotsis
Dr Faruqi
Mr Mookhey
Mr Pearson
Mr Primrose
Mr Searle
Mr Secord
Ms Sharpe
Mr Shoebridge
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr Wong
Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Moselmane
Noes, 20
Mr Ajaka
Mr Amato
Mr Blair
Mr Brown
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Cusack
Mr Farlow
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay
Mr Green
Mr MacDonald
Mr Mallard
Mr Mason-Cox
Mrs Mitchell
Reverend Nile
Mr Pearce
Mrs Taylor
Tellers,
Dr Phelps
Mr Franklin
Pair
Mrs Houssos Mrs Maclaren-Jones
Question resolved in the negative.
Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 3 [C2016-019D] negatived.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Leader of the Opposition) [3.44 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment
No. 4 on sheet C2016-019D:
No. 4 Sealing of electrical installations
Page 3, schedule 1 [5], lines 34 and 35. Omit all words on those lines.
Section 32 of the Electricity Supply Act provides for the sealing of electrical installations, which is both a safety
measure and a measure to protect public revenue and retailers' revenue. This bill proposes to delete that
requirement. Opposition amendment No. 4 will maintain the status quo for the protection of public safety. I ask
members to join us in supporting that amendment.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.45 p.m.]: The Government rejects
Opposition amendment No. 4 which seeks to reinstate a provision that will enable distributors to seal electrical
installations. Attaching a seal is a security device and will continue to remain a critical element of the meter
installation process. It is already covered under the national rules. Under these rules retailers and metering
providers as well as distributors can already attach seals to meters. I have been advised that the responsible party
must ensure that a metering installation is secure and associated links, circuits and information storage and
processing systems, are protected by security mechanisms acceptable to the regulator—the Australian Energy
Market Operator.
7782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
The New South Wales provision is no longer necessary and is regulatory duplication. Removing it is
about reducing red tape and supporting a standardised framework nationally. Distributors will continue to have
the ability to require installation of protective equipment for the network and the proposed change in the bill will
not impact on meter safety or security, or enable electricity theft by tampering with the meter. The New South
Wales legislation prohibits a person from interfering with a network operator's or retailer's electricity works
unless he or she is authorised. This prohibition extends to interfering with the meter that is connected to a
distributor's distribution system. For those reasons the Government opposes this amendment.
Question—That Opposition amendment No. 4 [C2016-019D] be agreed to—put and resolved in
the negative.
Opposition amendment No. 4 [C2016-019D] negatived.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Leader of the Opposition) [3.47 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment
No. 1 on sheet C2016-024:
No. 1 Fees for electricity meters
Page 8, schedule 2. Insert after line 18:
[5] Section 32A
Insert after section 32:
32A Installation of electricity meters (1) Despite anything to the contrary in the National Energy Retail Law (NSW), a retailer
who carries out, or engages a person to carry out, an electrical installation that
includes the installation or replacement of an electricity meter that is a type 4 metering installation (as referred to in Chapter 7 of the National Electricity
Rules) must not charge a customer any fee for or in relation to the installation or
replacement of the electricity meter.
(2) In this section, customer and retailer have the same meanings as in the National
Energy Retail Law (NSW).
This amendment seeks to protect consumers from being charged for the installation of advanced meters. As
I indicated in my contribution to the second reading debate, retailers might well offer advanced meters to both
new and prospective customers without charge. However, there is a risk that with the imminent closure of the
solar bonus scheme, combined with the notion that people with rooftop solar need smart meters to continue to
benefit from the electricity they generate from their rooftops, they will feel coerced directly or indirectly into
having smart meters when they do not need them. We are concerned that a good proportion of those customers
may be exposed to significant additional and unnecessary costs. This amendment will protect consumers from
that additional expense.
As I indicated earlier, the Opposition accepts that one or more, or maybe many, retailers will do this for
their customers free of charge but others will not. There are difficulties, given the complexity of different
offerings from different retailers, for many customers to make informed decisions about what best suits them,
given their place in the life cycle and their energy consumption pattern. We think this is an important consumer
protection measure to put the matter beyond any doubt and to allay any concerns that exist that households with
rooftop solar will unnecessarily have to switch to advanced meters. I urge members to support this amendment.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [3.49 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I support the Opposition's proposed
amendment to new section 32A of the Electricity Supply Amendment (Advanced Meters) Bill 2016. The Greens are
concerned about elements in this section that will expose consumers to potentially poor practice from retailers,
especially when 80,000 of them will face and be shocked by high electricity bills. Many people in regional areas and
older people will be subjected to this and there is the possibility that small operators may take advantage of it. As the
Hon. Adam Searle rightly said, there is the potential for coercion of those people and also others who may not need
smart meters at all. This amendment is about consumer protection and about ensuring that the cost is borne by
retailers rather than by the community. For that reason, The Greens support the Opposition's amendment.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.51 p.m.]: The Government rejects the
Opposition's amendment to prevent any charges for installing or replacing meters with advanced meters. If a retailer
installing a meter is not able to charge a fee, who will pay? Will it be other consumers? Is it really the intention of the
Opposition to increase retail electricity prices? Why would we interfere in the commercial operations of a business?
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7783
Currently metering is a user-pay arrangement where customers wanting a new connection or a meter upgrade will be
charged a regulated or unregulated fee for the provision of that service. The Opposition's amendment would create
cross-subsidies between customers who receive smart meters with those who do not, which means that customers who
do not want to install upgraded meters will be slugged with the cost for those who do.
I understand that a number of retailers are proposing zero fees and no exit fees for customers who
choose smart meter products. I suggest that customers shop around in order to find the product that best suits
them. Before selecting a smart meter product, it is critical for customers to check the tariffs and additional
services that come with that product, including information on the solar panel system. Existing consumer
protection, such as cooling-off periods and access to the Ombudsman, remains unchanged. In this situation I do
not see the need for heavy-handed regulatory intervention in setting fees for meter installation. The
Government's voluntary smart meter rollout is about avoiding the situation in Victoria where customers were
faced with substantial bill increases. In Victoria, customer bill increases have amounted to hundreds of dollars.
The voluntary scheme is aimed at keeping down costs, supporting consumer choice and putting the
pressure on retailers to come up with innovative products and services. I have just been advised that when the
Solar Bonus Scheme closes, Origin Energy will exchange meters for its customers who want to get the most out
of their solar system. Origin will soon be communicating with its customers to help them understand their
metering options and what they can expect in the coming months. Origin is offering smart meter upgrades to its
customers at no charge and with no minimum contract term or exit fee. That is the competition that is coming
into the market and I think members will find all others will adopt the same practice. For those reasons the
Government will not be supporting this amendment.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Leader of the Opposition) [3.53 p.m.]: Yet again, the most cogent
argument made by the Government against this Opposition amendment is that it is unnecessary. However this is
what is happening in the real world and I urge the Government to join us in putting the matter beyond any
doubt. Let us protect consumers from rogue operators that may exist in the marketplace.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You want to put us in the Victorian place.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: That is not correct. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated that retailers
are moving in this direction in any case. Origin is moving in this direction and I know of one other. That is a
good development because Origin services about half of the Solar Bonus Scheme customers, but that is only one
retailer. It should be remembered that meters are the responsibility of the distributors—they are a network asset.
In future that will not be the case; they will be a tradeable commodity. So the nature of metering is changing and
that is why it is vital to offer consumer protection for 100 per cent of consumers, not just those who happen to
be customers of Origin or other retailers. Let us ensure that all consumers have the same protection.
Question—That Opposition amendment No. 1 [C2016-024] be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 16
Ms Barham
Mr Buckingham
Dr Faruqi
Mrs Houssos
Mr Mookhey
Mr Pearson
Mr Primrose
Mr Searle
Mr Secord
Ms Sharpe
Mr Shoebridge
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr Wong
Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Moselmane
Noes, 20
Mr Ajaka
Mr Amato
Mr Blair
Mr Brown
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Cusack
Mr Farlow
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay
Mr Green
Mr MacDonald
Mr Mallard
Mr Mason-Cox
Mrs Mitchell
Reverend Nile
Mr Pearce
Mrs Taylor
Tellers,
Mr Franklin
Dr Phelps
7784 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
Pair
Ms Cotsis Mrs Maclaren-Jones
Question resolved in the negative.
Opposition amendment No. 1 [C2016-024] negatived.
Title agreed to.
Question—That this bill as read be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Bill as read agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee without amendment.
Adoption of Report
Motion by the Hon. Rick Colless, on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, agreed to:
That the report be adopted.
Report adopted.
Third Reading
The Hon. RICK COLLESS (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.04 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka:
I move: That this bill be now read a third time.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Leader of the Opposition) [4.04 p.m.]: I move: That the question be amended by omitting "be now read a third time" and inserting instead "be referred to General Purpose
Standing Committee No. 5 for inquiry and report".
The Opposition raised a number of important—
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted for questions.
STATEMENT ON PARLIAMENTARY STAFF
The PRESIDENT: As members we are all very grateful for the efforts that our staff make on our
behalf. Given the valuable role that our staff play it is important that our own staff, and the staff of our fellow
members including our political opponents, are treated with courtesy and respect. As members we are each the
managers and supervisors of our own staff, which brings a number of responsibilities and obligations. We also
need to be cognisant of the impact the actions of our staff may have. Unfortunately in recent weeks there have
been a number of incidents that have caused me some concern in regard to these matters.
Whilst we may have our political battles within this Chamber and its committees, it is essential that the
parliamentary workplace outside this Chamber does not become a hostile or oppressive environment for staff.
Likewise, whilst there is a limited place for humour in parliamentary proceedings, that does not mean members
and their staff are free from responsibility when they employ humour. I therefore take this opportunity to remind
members of a ruling made by President Willis in 1992:
Members of Parliament occupy a very special and privileged position in our society, and nowhere more so than within the
precincts of the Parliament. Parliament is not a school: there are no prefects; there are no schoolmasters; and the good and orderly conduct of the Parliament depends on the common sense, courtesy and observation of propriety by members. If that were not the
case it would be open to any member to do things which may be found to be excessive by his or her colleagues. This line of
propriety is very fine and completely ill defined. It relies entirely upon the good sense and courtesy of members.
I ask members to reflect upon this with regard to their interaction with other members' staff and also the conduct
of their own staff towards other members and other staff.
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7785
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The PRESIDENT: Order! I welcome into the President's gallery Mr Michael Owen, former member
for Bass Hill. Welcome back to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your visit.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
__________
WORKER CONSTRUCTION SITE SAFETY
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government
in the Legislative Council. In light of this weekend's Sydney Entertainment Centre roof collapse that almost
killed a worker, what steps has the Government taken to ensure that safety standards are being met and what is
the Government's response to community concerns that worker safety has been compromised in its attempts to
rush construction?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his question and indicate that there is nothing more
important on a building site than the safety of the people who work there. As a Minister responsible for some of
the largest projects in this State and this country, it is one of our key prerequisites. I think everyone was joyful in
the fact that no-one was killed by the collapse of the roof. It is early days in finding out exactly what happened,
but we need to ensure that this site and all others operate to the safest criteria they possibly can. I will take the
detail of the question on notice and refer it to my colleague for an answer.
M5 UPGRADE
The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and
Freight. Will the Minister update the House on the upgrade of the M5 and other related matters?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for her important question. Last Thursday, during a
debate on the upgrade of Sydney motorways the Hon. Lynda Voltz made a series of claims in an attempt to
mislead Parliament, not to mention the motorists of Western Sydney. The claims related to the Government's
upgrade of the M5, including the $400 million widening of the M5 West. That is a project Labor had 16 years to
start but, frankly, was not able to do it. More experienced members of this Parliament would remember how
Labor procrastinated for almost two years trying to secure a contract with Interlink Roads Pty Ltd to widen the
M5 West but to no avail—press releases, glossy brochures but no contract. Let me now turn to what the
Hon. Lynda Voltz claims. The words are available in Hansard for all to see. The member states:
The Government talks about widening the M5. In fact, the widening of the M5 began under the previous Labor Government. The
current Government did not invent the project; the project had already begun.
In my hand I have a signed sheet of the contract deed with Interlink Roads to widen the M5 West. On 19 June
2012 it was signed by me—that is my signature—and Roads and Maritime Services officials. That is
451 days—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order for the first time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is 451 days after Labor was thrown out of office. To help the
member opposite I will table the document following question time. It becomes even more embarrassing for
Labor and the Hon. Lynda Voltz as the contract deed clearly states that the Hon. Wal Murray and the
Hon. Bruce Baird—
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: In relation to the standing order that deals with substantive
matters about individuals, if the Minister has something to say about a member he should do so by way of
substantive motion, not during question time.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I was listening carefully to the Minister and he did not appear to be in
breach of any standing orders in the remarks he has made thus far. There is no point of order. The Minister has
the call.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The contract deed clearly states—
7786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: Relevance. The Minister was asked a question with regard to
works on the M5 West. The Minister is now referring to statements I have made. It is clear that west of Camden
Valley Way M5 widening had already occurred prior to that contract under the Labor Government. I ask that
you bring the Minister back to the leave of the question before the House regarding works on the M5 West,
rather than the Minister making up fairytales about what I said in the Parliament.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Lynda Voltz is making a debating point and has passed what is
admissible in a point of order. I render her point of order inoperable. The Minister has the call.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The contract clearly states that the Hon. Wal Murray and the Hon. Bruce
Baird initiated both the design and construction of the M5 West link back in the early 1990s. I will later table
the document. Let the Hansard show how the M5 West widening project commenced in August 2012 and was
completed in December 2014 in record time. This is incontestable, which makes the next statement even more
ridiculous. The member stated:
Widening had already begun on the road and previous Labor governments paid for it.
Without a signed contract deed in place with Interlink Roads, the company which operates the M5 South-West
Motorway, there was no way to finance or widen the motorway. It is disturbing how a new member of Labor's
revamped front bench could get it so wrong in the first week. I have a copy of the signatory sheet of the contract
deed to build the new M5. It was signed by senior WestConnex officials on 2 September last year and I will
table it following question time. [Time expired.]
MEMBER FOR EAST HILLS
The Hon. WALT SECORD: My question is directed to the Leader of the Government, and Minister
for Roads, Maritime and Freight. In light of the member for East Hills standing aside pending Electoral
Commission investigations does the Minister stand by his description of the member in this Parliament as "a
fantastic local member"?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The difference between my statements and those opposite is that I never
exaggerate or mislead the House. The matter to which the member is referring is now before the courts and,
frankly, those opposite should be aware of that. A matter that is before the courts does not deserve further
comment.
FARM TRESPASS
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and
Minister for Lands and Water. Is the Minister aware that serial activists are attacking traditional food production
systems using false environmental fears or concocted animal welfare concerns? Will the Minister advise the
House of the impact of illegal trespass activities on agricultural businesses, farms, farmers and rural mental
health?
