thursday, 5 may 2016 - parliament of nsw · 2016-06-01 · thursday, 5 may 2016 legislative...

Thursday, 5 May 2016 Legislative Council- PROOF

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday, 5 May 2016

The PRESIDENT (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 10:00.

The PRESIDENT read the prayer and acknowledged the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders

and thanked them for their custodianship of this land.

Bills

FINES AMENDMENT BILL 2016

Returned

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of a message from the Legislative Assembly returning the Fines

Amendment Bill 2016 without amendment.

Announcements

HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II NINETIETH BIRTHDAY

The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on behalf of the members of the Legislative Council and

the people of New South Wales, a message of congratulations was sent to Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion

of her ninetieth birthday on 21 April 2016.

Motions

NOTICES OF MOTIONS REALLOCATION

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (10:02:4): I move:

That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing or sessional orders, notices of motions listed in the name of Dr Kaye

on the Notice Paper for today be reallocated as follows:

(1) Item No. 10 in the Order of Precedence relating to the Drug Legislation Amendment (Cannabis for Medical Purposes)

Bill be listed in the name of Mr Buckingham.

(2) Item No. 4 outside the Order of Precedence relating to the TAFE Changes Moratorium (Secure Future for Public

Provision of Vocational Education and Training) Bill be listed in the name of Mr Shoebridge.

(3) Item No. 36 outside the Order of Precedence relating to the Transforming NSW Energy Sector (Towards 100 per cent

Renewables) Bill be listed in the name of Mr Buckingham.

(4) Item No. 76 outside the Order of Precedence relating to the Greyhound Racing Prohibition Bill be listed in the name of

Dr Faruqi.

(5) Item No. 159 outside the Order of Precedence relating to the Electricity Feed-in (Large-scale Renewable Energy

Generation) Bill be listed in the name of Mr Buckingham.

(6) Item No. 224 outside the Order of Precedence relating to the Gaming Machines Amendment (Gambling Harm

Minimisation) Bill be listed in the name of Ms Barham.

(7) Item No. 582 outside the Order of Precedence relating to an order for papers regarding service contracts for schools and

TAFEs in New South Wales be listed in the name of Mr Shoebridge.

(8) Item No. 583 outside the Order of Precedence relating to funding cuts to the Illawarra TAFE Institute be listed in the

name of Mr Shoebridge.

(9) Item No. 584 outside the Order of Precedence relating to an order for papers regarding future options for Land and

Property Information be listed in the name of Mr Shoebridge.

(10) Item No. 585 outside the Order of Precedence relating to a further order for papers regarding greyhound welfare be

listed in the name of Mr Shoebridge.

(11) Item No. 703 outside the Order of Precedence relating to an order for papers regarding free range egg labelling be listed

in the name of Dr Faruqi.

Motion agreed to.

TRIBUTE TO MR EUGENE SEETO, OAM

The Hon. ERNEST WONG (10:03:2): I move:

That this House:


(a) congratulates Mr Eugene Seeto of Revesby in New South Wales, Director of Yu-Mei Chinese School and former

Director of the Sydney Chinese Culture and Educational Centre, on becoming a recipient of the Order of Australia

Medallion on Australia Day in 2016;

(b) recognises the outstanding contribution Mr Seeto has made over the years to the community, particularly in the

promotion of multiculturalism and humanitarian works, including establishing a library at the Sydney Chinese Culture

and Educational Centre after sourcing donations for the purchase of Chinese books and movies to promote an

understanding of the Chinese culture and traditions among Australian-Chinese, both here and overseas;

(c) commends Mr Seeto for his dedication and unwavering support of his local community, including through the planning

and direction he provides to the overall running of the Chinese community language school and his commitment to

preserving early Chinese historical documents and records relevant to the social, political and business development of

the Chinese community in Sydney; and

(d) notes Mr Seeto's great community advocacy and service, which has been honoured through this prestigious award.

Motion agreed to.

