Monday 21 March 2016 - Parliament of NSW · 7773 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Monday 21 March 2016 _____ The...

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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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?


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.


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


Pair

Ms Cotsis Mrs Maclaren-Jones


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.


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—


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


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.


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?


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?


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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!"?


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

_______________

Monday 21 March 2016 - Parliament of NSW · 7773 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Monday 21 March 2016 _____ The...

Documents

Transcript of Monday 21 March 2016 - Parliament of NSW · 7773 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Monday 21 March 2016 _____ The...