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank the member for his question. There are many examples of
professional activists attacking farmers with false claims to try to drive a wedge between the bush and city. The
most direct of these attacks is farm trespass. This refers to the disruption of lawful animal husbandry activities in
circumstances where there is illegal entry onto the premises. Farm trespass is a crime and issues of trespass are
rightly matters for the police. The Government is concerned about the serious risks posed by trespass onto
farms. The impacts of this illegal activity include biosecurity risks that may result in significant economic loss
to rural and regional communities, risks to the welfare and safety of farmers and their families, as well as risks
to animal welfare. Such incidents are also an unjust invasion of the privacy of farmers carrying out lawful
animal husbandry practices. The Government is committed to ensuring that farmers who treat their animals in a
lawful and responsible manner are permitted to carry out their business undisturbed by the unlawful actions of
animal activists.
In 2014 the Government released its NSW Farm Incursions Policy to encourage industry to work
with the police and regulatory authorities to combat unlawful trespass and threats to biosecurity and animal
welfare. Industry and government working groups are continuing to work together in New South Wales, and
nationally, to respond to the risks associated with farm trespass, reflecting the importance of maintaining
high biosecurity and animal welfare standards for domestic and international markets in animals and animal
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7787
products. Animal welfare in New South Wales is legislated under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
1979, and the Government will continue to support the highest animal welfare standards in New South
Wales.
The Government does not support vigilantes taking matters into their own hands and acting illegally.
Where there is concern about animal welfare a robust system is in place in New South Wales to address animal
cruelty, reflecting and responding to changing community attitudes and practices. The industry is growing
increasingly concerned due to the disruption, harassment, obstruction and interference in the legitimate
operation of its enterprises and the related adverse impacts of such farm invasions. Adverse impacts and risks
arising from such behaviours relate to biosecurity, economic loss, animal welfare, mental health of farmers and
farming families, community confidence in animal production systems, unjust invasion of privacy and fairness
and equality before the law, particularly in relation to rights against trespass and unauthorised surveillance.
Animal cruelty is unacceptable and any person concerned about a breach should immediately
communicate his or her concerns to the enforcement agencies. These are RSPCA NSW, Animal Welfare League
NSW and the NSW Police Force. Equally, illegal trespass is unacceptable. All New South Wales citizens,
regardless of whether they reside in Bondi or Bourke, should be afforded the same protection from people
illegally entering their properties.
HARMONY DAY
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for
Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Could the Minister inform the House what the
Government is doing to celebrate the rich cultural diversity of New South Wales this Harmony Day?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Harmony Day is celebrated throughout Australia on 21 March. It is a
significant annual occasion for all Australians to come together and celebrate our nation's rich cultural diversity.
It is good to see members from all sides of the Chamber wearing the orange ribbon today. The central message
for Harmony Day is that everyone belongs, reinforcing the importance of inclusiveness to all Australians. The
day is also the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, something I am
sure all members of this House support. Since Harmony Day was first held in 1999, more than 60,000 events
have taken place in childcare centres, schools, community organisations, churches, businesses, and government
and non-government agencies across Australia.
When we talk about a multicultural New South Wales, this no longer represents a small section of our
community. I am proud to say that New South Wales is one of the most culturally diverse States in the world, as
we come from about 225 different birthplaces, speak more than 200 languages and practise more than
100 religious beliefs. Other than English the top 10 languages spoken at home are Arabic, Mandarin, Cantonese,
Vietnamese, Greek, Italian, Spanish, Hindi and Korean. Here in our own home State we can find mosques,
churches, synagogues and temples. In some suburbs these places of religious worship may be found just a short
distance from one another. In fact all the world's major religions are professed here. So Multicultural NSW
describes our collective identity and that is what makes our State so strong.
Continuous efforts have been made in New South Wales for cultural and religious differences to be
acknowledged and respected. We are blessed to live in a peaceful, prosperous and diverse community. This did
not happen overnight and it did not happen without the hard work of our communities and their leaders. As
Minister for Multiculturalism I am proud to say that New South Wales was the first State to enshrine cultural
diversity in legislation and to embed multicultural policies across New South Wales programs and services. The
Multicultural NSW Act declares:
… the people of New South Wales … are free to profess, practise and maintain their own linguistic, religious and ancestral heritage …
This is central to the core Australian values of fairness, inclusion and respect for our cultural, religious and
linguistic diversity. As Minister for Multiculturalism, I am proud to be responsible for promoting the value of
cultural diversity and fostering acceptance—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: I am having trouble hearing the contribution from the Minister
over the noise from the front bench of the Opposition.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order for the second time. I was trying to
listen to point of order and I felt myself in total agreement with the Leader of the Government on this issue.
There was far too much interjection. The Minister should be heard in silence.
7788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: As Minister for Multiculturalism, I am proud to be responsible for
promoting the value of cultural diversity and fostering acceptance and mutual respect through the work of my
agency, Multicultural NSW. To celebrate Harmony Day I announced more than $300,000 in funding for
22 innovative projects to combat racism, help refugees settle into the community and bring culturally diverse
communities together. The 2015-16 unity grants which form part of the Multicultural NSW grants program
provide funding of up to $30,000 for projects that bring culturally diverse communities together and promote
social cohesion and harmony.
Through the unity grants program we are investing in innovative projects that will make a positive
difference to people's lives and will unify our community. Successful projects include helping vulnerable female
refugees in the Hunter find jobs and work towards financial independence, supporting young multicultural
leaders in Wagga Wagga to host events and activities focused on promoting social harmony, and funding a
mobile multicultural men's shed to travel around the Hunter to help seniors from culturally and linguistically
diverse communities. I congratulate the successful recipients who have developed great ideas and projects to
ensure our community remains strong and united.
COAL INDUSTRY JOB LOSSES
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question is directed to the Hon. Duncan Gay, representing the
Premier. Peabody Coal is about to go bankrupt, threatening the jobs of thousands of coalmine workers in New
South Wales. This comes on top of a decline of 7,462 in coal jobs in New South Wales between May 2014 and
May 2015.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: While I understand members when asking a question are
allowed to give sufficient background to render the question intelligible, the level of detail that the member was
going into was far in excess of the latitude that is normally allowed.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I agree that there was considerable detail. Normally I would allow it to go a
little longer, but the member was reaching the tolerable limit so I would ask him to complete his question as
quickly as possible, observing the interrogatory tradition of questioning in this House during question time.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: As I was saying, a decline of 7,462 in coal jobs in New South Wales
between May—
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: Mr President, you have just asked the member to ask his
question as quickly as possible and he has immediately returned to a level of detail that is completely
inappropriate to a question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There were literally only three or four seconds between points of order
then. The member may continue.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: BHP is laying off 290 workers at Mount Arthur and Anglo
American is laying off 500 workers at Drayton. Does the Government have a plan to deal with the structural
decline of coal including a transition and diversification plan for workers to find employment in other
industries?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for his question. It is probably the wettest
I have ever seen this Parliament, because it is flooded with crocodile tears—down the corridors, up the benches,
through the trees and under the seats. Here is the person who spends every waking moment trying to destroy the
coal industry then he comes in here weeping crocodile tears about the jobs lost in the coal industry. My plan for
the future to stop the loss of those jobs would be to disempower The Greens.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham to order for the first time.
ALBERT (TIBBY) COTTER WALKWAY
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and
Freight. When the decision was made to build the Albert "Tibby" Cotter Bridge, was the Minister or his
department made aware of the Sydney Cricket and Sports Grounds Trust master plan for a car park at the site? If
so, when was he advised of those plans?
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7789
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is a little bit like the twilight zone. They have conspiracy theories. If
Labor wants my advice, I would have left that question to The Greens.
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: Mr President, can you please ask the Minister to stop
debating the question and to answer it?
The PRESIDENT: Order! There was some substance to the member's point of order. The Minister has
the call.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The short answer is no, I did not see any plans and, no, we do not have
plans to turn it into a motorway or a parking lot. The ABC, along with The Greens, wasted its 5¢ a day on Radio
National when it tried to put this conspiracy theory on air over the weekend. They peddled it into 2BL, which
normally has a good afternoon program. It is the silliest thing I have heard in a long time. Do we have plans to
turn the Albert "Tibby" Cotter Bridge into an entrance park or a parking lot near the football stadium?
Absolutely not. Imagine the cars coming together in the paddock where the Albert "Tibby" Cotter Bridge starts.
It defies logic. It may well be an early April Fools' joke from the ABC. The design drawings for the Albert
"Tibby" Cotter Walkway state that the bridge can safely carry pedestrians and cyclists as well as the occasional
maintenance vehicle, if and when required. If a maintenance vehicle is required to use the walkway, no other
vehicle can travel on it at the same time and the vehicle must drive at a slow consistent pace so it does not put
additional force on the bridge by accelerating or braking sharply.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Penny Sharpe to order for the first time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: She asked a silly question and I want to give an answer. It would not be
possible for vehicular traffic to operate in this way, which is why the structure is not suitable for this usage. The
walkway route also has gradients and sharp turns, which are not suitable for vehicle traffic to travel safely. The
bridge was approved by the Heritage Council specifically as a shared path for pedestrians and cyclists.
The Hon. John Ajaka: Point of order: It is impossible for members to hear the Leader of the
Government give his excellent answer with the continual interjections and discussions from members opposite.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There have been far too many interjections during the Minister's answer.
Opposition members have other forms of the House available to them if they wish to reply to what the Minister
is saying. The Minister has the call.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Roads and Maritime Services review of environmental factors
supports approval for a shared path only. Any deviation to the use of this bridge, notwithstanding the fact it is
not designed to carry vehicular traffic, would require new approvals to be sought in the same way the initial
approvals were—by an open and transparent process in consultation with the community. We can see the
stupidity of this question and the conspiracy theory that somehow, in the twilight zone, the Albert "Tibby"
Cotter Bridge is designed to carry cars.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the first time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Cars would somehow come together at the Sydney Girls High School oval.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the second time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They would then come up the spiral, which is not designed to carry
vehicles— [Time expired.]
[Interruption]
The PRESIDENT: Order! The question has been asked and answered. The Minister for Roads,
Maritime and Freight and the Hon. Sophie Cotsis will cease conducting a conversation across the Chamber.
AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries.
Will the Minister update the House on the record-breaking agricultural export earnings for New South Wales?
7790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: New South Wales agricultural exports earned a record $6.7 billion in 2015.
Driven by strong global demand and assisted by a low Australian dollar, the record is a 10 per cent increase in
New South Wales agricultural export value and a reflection of the efficiency of our primary industry sector,
which is the largest and most innovative in the country. The growth in 2015 export values is a great indicator for
the future prospects of a profitable agriculture sector in New South Wales. This State produces some of the
highest quality food and fibre and the rest of the world cannot get enough of the commodities and goods that our
primary producers are exporting. I am determined to continue to improve market access and ensure that the
New South Wales Government provides every opportunity to grow the $12 billion primary industry sector that
supports more than 100,000 jobs in regional New South Wales.
The highest value exports in 2015 were beef, wool, cotton and wheat. Legumes generated the biggest
move with a growth of more than 200 per cent valued at $250 million, which generated the strongest percentage
growth for 2015. Chickpea was the largest legume crop in New South Wales, which is estimated to have
reached a record in the 2015-16 season. Those results were achieved by producers responding to rising chickpea
prices in 2015 and largely increasing the area planted to chickpeas, which produced above average yields. The
ability of our farmers to respond to world markets has been supported by research generated by the
NSW Department of Primary Industries in collaboration with the Grains Research and Development
Corporation. Anticipated falls in Indian pulse production due to their below average rainfall saw 2015 chickpea
prices rise from an already elevated level. In response to forecast high chickpea prices, the 2016-17 export
volumes are expected to remain relatively high.
Wine exports moved into the top five 2015 exports due to growing demand for New South Wales wine
in key markets, increasing 9 per cent to $510 million. Strong demand for Australian wine in China and Hong
Kong has driven growth in Australian wine exports. Beef demand remains strong, with New South Wales beef
exports bringing $1.7 billion to the New South Wales economy, which is an increase of 22 per cent or
$308 million. The combination of strong domestic restocker demand and the low Australian dollar and robust
international demand for Australian beef and veal has helped to boost returns to producers. Wool demand was
strong with an increase of 20 per cent, or $100 million, to $610 million in New South Wales wool exports. The
Australian eastern market indicator wool price is forecast to be 13 per cent higher in 2015-16, which is
supported by an assumed lower Australian dollar value and a forecast fall in wool production. The fall in wool
production is expected to be more than offset by higher wool prices.
Cotton export earnings are forecast to increase significantly in 2016-17, largely as a result of national
export volume and, by association, New South Wales exports are expected to increase. Cotton prices are
expected to increase in the medium term, reflecting expected higher growth in world cotton consumption
relative to production, and significant reduction in world cotton stocks. In 2015 our key export markets included
India, Japan, the United States of America, China and South-east Asia. Looking forward, the major agricultural
commodities for which export earnings are forecast to rise in 2016 are wool, dairy products, sugar, live feeders
and slaughter cattle, cotton and canola. Our State's primary industries form the backbone of our regional
communities. I am proud that our produce is feeding not only the country but also the world.
ALBERT (TIBBY) COTTER WALKWAY
Dr MEHREEN FARUQI: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime
and Freight. Was the Government required to pass a bill to appropriate or resume Moore Park land to build the
Albert (Tibby) Cotter Walkway across Anzac Parade? If so, why was a bill never introduced in the Parliament?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We are getting more questions from the twilight zone. There are a
thousand stories out there in the twilight zone; not one of them is true or based on any fact whatsoever. We
would not have been able to build the bridge had we not gone through proper processes to build it. We did go
through the proper processes and we built a shared path—for pedestrians and cyclists—not a motorway for
some perceived parking lot or something that The Greens, Radio National, and now the Labor Party believe will
be built.
It is a project which would not work, because engineering-wise the bridge would not carry these
vehicles. The Government's engineers told Radio National that the bridge was not up to that. As I said earlier, in
answer to a question from the shadow Minister, if the bridge were able to carry cars—which it is not—and had
we wanted to, we would have had to get a change of planning, which would have involved the Heritage Council
allowing us to do that. Can members imagine that happening? I certainly cannot. This is the silliest thing that
this group of individuals—The Greens, the Labor Party and Radio National—has ever embarked on.
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7791
ALBERT (TIBBY) COTTER WALKWAY AND ANZAC OBELISK
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight.
When will the Anzac obelisk be returned to its original position at the head of Anzac Parade, as recommended
by the schedule of conservation works commissioned by Roads and Maritime Services [RMS]?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: From memory, the obelisk was moved as part of the renovations that were
needed for the Centenary of Anzac. Before construction commenced on the Albert (Tibby) Cotter Bridge, the
Anzac Parade obelisk was removed and stored offsite in October 2014 to undergo some much-needed
restoration work and to ensure its protection during the building work for the walkway. The obelisk was built in
1917 as a tribute to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, and was carefully cleaned for the first time
ever—with decay and cracks fixed—and the bronze fixtures were repaired. The refurbishment included
presenting the obelisk in as close to original condition as possible, including restoring the original lights on the
top of the structure.
Extensive consultation was carried out to carefully manage the restoration and repair efforts of this
important monument. Roads and Maritime Services held a stakeholder workshop on 12 October 2015, where it
was determined the obelisk would be located in the footpath verge area on the eastern side of Anzac Parade west
of the shared path. Centennial Parklands has agreed with the preferred location and once final approval is
obtained Roads and Maritime Services will start detailed design of the obelisk foundations and development of
mounting. The obelisk will be reinstated by conservation specialists and is expected to be in place by Anzac Day
2017.
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I ask a supplementary question. Given the Minister's answer that the
obelisk will be located in the footpath verge on the eastern side of Centennial Park, and given that this obelisk
was put in place to commemorate the fact that Anzac Parade was named after the Anzacs, will it still be able to
be seen once it is in that spot?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The footpath is beside Anzac Parade. I would imagine that if people are
beside the footpath beside Anzac Parade they will be able to see it.
OVERHEIGHT HEAVY VEHICLES
The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and
Freight. Will the Minister update the House on overheight heavy vehicle incidents in Sydney?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for his question, and for his keen interest
in these matters.
The Hon. Walt Secord: He is obsessed with these vehicles. He writes down the rego numbers.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I know. I have spoken in the House previously about overheight vehicles.
It is no secret that I am as frustrated and as fed up with rogue truckies that continue to have a crack and drive
into our tunnels when they are overheight as the people that are held up on our roads each day. This small group
of cowboy drivers puts an otherwise professional and vital industry in a poor light and disrupts thousands of
motorists. The number of overheight incidents has seriously dropped since 2011, thanks to the Government's
strong and increased enforcement and compliance program in this area. In fact, we have cut overheight incidents
by more than 80 per cent. In 2011 the number of incidents was around 300. In 2015 it had dropped to 25. That is
a good result. It still needs more work, but it is a good result.
Right across the Sydney network, I have dramatically increased the number and size of overheight
truck signs, installed warning lights, installed infra-red height detectors and created layby areas for trucks to pull
over before entering tunnels. In addition, I have introduced hefty fines and penalties. The reality is that any
truckie worth his salt would know which routes in Sydney are height-restricted, and when they are off route or,
as it is known in the industry, "running hot". Penalties are now up to a maximum of $3,740 and a loss of six
demerit points. We are also hitting these drivers with deregistration and taking away their licences. So the
company and the driver are hit.
However, not even these mammoth fines and penalties seem to deter some drivers. During the past five
years we have sought to recover millions in costs from truck companies that have caused traffic chaos because
7792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
of overheight incidents. This does not take into account the cost to people who have been late to work, missed
flights or spent hours stuck in traffic. It does include the cost of repairing the roofs of these tunnels and overhead
walkways. Unfortunately, last Friday we saw yet another overheight incident at the M5 East tunnel entrance.
This downright stupid behaviour meant delays of up to half an hour for motorists. The driver was slapped with
$3,700 in fines and the loss of six demerit points—hopefully, deterrent enough not to do it again.
I have championed a number of changes to make the trucking industry safer. This includes advocating
improvements to heavy vehicle road worthiness standards nationally and reducing speeding by more than
90 per cent. That is one of our greatest results. The number of trucks caught speeding in New South Wales has
been reduced by 90 per cent. I think that everyone who travels our highways would agree that it feels safer and
better out there on the roads since this has happened. We have ensured that New South Wales has the biggest
spend in the country, with more than $65 million spent annually, on enforcement and compliance. We are
willing to do whatever is needed to keep our roads safe, but this small group of people who are not doing the
right thing need to put their brains into gear before they put their vehicles into gear. They need to obey the laws.
WATER AND SEWERAGE SERVICES PENSIONER REBATES
The Hon. PAUL GREEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime
and Freight, representing the Premier. Is the Minister aware that the pensioner rebates for water and sewerage
services from Sydney Water are substantially higher than the rebates received by pensioners in rural, regional
and coastal New South Wales? What is the Government doing to address this inequity to give our regional, rural
and coastal pensioners a fair go and equal rebates?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for his question. As he asked it I looked
across to my colleague the Minister for Lands and Water. I wondered why the Hon. Paul Green did not direct
his question to the Minister but to me representing the Premier. I do not have the details, but I am willing to take
the question on notice, refer it to the Premier and return with a detailed answer.
MEMBER FOR EAST HILLS
The Hon. ERNEST WONG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing. In
light of the member for East Hills standing aside pending a NSW Electoral Commission investigation, does the
Minister still stand by his wholehearted endorsement of the member on 10 March 2015 at 7.15 p.m. with
East Hills community leaders?
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: The question in no way relates to the Minister's ministerial
duties.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Would the Hon. Ernest Wong be kind enough to give me a copy of his
question?
The Hon. ERNEST WONG: To the point of order—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I will hear the member's point of order, but I would like a copy of his
question.
The Hon. ERNEST WONG: My point of order is in relation to Standing Order 64, where this
question is put to the Minister in relation to a public affair and the action as to how the Minister is going to deal
with public interest and public confidence. It is within the rules.
The Hon. Walt Secord: To the point of order: To assist the President and the House, the specific
nature of the date, 10 March—
The Hon. Niall Blair: Is this a debating point?
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Walt Secord is making a contribution on the point of order:
I would like to hear it.
The Hon. Walt Secord: The question relates to a meeting on 10 March 2015 at 7.15 p.m. The
honourable member was very precise. The question relates to the Minister's activities as the Minister for
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7793
Multiculturalism and his meeting with East Hills ethnic community leaders—that is very specific to his portfolio.
Does the Minister stand by his ringing endorsement of the member for East Hills? I have a photograph—there he
is, right next to him, hugging him. Is the Minister going to rely on the President to save him?
The PRESIDENT: Order! As the question stands, it falls foul of Standing Order 64 (1). If the member
wishes to reformulate his question, he may have an opportunity to ask it later in question time.
NSW SENIORS FESTIVAL
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister
for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Will the Minister outline what the Government is
doing to support and celebrate older people through the 2016 NSW Seniors Festival?
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the honourable member for his question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Sophie Cotsis that she is on two calls to order.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: The 2016 NSW Seniors Festival is the largest celebration for seniors in the
Southern Hemisphere and attracts hundreds of thousands of seniors aged over 60 each year. The Seniors Festival
has been presented in New South Wales for 59 years now. Each year the festival grows bigger and better. In
2016 the NSW Seniors Festival will run from Friday 1 April to Sunday 10 April. As the festival now runs for
10 days its name has appropriately changed from New South Wales Seniors Week to NSW Seniors Festival.
Grow Young is the theme of this year's festival and celebrates seniors for their energy, experience and unique
ability to know who they are, and what makes them happy. The message is simple: No matter what your age it is
never too late to grow, to learn, to laugh and to be inspired.
This statewide celebration engages older people in our communities and empowers them to try new
experiences and meet new friends. There are activities ranging from age-friendly yoga classes, healthy-cooking
workshops, computer classes, and opportunities to attend free performance, cultural and intergenerational
events. One of the primary ways the New South Wales Government is supporting this diverse range of events
across the State is through the NSW Seniors Festival grants program—allocated across the State from a total
pool of $200,000. A total of 480 organisations applied for grants this year, and I thank them all for their
applications. Congratulations to the 200 organisations that were successful in obtaining a grant. I wish them all
well with their event projects and am certain that their local seniors community will be the better for the event.
One of the most high-profile elements of the 2016 NSW Seniors Festival is the ambassadors program.
Ambassadors are wonderful seniors from our community—people with extraordinary stories who are an
inspiration, both to their fellow seniors and to all of us in the community. Members will be aware of the valued
contribution made last year by NSW Seniors Festival ambassador Jackie French, an award-winning author and
the 2015 Senior Australian of the Year. I would like to take this opportunity to again congratulate Jackie and
thank her for her continued contribution to the NSW Seniors Festival. I am pleased to advise the House that the
2016 Senior Australian of the Year, Professor Gordian Fulde, is a 2016 NSW Seniors Festival ambassador. Like
many of our ambassadors, the professor is very much a "working senior", making a significant difference to our
local community and to the world.
Our 15 ambassadors are a diverse group with a wealth of life experience, from 2014 NSW Human
Rights Award winner and Muslim community leader Maha Abdo, to Heather Lee, an 89-year-old athlete with
28 gold medals under her belt. There are numerous other ambassadors, including Aboriginal elder and
community leader, Lyall Dennison; disability advocate and former Disability Discrimination Commissioner,
Graeme Innes; nutritionist, Dr Rosemary Stanton, OAM; technology enthusiast, Nan Bosler, OAM; palliative
care doctor, Yvonne McMaster, OAM; performer and exercise guru, Robina Beard, OAM; and many others. All
ambassadors are seniors with an incredible zest for life who have proven that people do not have to slow down
as they get older. The 2016 NSW Seniors Festival will provide us all the opportunity to celebrate the ongoing
contribution that seniors, including these ambassadors, make to our State and thank them all for their great and
continued contribution.
HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question is directed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for
Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism, representing the Minister for Health, the Hon. Jillian
7794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
Skinner. Is it a fact that according to the NSW Bureau of Health Information data at least 54 per cent of all
presentations to New South Wales hospitals are for non-urgent and semi-urgent conditions such as sore throats,
coughs, headaches, et cetera, that could be treated by local doctors? What action is the Government taking to
ensure that emergency departments are free to treat real emergencies?
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Walt Secord that he is on two calls to order.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the honourable member for his question. I thank the Minister for
Health for the incredible work she is doing. I was looking at statistics in relation to emergency departments and,
because of the great work of the Minister for Health, 74 per cent of patients leave emergency departments within
four hours. What was the statistic under Labor?
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Walt Secord that he is on two calls to order. If he
continues to interject he will be removed from the Chamber. The Minister has the call.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: IN 2010 under the Labor Government it was 60 per cent. Labor used to
brag about how wonderful it was at 60 per cent, but do those opposite give any credit to the Minister for Health
who, through her hard work, has brought it up to 74 per cent? Not a chance. Those opposite complain but they
forget their miserable track record when in government. As the question asks for a number of specifics, I will
refer the question to the Minister for Health and come back to the House with an answer.
AERIAL WEED SPRAYING
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for
Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. What is the Government's response to community
concerns that aerial spraying of weeds in State forests is causing dangerous chemical drift into our State's
pristine waterways and onto valued agricultural land?
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank the member for her question. It certainly is a timely one. Many
residents whose land backs onto State forests—particularly landholders—are concerned about the control of
pests and weeds. The managers of those lands are responsible for ensuring the eradication of pests and weeds
and for making sure—as the member alluded to in her question—that they do not spread to the agricultural
pursuits that may operate alongside. In forestry, herbicides are used to control grasses and woody weeds during
plantation establishment and to prevent weeds spreading to neighbouring lands. All pesticides, including
herbicides, used in Australia must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
[APVMA].
Registration by the APVMA indicates that, if used according to label directions, the product poses no
risk to the environment, worker safety or public health. The herbicides used by the Forestry Corporation of
New South Wales are all approved for safe use by the APVMA. In fact, they are standard agricultural herbicides
and can be purchased over the counter by home gardeners in hardware stores and garden centres. The Forestry
Corporation uses all herbicides in accordance with the label directions or, in special circumstances, the
conditions of an off-label permit issued by the APVMA. It is worth noting that Australian Government figures
indicate that plantation forestry accounts for less than 1 per cent of the herbicides used in Australia and the
Forestry Corporation would account for only a fraction of that 1 per cent.
NSW LOCAL LANDCARE COORDINATORS INITIATIVE
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and
Minister for Lands and Water. Will the Minister update the House on the appointment of local coordinators as
part of the $15 million Landcare initiative?
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his question. As I have said before,
prior to the March 2015 election the Government committed to providing $15 million over four years to the
NSW Local Landcare Coordinators Initiative. I am proud to say that the Government is delivering on this
commitment. The program is jointly managed by Landcare NSW and the New South Wales Government
through Local Land Services. Sixty part-time community-based local coordinators have been appointed by the
New South Wales Government to help build and support Landcare and community networks across New South
Wales. The coordinators have been located across the State, including at Broken Hill in the State's far west;
Murrumbidgee in the Riverina; Coffs Harbour, on the coast; and Penrith, right here in Sydney.
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7795
We know the important contribution that local communities and the Landcare movement play in
improving our landscapes and ensuring that our land is both productive and ecologically sustainable. By delivering
on our commitment, we are doing our part to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the Landcare movement. Over
the next three days more than 60 coordinators will meet in Stockton for their induction. They will be joined by
representatives of the 62 community-based organisations that will host them. The coordinators and their host
organisations will learn about the program and the important role they play in building its value and legacy. This
event is the first step in building a community of practice across the State to make Landcare and environmental
volunteer groups stronger. We want to increase the effective participation of voluntary community-based groups
and networks, landholders and the wider community in natural resource management activities.
This initiative supports the network of hardworking volunteers and local communities to manage and
restore the natural environment and improve the sustainability of agricultural production. Rob Dulhunty, the
chair of Landcare NSW, has welcomed the appointment of the coordinators and has described it as a first step
towards a consistent approach across the State. I know Mr Dulhunty is excited that his organisation will be
supported by this Government to share skills and knowledge, to generate ideas and to innovate. This is another
great example of the Government forging important partnerships and working with key stakeholders to ensure
ongoing results for our communities across New South Wales.
The Government is not just providing a one-off grant for Landcare NSW; we are investing in a long-term,
financially sustainable model that will ensure the future and ongoing success of one of the most important
community movements in this State. The New South Wales Government has also invested in a future fund that will
develop initiatives to ensure Landcare moves towards a fully sustainable financial model. This Government
believes decisions are best made by local communities. That is why we are working to enable the Landcare
movement through this program. The best way to ensure the long-term viability of Landcare is to build the capacity
of Landcare staff in local regions so they can, in turn, share the knowledge and expertise they have developed.
I know the Local Landcare Coordinators Initiative, and the Landcare Future Fund in particular, is
welcome news to thousands of volunteers who are working tirelessly to sustain local communities throughout
New South Wales. I am proud that the New South Wales Government is supporting natural resource
management by investing in the people that their communities have requested. I note that the Parliamentary
Secretary is the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Landcare Group. He is heavily involved in that group, as
are members on both sides of the Chamber.
The Hon. Mick Veitch: Chair? Have you told Katrina?
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: The Hon. Rick Colless is the secretary. He would make a fantastic chair
but he is a great secretary. The good thing about the coordinators initiative is that local communities put in
submissions as to their location and the Government has supported and delivered on those requests.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If members have further questions, I suggest they place them on notice.
ALBERT (TIBBY) COTTER WALKWAY
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Earlier in question time I was asked a question about the Tibby Cotter
Walkway and an Act to put it in place. I add to the answer I gave that Roads and Maritime Services [RMS] has
the relevant statutory powers under the Roads Act to build the bridge across Anzac Parade. RMS obtained the
consent of the landowner, the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust, and the relevant Minister endorsed the
terms and conditions of the consent-development deed. The planning assessment was prepared under part 5 of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and displayed for public comment. It was determined to proceed
with the project. That was the appropriate planning process for this project under the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act. A section 60 approval under the Heritage Act was obtained from the Heritage Council following
public display for the works, as Centennial and Moore parks are listed on the State Heritage Register.
Questions without notice concluded.
M5 UPGRADE
Personal Explanation
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ, by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 88.
During question time the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, the Hon. Duncan Gay, said that I had misled
7796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
the House by stating that Labor had begun M5 widening. Members should note an article from the Daily
Telegraph of 21 December 2011 that quotes Minister Gay and notes that widening of the M5 was begun under
the previous Labor Government. Members should also note an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning
Herald at the same time in which Mr David Shoebridge attacks Labor for our widening works. In
2000 Heathcote Road to Macarthur Drive on the M5 was widened by the then Labor Government. Camden
Valley Way to Brooks Way was widened to four lanes in each direction in 2006 and 2007. The only person
misleading the House—
Leave withdrawn.
Pursuant to sessional orders debate on committee reports proceeded with.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES
Report: Service Coordination in Communities with High Social Needs
Debate resumed from 23 February 2016.
The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR [5.11 p.m.]: As the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social
Issues, I am proud to lead in this take-note debate on the inquiry into service coordination in communities with
high social needs. I start by thanking my colleagues: our deputy chair, the Hon. Greg Donnelly, and members of
the committee, the Hon. Shayne Mallard, the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the
Hon. Penny Sharpe. They demonstrated a collegiate approach and a determination to find solutions to these
difficult issues. I thank them for this because I am sure that this collegiate approach can continue throughout our
time together on the committee. This is important work and it deserves to be approached in a collegiate manner.
I also put on record my sincere thanks to the committee staff, and in particular to Rebecca Main and
Cathryn Cummins for their hard work and their enduring support. This was my first report as chair of a
committee and it would have been so much more difficult without their tireless efforts. Cathryn has moved to
Canberra and I would like to express on Hansard my appreciation of her quiet and thoughtful manner and her
ability to deal clearly and concisely with everything that was thrown at us. The entire committee staff do truly
amazing work and I think we would be lost without them.
The service coordination in communities with high social needs inquiry was referred to the committee
by the Deputy Premier, the Hon. Troy Grant. The committee resolved to undertake the inquiry on 25 June 2015.
I am grateful to the Deputy Premier for referring this matter to the committee as he has had much to do with this
issue through the Dubbo Ministers Action Group. He understands the issues confronting these communities and,
more than that, he understands the benefits that we can achieve through service coordination.
Our terms of reference requested the committee to inquire into and report on service coordination in
communities with high social needs, including: the extent to which government and non-government service
providers identify the needs of clients and provide a coordinated response to ensure access to services both
within and outside their particular area of responsibility; barriers to the effective coordination of services,
including lack of client awareness of services, and in the legislative provisions such as privacy laws;
consideration of initiatives such as the Dubbo Ministers Action Group and best-practice models for the
coordination of services; and any other related matters.
I relate to those terms of reference as I was a cancer nurse for more than 20 years. As a clinician, one of
my constant frustrations was different professionals' inability to share information about our clients. We all had
the clients' best interests at heart and yet we constantly struggled to share information that would have been of
benefit to our clients. To me, this was a core issue for the inquiry. The inquiry received more than
50 submissions from a range of stakeholders including councils, academics, government agencies and
non-government services. The committee held three public hearings at Parliament House—the first on
28 August 2015, the second on 8 October 2015 and the final one on 6 November 2015.
We had two days of site visits, which were extremely beneficial and very informative. The first of these
site visits was spent in two Sydney suburbs, Mount Druitt and Claymore. In Mount Druitt we visited an
impressive collective impact initiative named The Hive. I was impressed by the work of this initiative, which
might not be groundbreaking but will pave the way for excellent service coordination. The Hive does not engage
in service delivery but was established specifically to foster collaboration between agencies and organisations
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7797
delivering services in Mount Druitt. It has quickly and deservedly gained support from the community and
agencies. Liz Dibbs heads The Hive, and she is impressive and determined to do a good job. She believes in
what she is doing and what she is trying to achieve.
Next we visited the Claymore Action Network. An important part of this initiative is the coordinated
working groups that deliver, monitor and evaluate actions and results in the areas of learning and employment,
community engagement and youth. Karen Barwick and Julie Jarett have taken up the challenge of training
community members in literacy. They are a fantastic example of people taking the effort to know where there
needs to be change in their community and being actively involved in making that change in the long term.
I was impressed with the work they do. On 5 November 2015 we visited Bourke and met with a range of
stakeholders. We enjoyed a particularly interesting visit to the Maranguka Community Hub, which is an
initiative of the Bourke Aboriginal Community Working Party to create better coordinated support for
vulnerable families and children in Bourke.
The initiative involves community-led multidisciplinary teams working in partnership with relevant
government and non-government agencies and organisations. We were told about how the hub helped a teenage
boy to obtain a passport when his football team was invited to play in an overseas tournament. This boy did not
have a birth certificate and he had no idea about how to obtain one, so he was going to give up his dream of
playing football overseas. The Maranguka service coordinated all the services required for this boy to access his
birth certificate, get a passport and play football overseas. That may seem a small victory but it was a big thing
for his young fellow and his family. It was a clear example of how service coordination, when targeted to
resolve an issue, works.
I commend the group in Bourke for the terrific job they do, and I look forward to the service continuing
to thrive into the future. Both those site visits confirmed that across the State various models are being trialled as
communities and agencies seek to find ways to maximise their services through coordination. A witness from the
police youth club in Bourke stated clearly that it was asking not for more services on the ground but for existing
services to be coordinated and focused on the issues at hand. The site visit to Bourke was a powerful experience,
as was hearing those words from the service provider. This is an exciting time and this report is pertinent. We
have never been more aligned to appreciating the value of service coordination and where it can take us.
An area that caught my interest, and has relevance and impact beyond the communities that the
committee focused on, is privacy and the associated legislative framework. It became clear during the inquiry
that there needs to be a greater understanding of what is permissible for service providers under the privacy
framework in New South Wales. We must always protect an individual's privacy. But the best outcomes are
achieved with a holistic approach to a person's needs, and the privacy framework is intended to help, not hinder,
a person's wellbeing. The gap is not in this legislation; the gap is in the knowledge about it. The committee
recommended that the Privacy Commissioner develop guidelines to help educate government and
non-government organisations in this area.
Dr Coombes gave excellent evidence and numerous pertinent examples. In my practice I was often
told, "We cannot tell you that because we would be breaching confidentiality." If there is agreement from the
person you are discussing then services can be coordinated and information shared. We need to look at
educating people about the legislation and giving practitioners and service providers the confidence to say,
"That is not right; we are allowed to share that information with the consent of the person we are helping." This
issue has arisen during other inquiries, such as those into elder abuse and registered nurses in nursing homes.
The matter comes up time and again, and we must resolve it now.
Ms Jan Barham: Boring.
The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR: I note the interjection. We can do something, and we must empower
people to act. The committee heard evidence about pilot programs and from organisations across New South
Wales concerning best-practice principles. We visited inspiring non-government organisations at Bourke, Mount
Druitt and Claymore. Year after year, those communities report experiencing entrenched disadvantage. The
complete dedication of those involved in achieving positive change in their communities is amazing. There are
excellent government initiatives underway, including one-place service centres and the pursuit of the co-design
approach on the Central Coast. Critically, the inquiry highlighted that the delivery of services must change.
If we want different results in these persistently disadvantaged communities we cannot continue to do
the same thing and expect different outcomes. We need to put the most vulnerable in our communities first.
7798 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
We must ensure that there is service coordination. The issue of effective service coordination is important, and
it is something we can fix. We can deliver, and together we can make a difference. The Benevolent Society
stated:
The underlying premise of collective impact is that no single organisation can create large-scale lasting social change alone.
It further stated:
Sustainable change which addresses complex issues requires people from different sectors, different functions, different cultures
and diverse geographies to come together and to be part of the solution.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE [5.24 p.m.]: I contribute to this take-note debate as a member of the
Standing Committee on Social Issues inquiry into effective service coordination to overcome disadvantage.
I begin my contribution by saying that the words hide what we are talking about when we speak of
disadvantaged communities. Regularly in those communities too many children go to bed hungry at night in
inadequate housing. Not enough people in those communities are able to work, even if they wanted to. They live
with higher rates of violence and incarceration and lower levels of education. Yet they get up every single day
and try to improve their communities. Not surprisingly, that is one of the things the committee learnt when we
visited those communities.
I have an ongoing sense of frustration that, yet again, we are discussing how we can improve
coordination in those communities. The tales that residents tell are the same ones they have been telling for a
long time. They tell stories of inadequate funding. They tell stories of funding that does not meet the needs that
they have articulated within their communities. They talk about being placed in government-dictated
bureaucratic boxes when dealing with community issues. They speak about pilot funding that delivers promising
results but then disappears all too quickly. Competitive tendering processes force communities to compete
against each other for small amounts of money. People talk about a community such as Mount Druitt, where
more than 200 organisations are crawling over the same postcode. Whether they are local, State or Federal
agencies, it is a disaster for the community. Mount Druitt requires support and has great need but having
200 separate funding agreements and organisations tripping over each other will not allow the problems
identified to be rectified.
The community is sick of telling government what the problem is. That was a story repeated at all the
locations we visited. We need to do more. This report contains a set of recommendations that I wholeheartedly
support. I admit I have a sense of deja vu and remain unconvinced that we will get to the heart of the issue until
there is a radical change and rethink about how government agencies interact. There is a giant missing piece to
the puzzle, and that is each department has a silo thinking pattern: Health cares about health, Education cares
about education, Community Services cares about community services, and Corrections is worried about people
going to jail and their release. If we look at the concentrated disadvantage in those communities we will see that
there is a massive gap in the ability to get departments to act together to find genuine solutions; to pool funding
and not just own one piece of the puzzle.
Recommendation two talks about key performance indicators for secretaries of departments and
encourages collaboration and planning with government agencies—I add a plea for them to work across
departments. That is fundamentally where much of the problem originates. I point to the work of Tony Vinson.
Many members of this House are aware of the work Mr Vinson has done over the past 20 years to identify
disadvantaged communities across New South Wales. His thorough research points to all the indicators for
disadvantage being concentrated in a small number of postcodes. It remains an issue of concern that every
Government has made little progress. I urge the Government to look closely at Tony Vinson's work entitled
"Dropping off the Edge 2015". It is a detailed, rigorous report that shows how we can make a difference.
In his evidence to the committee he pleaded for more to be invested in early childhood and preschools.
If we do nothing else as a result of this report, we must acknowledge that a preschool and a well-funded
playgroup in those disadvantaged communities will do more to change the outcomes of those children than
anything else we can do, as we run around trying to fix up performance agreements and talk about better
contracts and all those things. We need to invest in early childhood and we need to do that properly. I do not
want to make it an overly political point but I cannot let this one go through. While we are raising the fees for
child care, playgroups and preschools we are working against the one thing that will make the biggest difference
to these communities and we need to take more action.
I was not able to make this point in the committee but I will make it in this Chamber: It is about the
impact of competitive tendering. Not surprisingly there was no consensus on this point in the committee.
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7799
Communities made the point that competitive tendering can work against them being able to work together to
deliver joint outcomes. When organisations are fighting over who gets the bucket of money—I again make the
point that the bucket of money is usually not big enough—there are problems with competitive tendering that do
not facilitate the delivery of joint outcomes.
I again point to the most recent round of competitive tendering for homelessness services that recently
took place in New South Wales. There is clear evidence of that working against the delivery of a comprehensive
system. Competitive tendering, with organisations fighting against one another, does not work in a complex and
fragile social services system in which over years people have found their niches and have been able to work
together collaboratively. Saying to them, "You are now competing against one another; some of you will win
and some of you will lose," breaks some of that fragile collaboration that has been working for many years. I am
particularly aware of some of the complicated arrangements through social services for homelessness in
Sydney—and I know the Hon. Shayne Mallard knows a bit about this. Harm has been done to the way in which
people deliver services as a result of the competitive tendering process—we need to be honest about that.
Competitive tendering for competitive tendering's sake does not necessarily deliver what the
Government is trying to deliver. We need to be open to that and we will keep watching it. Funding periods are a
big issue. At the moment some people get funding for one year and some for three years. In these communities
there has been disadvantage for decades and indeed centuries. The idea that we can get a quick fix over one year
or three years is simply not good enough. We need to look at longer-term funding. We have recommended a
minimum of five years, which is a sensible approach. It does not mean that there should not be rigour and it does
not mean that data does not have to be produced about what people are doing. It takes a long time to embed a
program, particularly in these communities where they have seen it all before. People from government services
have turned up in their white cars on many occasions and promised these communities many things.
They might have been able to get these communities a bit of money on the way through, but frankly
they have seen it all before. We will build trust and effect change in those communities by listening to them,
responding to what they raise with us and finding flexible ways in which governments can enable them to
address issues that they have identified themselves, not through a process from on high by telling them, "These
are the outcomes you have to achieve. By the way, you have between one and three years to do it and just as you
get going and it is starting to work we will rip out the money and put it somewhere else." If we do nothing else,
I think five-year contracts would make a huge difference.
I thank members of the community who participated, in particular, the residents in those communities.
They have lots of people to speak for them but it was good to speak with them and to hear from them. I hope the
Government in its response to this report thinks about the concerns that have been raised. I hope our committee
was able to give voice to those concerns because I know those communities will be very cynical if we achieve little
as a result. Finally, I congratulate the Hon. Bronnie Taylor. This was the first committee that she chaired and she
did a great job. One of the things she did particularly well was to make very nervous people feel as though they
were appreciated, that we were there to listen to them, and that we took them seriously. I have been a member on
committees where that has not happened. I congratulate her on that and commend the report to the House.
The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD [5.34 p.m.]: I make a contribution to debate on the Legislative
Council Standing Committee on Social Issues inquiry into service coordination in communities with high social
needs. My interest in this inquiry is particularly focused as I was born in a public housing environment and
I grew up in Penrith. As a young boy growing up I was aware that there were communities with high social
needs in that area. Let me review a couple of terms of reference to frame my contribution. The first term of
reference was to identify the extent to which government and non-government service providers are identifying
the needs of their clients.
It is timely to do this after decades of investment into communities by successive governments and it is
time to ask the hard questions as to whether or not that investment is working. Is it good value for taxpayers'
money? Are we getting the results that we are seeking to improve these communities and community outcomes?
I am not sure whether we answered that question, though the evidence we heard was to the effect that progress
was being made slowly and incrementally. It seemed to me to be more of a case of one step forward and two
steps back in each of those communities.
We investigated these questions in our worthwhile visits, as mentioned by the chair of the committee,
to The Hive at Mount Druitt, to Bourke and to Claymore in Western Sydney. I thank the staff and particularly
the community members at those locations who cooperated with our visits and who were generous in opening
7800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
up their hearts and their minds to help us understand the issues. I agree with some of the comments made earlier
that there is some weariness about yet another government inquiry. I recall in Bourke in particular a sense of
resentment from some community members who would ask, "Who are you—another government inquiry
poking its nose into what we are doing. What will come out of this?" It was less evident in Mount Druitt and
Claymore because their innovations or programs are fairly recent.
I concur with the views of the Hon. Penny Sharpe. The committee's chair, the Hon. Bronnie Taylor, has
gone out of her way to ensure that this inquiry does not sit in an in tray gathering dust. I am aware that she has
been tireless in her travels to Ministers' offices and to Canberra to talk about this report and to try to make some
progress and I commend her for that. The committee was also asked to examine the barriers to effective
coordination of services including—and I think this is important—the lack of client awareness and the impact of
the privacy laws, which we have heard about. Finally, the committee was asked to consider the particular
projects that it visited.
Coordination of human services between government agencies and non-government organisations has
long been the holy grail of service delivery at all levels of government. The committee discovered through this
inquiry that all too often there was lack of awareness between various agencies about what services they were
offering even when they were collocated in the same community. That can be attributed to a number of factors
including, frankly, an unwillingness to share information, turf wars between various providers and
competition—which we heard about from the Hon. Penny Sharpe—which is created through the tension of
competitive tendering. I am not opposed to competitive tendering, an issue to which I will refer later.
This gave rise to the awareness of backbone organisations that can be either formal or informal. There
was evidence to the inquiry that the City of Sydney has evolved into the role of a backbone organisation for
services in the city. In other areas such as at Claymore the community has emerged to do that with support from
the Government. The Hive, separately to its service delivery role, is filling the coordination role of a backbone
organisation. One of our recommendations addresses that. One of the questions the committee also asked was:
"Are the clients and communities in high need aware of the services on offer to assist them?" The answer was
generally that they are not well aware. This gave rise to the first recommendation as well as to other
recommendations such as 4, 13 and 14, which are related to and look at coordination models. The first
recommendation is as follows:
That the NSW Government develop a website that details the human services provided by both the government and non-government sector within particular geographic areas, and the eligibility requirements for the service.
That notion came about from our travels. Country towns have big signs to tell us what community services they
have, such as Rotary, Apex and Lions. When I was active in the leadership of Rotaract I engaged the community
because I could look up what was on, on any given day at the club. There is no signpost at Claymore or The
Hive. Committee members thought a virtual signpost would be appropriate. In today's digital era an app would
be suitable. The Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation should look at such an app because real
efficiencies and better outcomes can be achieved from gathering data and information. Before someone says that
many people do not have mobile phones, they are easily accessible, and libraries and service providers can
enable access to sites via the use of tablets.
For example, people will be able to use the app to look up support services that are available for
domestic violence in their area. Recommendation 4 is to develop a process for community consultation at the
design and evaluation stage, including the people who are being targeted. It is an important recommendation.
Communities should be involved so they are engaged fully in the development of the service model that will be
provided and the evaluation process that will occur afterwards. Recommendation 10 picks up on the competitive
tendering process, which we have heard about from the Hon. Penny Sharpe. The witnesses we heard from were
critical that the tendering process created uncertainty.
They were also critical of the short-term funding periods, unnecessary competition, that resources were
consumed in preparing a tender, and the loss of continuity of services. We did not hear from those who could talk
about creative tendering and ways for bringing in new and innovative models. We have to find a compromise
between the two. We do not abolish competitive tendering because there are problems associated with it. We
must look at the positives, which is bringing in new people who have new ways of thinking about old problems.
The short time frame and the amount of money that is required to prepare a tender must also be acknowledged.
We were privileged to hear from Dr Tony Vinson, author of a report entitled "Dropping off the Edge
2015", which follows up on his groundbreaking work and analysis of communities with the greatest
socio-economic challenges by postcode. One issue is that those communities are in concentrated locations.
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7801
Minister Hazzard is delivering opportunities with his policy on future directions for public housing, which could
be part of the solution, as we saw happening at Claymore. The township of Bourke is struggling to survive. The
Bourke Shire Council general manager told us the township is resource rich but outcome poor. He pointed to the
duplication of services. In fact we found there were many services on offer. In 2001 the population of Bourke
was 4,000. In 2011 the population has decreased to 2,900. This equates to a loss of more than 1,000 residents
per decade, which is not sustainable. There has to be a point at which the Government determines that the
concentration of services for this small population may not be the best outcome and we may need to look at a
hub model.
The inquiry was ably chaired by the Hon. Bronnie Taylor, who went to great lengths to sensitively
explore many questions. I know she is determined to have the recommendations acted upon. I thank my
colleagues for the non-partisan way in which we conducted the hearings—the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps, the
Hon. Penny Sharpe, the Hon. Greg Donnelly and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. If we had been debating
Boxing Day trading at the time of the committee hearings we may not have had a safe return flight from Bourke.
I thank parliamentary staff and committee staff who impressed me with their professionalism and skills.
I commend the report to the House.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [5.44 p.m.]: This report sadly falls into the category: If pigs could fly,
what would be the most effective measure of a porcine air traffic control? That is because this entire report is
based on a fallacy—an a priori assumption that government can change social dysfunction for the better when
all the evidence is to the contrary and instead usually makes things worse. The inquiry showed that the social
welfare industry is a cacophony of services—more than 200 in Mount Druitt, maybe the same number in
Bourke, although there are so many and they are so siloed that nobody has any real idea about their true number
and reach. Each have their own administrative costs, their ambition, their own turf to defend, petty fiefdoms
dependent upon the compulsory extraction of taxes, mendicants of governments that dare not look too closely at
the effectiveness of 50 years of social welfare spending, lest they see the truth.
What is the answer from this report? Let us spend more tax money on "service coordination". How
many of these organisations would suddenly find a desire to merge and make economies if community members
had to directly vote with their own wallets and purses? Even we as a committee swam in the narcotic waters of
euphemism around poverty, such as "communities with high social needs". Are they needs or are they wants?
Who needs these things and why do they need them? As Adam Smith noted, poverty consists not only of the
consciousness of unmet need, but also in one's comparison of one's status with that of others. Under both
absolute and comparative standards, wealth and poverty are movable criteria.
The real question, unanswered in this report, is why the difference exists—why some fare better or
worse than others. The primary causes of wealth are the institutions that create incentives for wealth production.
Poverty then, as measured against a background of comparative wealth, represents a failure to create wealth and
the causes of such a failure are those institutions or practices that create disincentives for wealth production. As
political scientist Tom G. Palmer noted:
... the best predictors of relative poverty tend to be the degree to which one is a recipient of state assistance...
Institutions create incentives and incentives shape behaviour. We cannot simply rely on the good intentions of
these institutions. Outcomes are not subject to a choice. At best, one can choose one process over another, not
one outcome over another. So what does work? The sole demonstrable government policy that has helped these
communities is the break-up of the ghettoisation of poverty. Housing Commission projects built in the 1960s
and 1970s on the spoken principle of Radburn design and the unspoken principle that government knows best
were meant to be a heaven to live in. Instead, they became a hell of drugs, crime and dysfunction. As the
feminists say, "You cannot be what you cannot see." A kid leaves his front door and sees the next-door
neighbour puffing an ice pipe and the other neighbour has a lawn ornament consisting of a wheelless
Commodore on cinder blocks, and across the road is the local crime family where no adult goes to work. What
is that person to believe is a normal life? Warren Mundine recently told a Liberal Party forum:
I get up each day and go to work each day because I saw my father get up and go to work each day because he saw his father get
up and go to work each day.
At this point I want to raise one of the mysteries of this committee. Our terms of reference included
"consideration of the initiatives such as the Dubbo Minister's Action Group". I thought we would go to Dubbo,
given the specificity of this reference, but we did not. Perhaps because when I phoned up a local person I know
in Dubbo, the truth is that Dubbo got rid of most of the problems, not by forming a committee but by breaking
7802 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
up the monocultures of government housing estates, just as Minto's problems receded when the bulldozers
entered, as will happen to Claymore and to every one of these horrid dystopias that we raze and replace. But that
is not the end of the matter. We already know, whether it be the Australian Council of Social Service or the
Salvation Army or any of the other agencies that deal in this area, that correlates of comparative poverty are
single motherhood, substance abuse and aboriginality in remote communities.
Of course, correlation is not causation so we must approach the matter scientifically. In the United
States, the Brookings Institution—hardly a conservative institution by any stretch of the political spectrum—did
just that. It released a report entitled "Three simple rules poor teens should follow to join the middle class". Its
summary is worth quoting at length because it answers precisely the question that too many people are afraid to
even ask in Australian social policy:
In addition to the thousands of local and national programs that aim to help young people avoid these life-altering problems, we
should figure out more ways to convince young people that their decisions will greatly influence whether they avoid poverty and
enter the middle class. Let politicians, schoolteachers and administrators, community leaders, ministers and parents drill into children the message that in a free society, they enter adulthood with three major responsibilities: at least finish high school, get a
full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.
The Brookings Institute continued:
Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class…There are surely influences other than these principles at play, but following them
guides a young adult away from poverty and toward the middle class…
As hard as single parents try to give their children a healthy home environment, children in female-headed families are four or
more times as likely as children from married-couple families to live in poverty. In turn, poverty is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes in children, including school dropout and out-of-wedlock births.
I do not wish to digress, but the implications for one other social issue is obvious: it is better for a child to be
adopted by Michael and Stephen, a couple of gay married lawyers from Paddington, than it is for that child to
remain with his or her unmarried, unemployed birth mother. So it is a simple formula. Finish high school, get a
full-time job, and wait until 21 to get married and have children, to which we might add, "Stay off drugs, both
legal and illicit and, in the Australian context, do not take welfare payments." There is no need for complex
programs or additional government intervention and planning, and that means it is time for some tough love. As
economic historian David Beito has noted:
Welfare historians belittle the legitimacy of pre-Depression concerns about responsibility, character and initiative in the provision of social welfare. Such ideas have invariably been dismissed as either instances of shop-worn Victorian morality, or still worse,
as part and parcel of an elite campaign to control the poor.
For the same reason, the social welfare academics and leftist thought leaders of today belittle the ancient
distinction between "deserving" and "undeserving" poor as fallacious, and have praised efforts to make
government aid to the poor an entitlement or a basic human right. But the idea of individual responsibility
remains; it is, ironically, strongest in the very communities that we euphemise as having social disadvantage.
The school captain at Bourke knew the situation better than any theoretician, and she made her feelings clear:
"Who is going to hold the parents accountable for the actions of their truanting children?" Members should go
out in their communities and ask residents in those communities, "Who are the criminals and troublemakers?
Who is rorting the system? Who should be booted off welfare?" They will tell us without a moments' hesitation.
Conventional contemporary diagnoses of poverty are facile by comparison. If applied to government
policy the automatic entitlement theory championed by progressives translates into a simplistic credo that there
are no undeserving poor. The poor become an undifferentiated mass, which is much more condescending to the
poor than the moralistic approach of past times. We should not forget that prior to the 1930s Australia had one
of the finest non-government mutual aid cultures in the world. That was utterly destroyed by government
welfare statism. I would urge all those who are interested in this topic to get hold of David Green's and
Lawrence Cromwell's Mutual Aid or Welfare State: Australia's Friendly Societies.
My own ancestors were Masons, Orangemen, Oddfellows and Druids—parts of organisations that
fulfilled a vital role in the provision of social welfare without the need for taxpayers to subsidise them. Fraternal
societies rested on the principle of reciprocity. Donors and recipients in fraternal societies were peers in the
same organisation. They often knew each other on a personal level. Contrast this with the adversarial system
endemic in any impersonal poverty relief system controlled and funded by distant bureaucrats and other
outsiders. Beito noted:
While the process of deciding aid eligibility in friendly societies certainly provoked its share of tension and oversimplification, it
rarely had the degrading and patronising quality of charity or welfare bureaucracies, since it was usually a matter of poor people
classifying the worthiness or unworthiness of other poor people.
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7803
Fraternal reciprocity entailed mutual obligation—not to a government but to members, friends, neighbours, and
colleagues. It was wholly antagonistic to the notion that the donor should dole out benefits as the one-way
entitlement of the recipient. The rise of the welfare state, by contrast, not only accompanied the eclipse of
indigenously controlled mutual-aid institutions, but left impersonal bureaucracies dominated by outsiders in
their place. I will conclude by again citing Tom Palmer. He said:
…the creation of wealth is the solution to the alleviation of poverty and that, because outcomes are not themselves generally subject to choice, just and efficient institutions are the key to increasing wealth and diminishing poverty. Moreover, although
many make room for state provision of assistance to the poor and indigent, all agree that there is a hierarchy of means for the
alleviation of poverty, cascading from personal responsibility and self-help, to mutual aid, to charity, to the least preferred option, state compulsion.
I therefore reject all aspects of this report that are predicated on the fallacy that more government is the solution
when, in truth, more government has been the problem all along.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.54 p.m.]: As a member of the Standing Committee on Social
Issues I am pleased to speak to the report on the committee inquiry into service coordination in communities
with high social needs. Even though the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps holds strong views he misrepresented the report
which states: Importantly, service coordination does not require additional funding—we just need to make better use of the resources we
already have. Through coordination and collaboration, through a holistic outlook at both individual and community needs and
through community ownership of programs, we can improve the quality of life for people in communities with high social needs.
We visited some of those places with high social needs, such as Claymore, Mount Druitt and Bourke, and
probably many others. There was no lack of government services and no lack of government employees. In fact,
in some cases it seemed as though 200 different agencies were at work. The problem was that each agency did
not know what other agencies were doing; there was no coordination or collaboration. They just had their own
tasks, whether they were government agencies or non-government organisations. Each agency had its aims and
its area of activity. It was not that the agencies did not want to know about the other agencies or to cooperate
with them; they just did not seem to see the need for it. Each agency followed its own pathway. If our committee
report is taken seriously by the Government it will lead to great improvement and better use of government
funds than is occurring at the moment. The recommendations of the committee and its report are positive.
Recommendation 2 is as follows:
That the NSW Government introduce key performance indicators for Secretaries of all government agencies…
In other words, the committee recommended that what government agencies are doing should be measured to
see how successful they are, whether the funds of those agencies are being used effectively and whether they
can be better used. Recommendation 3 is as follows:
That the NSW Government implement a requirement in human service funding contracts to collect and measure data on program
outcomes.
It is not sufficient to have a program; we must measure the outcomes. We must ask whether the money and all
the activities are achieving their purpose. This gets back to what the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps was saying—that we
should not waste money. I believe our report is designed to prevent the waste of money and to promote greater
efficiency and effectiveness for all those working in this area. Recommendation 4 is as follows:
That the NSW Government include a process for community consultation at the design and evaluation stage that involves those
who live in the targeted areas…
In other words, there must be greater consultation and feedback by the community; it will not just be social
workers talking to each other. I believe recommendation 8 will assist in achieving a breakthrough in the area of
providing information. Recommendation 8 is as follows:
That the NSW Government:
establish the Privacy Commissioner as a central point of coordination with other bodies within the privacy field, both within New South Wales and federally;
fund the Privacy Commissioner to assist in the development, implementation, training and oversight of adherence to the guidelines proposed in Recommendation 7.
One of the excuses we received from some of the social workers was a lack of knowledge. They could not get
information about what was happening in another area when they wanted it. I believe that that is where the
7804 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
Privacy Commissioner is essential in breaking down those barriers and ensuring that information can be shared—
not information that identifies an individual who has mental or health problems but information relating to the
overall picture—about what is happening in the community and how effective government services are.
Recommendation 11, which the committee supported, was that the New South Wales Government
increase funding periods for a minimum of five years for human service providers with the opportunity for an
extension beyond that time. It was felt by many of the service providers that the period that they were funded for
was too short and insufficient for them to carry out their role effectively. I fully support that five-year minimum.
Recommendation 14 is that the New South Wales Government—I know it is working in this direction already—
establish one-place service centres in communities with high social needs across New South Wales, in particular
in Ballina, Brewarrina, Claymore, Lighting Ridge, Walgett, Wilcannia and Windale. There would be others
places as well. I commend the report to all members of the House. I add my thanks to the committee chair,
committee members and staff for their effective work on this inquiry.
Ms JAN BARHAM [6.00 p.m.]: I speak on the Standing Committee on Social Issues report entitled
"Service coordination in communities with high social needs". I can quite honestly say that I am disappointed
I am no longer a member of the Standing Committee on Social Issues; this would have been an amazing inquiry
to have been involved with. I can see from the report that all members—perhaps other than the Hon. Dr Peter
Phelps—took the opportunity to look at what can be done in respect of solutions regarding this issue. I look
forward to reading the report more fully. I note from previous speakers—members of the committee—that the
report contains some good recommendations as a result of the inquiry.
I refer to service efficiency and coordination. I am disappointed to say that it is not a new idea. It has
been around for so long. It is a little bit frustrating, not just for me but for many people who are trying to work
in the social disadvantage sector. It is the ongoing problem. People have been waiting for so long for a
government to come in, to look at the issue and to address it in a responsible way. It is really a bit of a
no-brainer. It is like running a business. If things are not going well, what do people do? They get an
independent set of eyes to come and look at it. They say, "What are we doing wrong?" They get a systems
analysis done. They get someone to look at how they can make things more efficient. Too often the people that
are socially disadvantaged, the people that are being impacted by poor government processes and poor delivery,
are the ones who are blamed for this problem. It is easy to attribute blame to people who cannot pick themselves
up and get on with it, or get over it—or something like that—when government is very much at fault.
All governments have failed to address the real issue of strategic and ordered management and efficient
coordination of government resources for the purpose of improving the lives of people who—most often for no
fault of their own—are disadvantaged, suffering from social exclusion and having to deal with situations that
most people would be horrified by. Very often they are disregarded and disrespected as their lives are subjected
to the vagaries of a ministerial change or a change in government after an election. Everything gets thrown in
the air again. Projects that were once trials or the roll-out of a program all go up in the air when there is a change
in government or a Minister. The people whose lives are affected are often left not knowing what is going on
and the hope that things would improve is lost.
I commend the committee for looking at Professor Tony Vinson's work. His work has been
extraordinary. If only people had listened a lot earlier, because essentially he has been saying the same thing for
a long time. He gives this advice at chapter 2, paragraph 2.20, of the report:
The Dropping off the Edge advocacy statement contended that the new approach should encompass the following elements:
targeted—the response must be targeted or concentrated to specific areas that meet the most severe criteria for disadvantage.
tailored—the policies, programs and approach to dealing with disadvantage in a community must be tailored to that community's needs and supplemented by informed audits of the existing programs in that locality.
That is one of the major problems that arise over and over again, as members on the Standing Committee on
State Development inquiring into economic development in Aboriginal communities would be aware. One of
the clear issues coming through in submissions is the lack of evaluation of many programs over time. There are
also complaints from people who live in those areas or in that community that they have not benefited, or that
they have not done well out of a program. I think members should stop, reflect and look in the mirror. They
should ask, "Is it their fault or is it our fault, as government?" I shall continue with the quote of Tony Vinson:
integrated and co-operative—must address the multiple and interrelated causes and exacerbating factors that underpin the entrenched nature of disadvantage, and should therefore involve cooperation between relevant agencies and
organisations.
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7805
The next point—which no government seems to take any notice of—is:
a long-term horizon ...
Hands up for long-term thinking. Let us see a genuine investment in the future and a bipartisan commitment.
Members know I do not like the word "bipartisan" because it sounds like there are only two parties, but there are
more. Let us add in all the crossbenchers—I like multiparty. We are members of a multiparty House. Let us
make sure we can all agree. I am a believer in the common good—the fact that we can sit together and find
common ground about important issues of our time, and that is addressing the future and addressing
disadvantage. It is our moral responsibility to do that. We should be reminded of it every single day in this
place. The last point made in the statement is:
community owned and driven—community leaders must be engaged to drive sustained change.
Have we not heard over and again from disadvantaged communities—again I refer to the Standing Committee
on State Development inquiring into economic development in Aboriginal communities, and the inquiry that
I am chairing into the Stolen Generations—and government saying it conducts consultation, and it does not?
What it does is notification. It comes to town, stays in motels, drives nice cars and tells people what they are
going to do to them. This is not genuine engagement. One day there may be a government that is willing to put
on the table its strategy and foundation for genuine community engagement, and that would be a great day.
Everyone will know exactly what to expect and how it will be done so that people do not constantly feel like
they are being hoodwinked.
Some good examples have been given. For example, the Hon. Penny Sharpe mentioned the Going
Home Staying Home review, and what happened with the tendering process. Anyone looking at it knew from
the start that it was not going to work properly. We have now messed up a lot of programs and services,
particularly in regional areas. That was such a major reform—if you can call it reform—and it should have been
trialled. A trial would have revealed that the fundamentals were wrong. The research that was done failed to
pick up on all the services and needs. Therefore, the funding level was wrong, the tender was wrong and the
process was wrong. They did not value existing facilities. They did not value the connections and the
community trust that was needed when dealing with an area such as this.
Government is so out of touch, it gets so much wrong and then seems to forget that it impacts on
peoples' lives, and those people are often disadvantaged. These people have little hope left because they have
been ripped off over and again by people coming to town, telling them that things are going to get better, and
then they do not. I grew up in a community like that. I have watched it happen over time. I have watched people
feel totally let down by governments. People come in and say, "Why don't you get a job?" Where I grew up
people were brought to this country to work and then the jobs dried up. What are they meant to do then? They
get called names, criticised and ridiculed. The Government should be aware of this. From 1995 I worked on
regional plans. I spent eight years working on the Northern Rivers Regional Strategy, which extended from
Coffs Harbour to the border. After eight years of work we were told that the Government had changed its course
and was now concentrating on the Far North Coast Strategy.
We had to re-form by knocking off Coffs Harbour and planning for the Far North Coast. In 2006 we
released a 25-year plan that took us to 2031. Now the Government has pulled out a new plan covering a new
area with the North Coast extending as far south as Taree. That is a joke. No service provision covers that area.
One cannot deliver a cohesive, supportive community with so many regional divisions. The Government has to
get its act together and harmonise Government agencies into the same regional boundaries. Without that, the
work of planning for communities cannot be done in an organised and integrated manner. This report goes a
long way to identifying solutions to these problems. I congratulate all members of the Standing Committee on
Social Issues and I congratulate the Hon. Bronnie Taylor. It was a difficult but important inquiry.
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [6.10 p.m.]: I want to make some brief comments on the report of the
Standing Committee on Social Issues. I was not a member of the committee, but I have listened to members'
comments and seen the committee's recommendations. The recommendation regarding the increase in funding
over periods to a minimum of five years is an important step in dealing with the entrenched multifaceted
disadvantage experienced by those in many communities. I want to address the comments of the Hon. Dr Peter
Phelps about Warren Mundine's statement that he got up and went to work every day because that is what his
dad did. I knew Warren's dad, Fardi Mundine, very well. Fardi lived in Auburn and I have known him since
I was a young girl. He was born in Baryulgil.
7806 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
We know that name because of the asbestos mine that was there. Fardi was one of seven boys and five
girls. He was the only boy who did not work in the mine and the only one of those seven brothers who lived past
the age of 50. The other six brothers all died between the ages of 42 and 50. Their children did not see their dad
going to work every day because they did not have their dad. Their fathers had all died from the effects of the
asbestos in the Baryulgil mine. I was a member of this House when James Hardie put up its special purpose fund
for compensation for those suffering the effects of asbestos exposure. The Aboriginal community was exempt
from that compensation fund but it would not have made any difference to the Mundines because those six
brothers had already passed away.
Fardi's children all got a good education. They became economists, teachers, union organisers, soldiers
and bankers. But there was a reason for that. When Fardi was working on the graders in Darwin watching the
Japanese planes coming in, he needed a special permit to go and work and was not allowed out after 5.00 p.m. to
have a beer with his mates without—as he called it—his "dog licence". He carried that with him every day until
he died as a reminder of that time in his life. In spite of having his work permit with him, he was arrested in
Coffs Harbour for being out after 5.00 p.m. It was only the next day, when they went to his workplace, that the
sergeant was eventually convinced to let Fardi out of jail.
Fardi worked 16 hours a day, seven days a week but no bank would give him a loan. He had to go to a
money lender where he was charged 13 per cent—twice the amount any white fellow was charged—just to buy
a home. That social disadvantage does not disappear just because the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps thinks that if you see
your dad go off to work every day, a miracle will wipe away Aboriginal disadvantage. My Aunty Rita and
Uncle Eric were educated at the St Clair mission school. Their father had died after the First World War and
they had to attend the mission school because they were thrown out of the Singleton Public School. No-one
wanted them in the local schools so they had to go down to the mission school.
However, my grandfather was considered white enough to be taken away and brought up by a Church
of England priest. It is no surprise that my daughter is the first person in my family to go straight from high
school to university. That type of disadvantage where families have been broken up in such a way takes
generations to repair. I am surprised by the comments of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps. Having known Fardi he
would have been horrified by the member's comments. I know that Warren would not have meant his statement
to be used in that way. Warren knew exactly why his father drove himself so hard. It was to put an end to
disadvantage for his people. It was to ensure that the manner in which his family was treated—most of whom
died young and in distressing circumstances—was never to be repeated.
Mr SCOT MacDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.15 p.m.]: I commend the Hon. Bronnie Taylor
for the inquiry and report. Early in the piece the chair approached me to discuss some of the issues on the
Central Coast that could touch on her inquiry. I commend the member for reaching out early. I see our
discussion has manifested itself in recommendation 15, which states:
The New South Wales Government evaluate the co-design approach being pursued on the Central Coast, with a view to utilising
co-design in other geographic areas across New South Wales.
I commend the recommendation that arose from that. There is no question that the Central Coast has challenges.
It has a higher unemployment rate by a factor of about 2 per cent, it has higher youth unemployment by a factor
of about 4 to 5 per cent, it has some indicators around lower rates of finishing high school, lower rates in tertiary
education, and some very concerning figures about young children living out of home and in care. Central Coast
agencies have a lot of buy-in on these challenges. I am pleased that the committee spent a little time looking
over that because the Central Coast agencies—including non-government agencies, but I am particularly talking
about government agencies—have some runs on the board in this respect.
When agencies come across children who are challenged in respect of being kicked out of home,
having trouble at school, being found on the streets or coming into contact with the justice system, the leaders of
those agencies meet to discuss the case. If a young person is in trouble, it is not treated in a silo. The police talk
to NSW Health, it talks to the Department of Family and Community Services [FACS], FACS talks to the
education service, and so on. It requires leadership from those Central Coast responding agencies—the police,
FACS and other agencies. It is having an impact. If someone comes into contact with the police, it is not just a
police or Juvenile Justice issue; FACS is brought in, the education system is consulted. I think the best possible
outcomes are reached in challenging circumstances. I express my appreciation to the chair, who touched on
those issues.
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7807
Service coordination was brought home to me again on Saturday when a distressed grandmother with
her six grandchildren approached me on a street in Woy Woy because she was looking for assistance in finding
rental accommodation. I will not politicise her story save to say she had previously sought assistance from the
Federal member. This grandmother has custody of her grandchildren because their parents are ice addicts living
on the streets in the Woy Woy area. She was living in two motel rooms with her six grandchildren. This was the
human face of this problem. I do not have experience in working with people in such dire need and so I salute
agencies doing a tremendous job in this space. I wish them well and commend the chair of this committee for
this important report.
The Hon. MICK VEITCH [6.20 p.m.]: My contribution to this take-note debate on the Standing
Committee on Social Issues report entitled "Service coordination in communities with high social needs"
concerns recommendation No. 10, which states:
That the NSW Government undertake a review of the competitive tendering process for human services that:
examines best practice models in other jurisdictions, particularly those that facilitate co-design, collaboration and joint
tendering, and
includes consultation with non-government service providers.
In the past I was chief executive of a large not-for-profit in New South Wales. We wrote competitive tenders for
State and Federal funding to the point where we had full-time staff working on researching, constructing and
putting together tenders not just for government funding but also for private sector philanthropic contributions.
This becomes a problem for small service providers in regional New South Wales because they do not have the
capacity to compete with large providers and their full-time bid writers. I was in a sector in which a number of
smaller organisations were falling over and there was significant aggregation in the disability employment
sector, particularly after 1995 with the advent of competitive tendering.
In the Young region this affected not just disability employment but also other community-based
sectors because some of the providers were not big enough to compete. Some of these small organisations
sought the help of larger organisations to carry their tender obligations. The organisation I was involved with
moved way outside our incorporated association model and had to become a public benevolent institution under
corporations law so as to meet the requirements of the range of services we provided. At this point no other
organisation in the area had the capacity or the will to enter into the competitive tendering process. An example
of where small corporations are forced out of bidding was that, at the end of my tenure, organisations wishing to
compete for Commonwealth funding for a disability employment program had to download the tender, which
meant having to have equipment and broadband capacity, and pay $400 for the tender. This wiped out a lot of
small community organisations before they could compete for funding.
Competitive tendering has significant risks in the way it is applied, particularly in regional areas. The
first part of the committee's recommendation—examining best practice models in other jurisdictions,
particularly those to facilitate co-design, collaboration and joint tendering—is critical so that we do not kill off
small service providers in favour of large service providers. A lot of small service providers in regional areas
know the communities in which they operate and do not want a head office based in Sydney or Canberra. I draw
the attention of members to this recommendation and warn them to be wary of competitive tendering processes
because of the way they have impacted on service providers in regional New South Wales.
The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR [6.24 p.m.], in reply: I acknowledge contributions to this debate by
the Hon. Penny Sharpe, the Hon. Shayne Mallard, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, Ms Jan Barham, Mr Scot
MacDonald, the Hon. Lynda Voltz and the Hon. Mick Veitch. The importance of this committee is brought
home by the valuable contributions made by those who were not members of the committee. The contributions
gave us many different summations of the report. I also thank the Hon. Penny Sharpe for acknowledging the
important evidence of Tony Vinson. I acknowledge the importance to this sector of better regulation under the
auspices of the Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation, Victor Dominello.
I emphasise that the Standing Committee on Social Issues report No. 50 entitled "Service coordination
in communities with high social needs" does not talk about more government services but about the
coordination of existing services. One of the greatest advocates of this initiative is the Deputy Premier, Troy
Grant, through the Dubbo Minister's Action Group. This is an important group looking into the challenges we
face. We certainly do face challenges, but since when have we walked away from those challenges? Do we sit in
this place and say that government after government has not delivered or do we stand up and say, "Enough!"?
7808 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
This report into service coordination presents evidence as well as a framework for moving forward, and we
intend to move forward. I did not come to this place to sit back and say that people have tried before and failed,
and so it cannot happen. I sought preselection with The Nationals to make sure that things happen for our rural
and regional communities. I will continue in this pursuit every day I am a member of this House. This report
reflects the need to make some positive change, not with more resources but by using the resources we already
have. There is no way that any member of this place should walk away from those responsibilities.
I am proud to deliver my first report as chair of a Legislative Council committee. I thank all members
for their contributions to this debate. I again put on record my gratitude to the excellent Legislative Council
committee staff. They are truly outstanding and they make us look pretty good. I look forward to continuing to
work on the recommendations and I will continue to speak to Ministers and our Federal colleagues about issues
explored by the committee. I will knock on any door I feel needs to be opened to achieve the recommendations
in this report because it is our responsibility as committee members who come up with recommendations to
ensure that the recommendations are implemented for the sake of the people we are privileged to represent.
I commend the report to the House.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Pursuant to sessional orders Government business proceeded with.
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AMENDMENT (ADVANCED METERS) BILL 2016
Third Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Leader of the Opposition) [6.29 p.m.]: The Opposition has taken a
constructive approach to the Electricity Supply Amendment (Advanced Meters) Bill 2016—it is not opposed to
smart meters. Properly used, smart meters are the gateway to the smart grid and giving consumers, as well as the
network, greater leverage over consumption and power over their households. The circumstances and shaping of
this bill leave unanswered a significant number of questions in relation to how and in what way those with
rooftop solar will benefit from rooftop solar generation post the closure of the Solar Bonus Scheme. It leaves
open the issue of whether households will have to foot the bill when switching to smart meters and whether they
need to switch to smart meters in order to continue to benefit from their rooftop solar. Of significant importance
is maintenance of the present high levels and standards of skill and accreditation for those performing meter
installation work.
I note what the Government has said about these matters. The Opposition pressed its amendments in
good faith and listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary. The Opposition's concerns have not been
addressed properly or adequately in response to the amendments or the shaping of the legislation. While Labor
remains supportive of the notion of properly adopted smart meters, it has concerns about some aspects of the bill
and those concerns are of such a nature that it will be unable to support the third reading. Although the bill was
not rushed through in a single day, there are some important issues associated with it that should be tilled over
thoroughly by the relevant general purpose standing committee. That is why the Opposition has proposed the
amendment. There should be a quick and adequate inquiry into the issues in a less combative environment that
draws on expert opinion from the industry. I urge honourable members to support the amendment. I indicate that
if the Opposition is unsuccessful in persuading the House to refer the bill to a committee, it will oppose the third
reading of the bill.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.32 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka,
in reply: Under the proposed changes all electrical contractors who are contracted for meter installation will be
required to be trained to a level equivalent to those who currently carry out the work—that is, a level two
category four accredited service provider. The Department of Industry is facilitating production of an industry
safety steering committee guide to the safe installation of meters. This will address appropriate qualifications
and special conditions, such as the operation of service fuses. The Minister will have the power to mandate this
standard under the regulations. Should a customer wish to have uninterrupted supply during installation and live
work is undertaken, a level two accredited service provider will be required to do this work, as is the current
practice.
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7809
The proposed changes are well thought out and will, importantly, not compromise existing safety
standards. The truth is that the Government has been consulting extensively with industry and those most
impacted by the required changes. It has taken the time to examine options and solutions that will deliver
practical outcomes for customers and industry, and appreciates the arguments and position put forward by the
Opposition. As our responses have clearly shown, the Government's legislation takes full account of the existing
and upcoming requirements imposed under the national market framework. For those reasons the Government
cannot see a need for this legislation to be referred to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5. It will not
support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.
Question—That the amendment of the Hon. Adam Searle be agreed to—put and resolved in the
negative.
Amendment of the Hon. Adam Searle negatived.
Question—That this bill be now read a third time—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 19
Mr Ajaka
Mr Amato
Mr Brown
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Cusack
Mr Farlow
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay
Mr Green
Mr Khan
Mr MacDonald
Mr Mallard
Mr Mason-Cox
Mrs Mitchell
Reverend Nile
Mr Pearce
Tellers,
Dr Phelps
Mrs Taylor
Noes, 15
Ms Barham
Mr Buckingham
Ms Cotsis
Dr Faruqi
Mr Mookhey
Mr Pearson
Mr Primrose
Mr Searle
Mr Secord
Ms Sharpe
Mr Shoebridge
Mr Veitch
Mr Wong
Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Moselmane
Pairs
Mr Blair Mrs Houssos
Mr Maclaren-Jones Ms Voltz
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Assembly with a message seeking its
concurrence in the bill.
CRIMES (DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL VIOLENCE) AMENDMENT (NATIONAL DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE ORDERS RECOGNITION) BILL 2016
Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on
motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay, on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka.
Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay, on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
Second reading set down as an order of the day for a later hour.
7810 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the
Executive Council) [6.45 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
VOLUNTEERING
The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN [6.45 p.m.]: A couple of weeks ago I was lucky enough to attend the
NSW Rural Fire Service [RFS] Far North Coast medals presentation at the Ocean Shores Country Club. It was
an extraordinary event and one that held a lot of meaning for me. On that special day, four of the medal
recipients had given more than 40 years of service to the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. That is an
outstanding achievement and one that many would agree goes beyond the ordinary definitions of "long service".
It is often said that volunteerism is the backbone of a community, and I fully agree. Volunteerism is a part of
humanity that has its origins in the earliest society in the form of demand sharing and basic reciprocity. It is a
practice that by its very nature aims to benefit a collection of individuals in the community, without asking for
anything in return.
Today, with organisations such as the Rural Fire Service, the NSW State Emergency Service [SES],
surf lifesaving clubs, Lions clubs, charity organisations and sporting clubs, Australia as a society has
professionalised volunteering to meet the needs of the community. Organisations such as these provide help to
those in need, whether they are adversely affected by acts of God or by personal circumstance. More than this,
though, volunteers bring the community together. The growth of our communities and the social cohesion that
makes them work is fostered by our volunteers. Through our volunteers, we witness and experience service of
such dedicated professionals who often give up their own time and livelihoods to help others in times of
emergency. At a time when the sense of service to the community and of civic duty is in decline, active and
dedicated volunteers are stoking the fires of social cohesion.
The decline in social capital is a phenomenon that is being experienced worldwide. Person-to-person
social interactions that form the social fabric of our communities are being undermined because with each new
generation we are becoming less interested in becoming involved in local organisations. With increased
technological connectivity, and indeed global connectivity, we are losing local connectivity. It is an uphill battle
that our volunteers face, but especially in Australia we are bucking the trend. Volunteerism here is alive and
well, and we are witnessing that all over New South Wales. It is part of what I love about living in regional
New South Wales—that people in our towns still understand the meaning of community. There are people
volunteering to protect their neighbours from fire, rescuing people from misfortune and natural disaster,
watching over our beachgoers, raising money for locals in need, manning the tuckshop to keep that sports team
fed and generally being ready to lend a hand whenever the community needs it.
On the North Coast, it is a sight to behold when the Rural Fire Service works side by side with the SES
to clear trees from homes, roads and yards after one of the many thunderstorms we frequently get. We have surf
lifesavers who watch the surf every day and stand ready to save lives. There are groups like the Salvation Army
and Vinnies in Ballina and Byron, Wesley Mission, Mission Australia and the Smith Family that take care of the
needy and less fortunate in our communities. In Byron, Liberation Larder at the Byron Bay Community Centre
rescues food and takes donations of food or produce and prepares and stores it for redistribution in the
community. The larder provides hot lunches, bags of fresh produce and emergency frozen meals to those in
need. Their mission is to make sure that all community members have access to healthy food and that good food
does not go to waste.
Lions clubs like those in Ballina, Byron and Mullumbimby-Brunswick help with disaster and
emergency relief, medical research, community fundraising and working bees. Local Meals on Wheels
volunteers across the State deliver meals, social interaction and a friendly check of wellbeing to help the aged or
less mobile stay in their homes, maintain their independence and ultimately get by. The people who keep our
sporting clubs going provide an important community service to help people of all ages and abilities come
together in a healthy and rewarding pursuit of competitive and social growth. It is the coaches, the organisers,
the referees and the fundraisers that make sports happen at a local level, and without them our communities
would be much poorer.
Indeed, although we are living in a world of declining social capital, there are still people out there who
volunteer their efforts for the good of the community. It is not for financial gain; it is not for any sort of
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7811
reciprocal benefit; it is for the positive outcomes reflected in our communities. I take my hat off to these people
who are always there to lend a helping hand in the community and who ask for nothing in return. Volunteerism
is a truly altruistic pursuit, and I salute this State's volunteers.
ESSENTIAL ENERGY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Leader of the Opposition) [6.50 p.m.]: Last week I spoke about the
proposed termination of the Essential Energy Enterprise Agreement, which is the suggestion of the State-owned
employer, which will expose nearly 4,000 of its employees to the loss of hard-won pay and conditions, including
protection from forced redundancies. This occurred because after expiry of the agreement in June 2015, the
employer had not reached a new agreement with its workforce. Instead of persevering with the hard work of
industrial negotiation, it decided to pull the rug from underneath the feet of its workforce. While Essential Energy
has offered to keep paying conditions at current levels as opposed to the significantly lower levels of the award that
underpins the agreement, the offer is conditional and time-limited to six months from the date of any termination, if
approved by the Fair Work Commission, or when a new agreement is reached, whichever comes first.
This places enormous pressure on the workforce to reach an agreement—any agreement—with
Essential Energy within that time frame or risk the loss of a significant proportion of the benefits they now
derive from their work. In my view, these circumstances amount to the exercise of coercion on those workers.
Actions like this should only be contemplated, if ever, once all avenues of discussion and negotiation have been
exhausted. As I indicated in my last adjournment speech, Essential Energy, by its actions and its
communications with its employees, has indicated a willingness to continue discussions with relevant unions
and the workforce, which makes it clear that at least in the view of Essential Energy the road to negotiation had
not been fully travelled.
If actions like this are able to be contemplated at this early stage, steps like this can be seen as the easy
road to taking advantage in difficult industrial negotiations. That is contrary to the public interest and is not
consistent, in my view, with the objects of the Fair Work Act or its provisions that mandate good faith
bargaining. It is also contrary to the commonsense understanding of fairness. It is not a course of action that a
Government owned—that is, a publicly owned organisation—should be associating itself with. It is highly
unusual action for any employer to take. In the past, a number of single members of the Fair Work Commission
had refused to terminate their agreements after the nominal expiry date when parties remained engaged in
bargaining to reach a replacement agreement.
These cases involved Tahmoor Coal, the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, among other leading
employers. The reasoning behind those decisions was that permitting the termination of agreements at this point
would significantly and inappropriately shift the bargaining power so as to advantage one party's position—
typically that of the employer—because it placed at risk workers' take home pay and other conditions which are
typically higher in agreements compared to awards. For this reason, this outcome was seen as contrary to the
objects of the Fair Work Act and the policy of good faith negotiations for enterprise agreements. The situation
changed markedly with the decision of the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission in the Aurizon matter.
The Full Bench rejected the earlier approach taken and held that the emphasis on earlier decisions had
placed the importance on good faith negotiations for new agreements and took the view that this object would
be undermined by terminating agreements during negotiations. It formed the view it did not or should not
preclude terminating agreements as long as other preconditions in the legislation were met. That is, that it was
not contrary to the public interest to do so and it is "appropriate" to terminate the agreement having regard to the
views of those covered by it—the employer, employees and any union—and the likely effect termination would
have on them. Determining the issue of appropriateness is very much an exercise in weighing competing
considerations and is very much a question of what is in the eye of the beholder.
For those in the Federal industrial relations system, this decision has raised the spectre of employee
conditions reverting to the underlying modern award where agreements expire but replacements have not been
agreed. If this approach becomes more general among employers, workers and their unions will face increased
pressure to agree to the terms offered by employers for replacement agreements, even if that means agreeing to
second rate or unfair terms. The Full Bench in Aurizon was wrong, but even if it was legally corrected it is a bad
situation if the law allows one party with greater financial resources to gain the upper hand to take economic
advantage of another party when they are vulnerable. That law, in my view, should be changed. If it is not, I do
not believe that an employer that is a public authority ought to take this course of action or take advantage of
this avenue.
7812 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
As Labor's shadow Minister for Industry, Resources and Energy, and shadow Minister for Industrial
Relations I do not believe a State-owned energy company should be able to take such a course of action. For that
reason, I urge management to reconsider its position. If it does not, I call on the Treasurer and the Minister for
Finance, Services and Property as the shareholding Ministers to withdraw the termination application and to
resume the proper, fair course of action, which is the resumption of negotiations between the parties: Essential
Energy, its workforce and their bargaining representatives—the Electrical Trades Union, the United Services
Union and Professionals Australia.
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Dr MEHREEN FARUQI [6.55 p.m.]: Today is the United Nations International Day for the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination. In Australia this day is celebrated as Harmony Day, which recognises our
rich diversity of cultures and our values of justice, equality, fairness and friendship. Fifty years on from the first
proclamation of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 1966, much has changed.
The decade following 1966 was particularly active. The White Australia policy was officially dismantled, the
1967 referendum on Indigenous rights took place and the Racial Discrimination Act was enacted. But much still
needs to change. Racism continues to permeate many aspects of Australian society, either explicitly or implicitly.
Too many Australians are subjected to racism and racist behaviour. Whether it is attacks on women
wearing hijabs, Asian and other non-western names being passed over in resume racism or people of African
backgrounds being followed around in shops and treated like criminals, racism is a story that too many of us
know all too well. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people need no reminder of this day as they continue to
receive perhaps the worst forms of institutionalised racism. It is an undeniable fact that since 1788 Australian
government policies have systematically oppressed, controlled and targeted Aboriginal people. These are
uncomfortable points for many people to ponder, and there is sometimes an inexplicable disbelief that racism
exists in Australia.
Some people feel outraged or hurt that a simple acknowledgment of history and people's lived
experiences is an attack on them as individuals. But not talking about racism because it might make people
uncomfortable has greater consequences for the people that experience it. I had the pleasure of hosting an
International Women's Day breakfast in Parliament this year where Muslim lawyer and author
Randa Abdel-Fattah and Aboriginal writer and actor Nakkiah Lui spoke to us. Just days later, Nakkiah wrote
one of the most heartbreaking pieces I have ever read, following the devastating suicide of a 10-year-old
Aboriginal girl in Western Australia. The piece was entitled "As an Aboriginal teen I thought about killing
myself every day". She wrote: This idea of Australia, an Australia that didn't include you, that you weren't meant to be here, was something that existed every
day and still does.
This is Australia in 2016. Stan Grant published an article soon after that pointed out that, according to the
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Indigenous children are nearly nine times more likely to take their own lives
than non-Indigenous children. It is the leading cause of death for Indigenous people aged 15 to 35, who kill
themselves at three times the rate of other Australians. He continued:
We are connected directly to the darkness of our past. We are born out of the legacy of dispossession and suffering and injustice.
The crippling malaise that sits at the heart of so many black communities and lives in this country is seeded in that still
unresolved grievance that underpins the Australian settlement: Terra Nullius.
Just weeks ago, Fairfax columnist Paul Sheehan published what we now know to be lies and mistruths
disparaging Muslims and the Middle Eastern community in general, and also creating stereotypes of
hyper-sexualised brown men who cannot help but attack women. His eventual apology was directed to the
NSW Police Force, not the Muslim or Middle Eastern community. This is Australia in 2016. Too often in
Australia, the arbitration of what does or does not constitute racism is conducted by those who do not experience
it or have not experienced it themselves.
In the media and in public life people come out in defence of a black face, or the booing of Adam
Goodes, despite not being in any position to understand what it is like to feel racism's deep sear. There is often a
kneejerk attack on anyone who deigns to point out racism. Calling out racism is not about making ourselves feel
better or making others feel worse, or even looking for sympathy: it is a statement of reality, of what is
happening every day that is invisible to the many Australians who will never experience racism's corrosive
effects. So today let us strongly reaffirm our commitment to stamp out racism in every way we can, and in doing
so let us have the courage to acknowledge it first.
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7813
SYDNEY CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT LOCK-OUT LAWS
The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD [6.59 p.m.]: I wish to continue my contribution to the adjournment
debate with respect to the New South Wales lock-out laws, which I began on 17 March. I had outlined the
situation that had arisen, where the entertainment precincts were in such a state that the Government was in a
position where it could do nothing but act. I talked about the pressure on the authorities responsible for
Kings Cross, Oxford Street and similar areas and how the council, the police, the community and the State
grappled with the limited policy levers they had to rein in an increasingly out-of-control situation on the streets
at weekends.
The Government tried more police and special operations, with sniffer dogs and a riot squad presence
in Kings Cross. All of that was intimidating to law-abiding citizens in the area. The council imposed severe
controls on development applications for alcohol-related businesses and invested in a closed-circuit television
network. But increasingly it seemed that authorities had lost control of the streets. I have always resisted
collective punishment imposed upon a group because of the blatant antisocial behaviour of a minority. Indeed
I have resented it. My libertarian streak wanted us to work on personal responsibilities, and I was quite public
about this. I know that many of the protesters today, including the Keep Sydney Open group, are primarily
motivated by freedom of expression and a libertarian perspective. I relate to that, but the assaults and tragic
deaths associated with the entertainment precinct made it clear that authorities had lost control of the streets.
In 2012 Premier Barry O'Farrell tried once more in Kings Cross with Operation Viking—when the
Government flooded the streets with hundreds of police on weekends—and it failed. It was obvious a new
approach was required. The Government needed a short, sharp jolt of authority to reset the situation. And so
reluctantly, and with huge objection from the pubs and clubs industry, the much lauded Newcastle lock-out laws
were trialled in Sydney. This is the antithesis of the policies being decried in some social media campaigns as
some kind of Baird Government-led Christian conspiracy. I think the history and actions I have outlined, last
week and today, show this to be a falsehood and an overreach by those opposed to the lock-out laws.
So where to from here? In my submission to the review I will be outlining much of what I have said in
this speech. I will make the point that the short, sharp jolt has reasserted government authority over the streets of
the entertainment precincts of Sydney. The public, the bar owners, the workers and even the undesirables know
who is in charge of our streets and what behavioural standards we expect in our society. So I will be
recommending that there be a selective relaxation of the crackdown. We have achieved our primary objective:
We have regained control of the streets. Assaults and crime are down in the areas—we applaud that—but so,
too, is the night-time economy, and the associated jobs and creativity. Personal freedoms and civil liberties have
also been affected.
I suggest we look to Melbourne to see how to restructure our night-time venues in the best way and
encourage the decentralisation of 24-hour venues. I suggest that we put in place anti-clustering planning
provisions. The 24-hour night clubs or late-hour trading clubs would be on restricted licences with government
oversight, and should be a minimum of two or five kilometres apart—too far to walk so that people do not
congregate in the streets. Much the same has happened in Melbourne—more through luck than planning—
creating minimum disruption to that community. I think that minimum disruption will also apply in Sydney.
Dismantling the entertainment precincts is the way to go. Above all else, I believe that, as a government, we
should have more trust in our citizens and loosen the restrictions slightly to let the blood and creative juices flow
back into the city's night life. But we must be prepared to act if this trust is again abused.
TRIBUTE TO JOHN POSNAKIDIS
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY [7.04 p.m.]: John Posnakidis tragically died on 20 October 2010
when his truck broke down, stranding him on the side of the highway. Waiting in a bus shelter, this father of
three was hit by a speeding truck. The coroner's report found that the company that owned the truck that struck
John was in "strained financial circumstances and operating at a dysfunctional level". The driver of the errant
vehicle had been working in excess of safe hours and was under immense pressure to deliver a particular load to
a demanding client. He was also speeding. The strain that this driver was under does not absolve him from his
share of moral or legal responsibility but this tragedy—one truck driver causing the death of another—
demonstrates the huge pressure under which Australia's truck drivers labour. It demonstrates how the current
system of pay and contracts that prevail between clients and the trucking industry pressures drivers and
operators to cut safety corners in order to remain financially viable.
7814 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21 March 2016
John Posnakidis's sister, Sue, said to the coroner investigating her brother's death that the truck driver
who caused her brother's demise was a victim as well. Speaking four years later, after a similar accident in
which two people were killed and which led to an another coroner's report, Sue said that if the recommendations
contained in the report into her brother's death were heeded those deaths would have been avoided. Trucking is
Australia's most dangerous industry. Safe Work Australia figures show that the fatality rate in road freight
transport is Australia's highest—and not by a small margin. It is 1,300 per cent higher than Australia's
workplace fatality average. The sector accounts for nearly one-quarter of all workplace fatalities in New South
Wales and Australia.
More than 300 transport workers and other road users die each year due to truck-related crashes. If this
level of death and injury were caused by trains we would stop them all. If this level of destruction resulted from
aeroplanes we would never let them fly. Just because these deaths are occurring in the trucking industry does not
make them any less tragic and it does not absolve us from our responsibility as legislators to act. We must
recognise that this is a State and national crisis. We must acknowledge that this crisis afflicts New South Wales
more than any other State and we bear more of the burden of trucking enforcement because 80 per cent of
freight passes through this State. We also must inquire into the causes of this crisis and accept these truths—not
to deny them but to act on them.
That is what the last Federal Labor Government did. After 20 years of inquiries, academic papers and
coroners' reports, and after hearing from drivers, that Labor Government recognised and acted on the truth that
the crisis afflicting the trucking industry has its roots in the industry's economics. It found that transport clients
such as Coles have so much unchecked power in the transport supply chain that the power has been abused and
led to pressure and risk shifting onto drivers. The last Labor Government established a system of safe rates—the
first system of its kind anywhere in the world. Safe rates are higher rates of pay structured to decrease the
immense pressure on companies to forgo maintenance, overload vehicles or for drivers to skip breaks or speed.
The safe rate system lets an independent tribunal treat the supply chain as a whole. It allows for systemic reform.
The need for this system is supported by numerous academic studies, including the National Transport
Commission 2008 report on remuneration and safety in the Australian heavy vehicle industry. The system
became law in 2012 and for the past two years it has been operational. It has recently handed down a decision
for owner drivers to be paid for all hours they work—a basic promise made to all employees but denied to tens
of thousands of owner drivers. It is a credit to them and the Transport Workers Union, and it ought to be
celebrated as a milestone in how we treat independent contractors in this country. The decision comes into force
in April and, unsurprisingly, it is attracting the usual chorus of opposition from the usual suspects. Judging by
the reaction of industry employer groups as well as their advocates and by the reaction of many in the current
Federal Government people would be misled into thinking that there is no problem in the trucking industry.
The Federal Minister for Transport has taken this form of reality denial into the courts. He seeks now to
delay the rollout of the first decision of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. All the while his Liberal
colleagues are trying to get rid of the tribunal in the Senate. I ask the Minister and the Liberal Government to
explain themselves to John's family and his sister, Sue. If they are not willing to explain their position to the
300 people killed in trucking accidents each year and do not have the courage of their convictions they ought to
get out of the way and allow the tribunal to do its work.
MANILDRA GROUP
The Hon. PAUL GREEN [7.09 p.m.]: In regional New South Wales it is much easier to keep a job
than to create a new job. At the end of last year the Christian Democratic Party was pleased to welcome the
Government's reforms relating to biofuels in New South Wales, including the establishment of the 6 per cent
ethanol target. The Christian Democratic Party is very mindful that ethanol is a renewable energy that plays a
big part in our future energy mix needs. The rise in this target works to provide stability and security to regional
businesses such as the Manildra Group—Australia's largest producer of ethanol at this time, which has its plant
in the picturesque Shoalhaven.
The Manildra Group's Nowra refinery provides employment to 345 workers who have mortgages,
car loans, personal loans and financial commitments to schooling and day care. These families are continually
meeting the challenges of the rising costs of living. The challenge of unemployment within the Shoalhaven is
a continual concern, with rates currently around 7.6 per cent. That is 1.8 per cent higher than the national
average and does not include youth unemployment, which is around the 20 per cent mark in the Ulladulla
region.
21 March 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7815
In September last year it was announced that the Pentair factory at South Nowra will be closed, which
will result in the loss of employment for 80 workers in April, and then we had the news that the complex
currently under construction in South Nowra will not be opening as a Masters hardware store. These
two announcements have delivered a major blow to an already difficult employment market. The enforcement
of the 6 per cent ethanol mandate by the New South Wales Government to ensure that petroleum companies
comply with this law will create confidence. This confidence is paramount to regional business like Manildra,
which is 10 minutes from South Nowra, to continue to grow and ultimately provide more employment
opportunity.
I now turn to the mum and dad operators that will not be able to supply ethanol at their service stations
without significant cost under this mandate. The Christian Democratic Party is mindful that some may need to
have their obligations waived or receive assistance in meeting their obligations. Rather, this is about big
companies embracing renewable energy sources and providing availability at the pump to empower consumers
to make a choice. The Manildra Group demonstrated its willingness to work with governments in the past and it
is my understanding that the group had previously negotiated with the O'Farrell Government because they were
looking to expand their operations interstate. Based on advice from the O'Farrell Government, the Manildra
Group chose to increase its investment in New South Wales—not Queensland or Western Australia—to the
value of three-quarters of a billion dollars.
At a time when it is common for Ministers to travel around the world to try to attract foreign
investment to New South Wales, we have a local business—a 100 per cent Australian-owned company—that
has demonstrated its desire to work with the New South Wales Government to keep investment in New South
Wales, particularly in regional areas; yet Manildra is under pressure from the Independent Pricing and
Regulatory Tribunal [IPART], in a report requested by the Premier, to place a maximum price on wholesale
ethanol. The Manildra Group does have substantial market power in the ethanol market, but that is because
ethanol is produced from starch waste that is fermented and converted to ethanol as part of an integrated
manufacturing process at its Nowra plant. The Christian Democratic Party is not averse to this because it is the
by-product of many other food sources; it is not taken from the first part of the flour production process.
Opportunities exist for other ethanol companies to enter into this marketplace in New South. We want
to ensure that the IPART report does not create a rod for the New South Wales economy, particularly the
ethanol industry. Those across the border in Queensland may be under different laws so we need to ensure a
balanced field and balanced regulation. Ultimately a constructive outcome that considers this business and the
job value it provides throughout regional New South Wales would be desirable. The Christian Democratic Party
recognises the importance that regional development plays in job security for regional economies. We want to
keep regional jobs and encourage business confidence to build and strengthen our economy. It is imperative that
we support Australian business such as the Manildra Group that provides local employment in not only Nowra
but also other regional towns and cities in New South Wales—like BlueScope. In conclusion, I repeat that it is
much easier to keep a job in regional and rural New South Wales than to create 345 new jobs.
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 7.14 p.m. until Tuesday 22 March 2016 at 11.00 a.m.
_______________