BAPTISM OF POLAND 1050TH ANNIVERSARY

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (10:03:5): I move:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) 2016 marks the 1050th anniversary of the conversion and baptism of the first ruler of Poland, Mieszko I, also

known as the Baptism of Poland;

(b) to mark the event, a Holy Mass celebrated at St Mary's Cathedral, Sydney was held on Tuesday 3 May 2016,

jointly organised by the Consul General of Poland in Sydney, Mrs Regina Jurkowska, and the Polish Catholic

Chaplaincy in Sydney and attended by several hundred members of the Polish-Australian community; and

(c) those who attended as guests included:

(i) Reverend Father Adam Staszczak, Delegate of the Superior General of the Society of Christ,

Poland, who was the celebrant;

(ii) the Hon. David Clarke, MLC, Parliamentary Secretary for Justice, representing the Hon. Mike

Baird, MP, Premier;

(iii) the Hon. Greg Donnelly, MLC, representing Mr Luke Foley, MP, Leader of the Opposition;

(iv) representatives of Sydney's Consular Corps; and

(v) leaders and representatives of numerous Polish-Australian community organisations.

(2) That this House congratulates and extends its best wishes to the Polish-Australian community on the occasion of the

1050th anniversary of the Baptism of Poland.

Motion agreed to.

POLAND'S CONSTITUTION DAY

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (10:04:2): I move:


(a) on Monday 2 May 2016, a reception and concert by the Polish pianist Mr Artur Dutkiecz to celebrate Poland's

Constitution Day was held at the Consulate-General of the Republic of Poland, Woollahra, hosted by

Mrs Regina Jurkowska, Consul General of Poland; and

(b) those who attended as guests included:

(i) Mr Simon Target, who was presented with the Decoration of Honour "Meritorious for Polish

Culture" by the Consul General on behalf of the Government of Poland;

(ii) the Hon. David Clarke, MLC, Parliamentary Secretary for Justice, representing the Hon. Mike

Baird, MP, Premier;

(iii) Ms Jenny Aitchison, MP, shadow Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual

Assault, shadow Minister for Small Business and member for Maitland, representing the leader

of the Opposition, Mr Luke Foley, MP;

(iv) representatives of Sydney Consular Corps;

(v) representatives of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies; and

(vi) representatives of numerous Polish-Australian community organisations.

(2) That this House:

(a) congratulates Mr Simon Target on the occasion of his presentation by the Polish Government of the

Decoration of Honour "Meritorious for Polish Culture"; and

(b) congratulates and extends its best wishes to the Polish-Australian community on the occasion of the 2016

anniversary of Poland's Constitution Day.


Motion agreed to.

MR LI HUAXIN, CONSUL GENERAL OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

The Hon. ERNEST WONG (10:04): I move:

That this House:

(a) congratulates His Excellency, Mr Li Huaxin, Consul General of the People's Republic of China in Sydney,

ambassadorial rank, for the outstanding contribution he has made to the people of New South Wales during his tenure

in this very honourable role;

(b) acknowledges the progress Mr Huaxin has made in the enhancement of friendly relations between Australia and China,

and the way in which he has represented the mutual interests of this bilateral relationship in such a positive light;

(c) acknowledges that Mr Huaxin is a highly respected leader of, and within, the Chinese community for his promotion of

multiculturalism and cultural diversity in New South Wales and across the globe;

(d) recognises the demands and sacrifices, both professional and personal, that a role of this nature requires, not only by the

Consul General, but by his wife, son, family and friends;

(e) notes that while Mr Huaxin and his wife will leave Australia shortly for a new posting in Saudi Arabia, his son will

remain behind to complete his Higher School Certificate later in the year and that this highlights the personal cost that

attends a role such as his; and

(f) commends Mr Huaxin for the professionalism and humility he has brought to this role during his tenure, and wishes

him every success for what lies ahead.

Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (10:05): On behalf of Ms Jan Barham: I move:


(a) National Volunteer Week for 2016 is from 9 to 15 May; and

(b) the theme introduced for National Volunteer Week 2015 of 'Give Happy, Live Happy' continues for another

year, in recognition of evidence showing the positive impacts of volunteering for both those who give their

time and those who are the beneficiaries.


(a) notes that the most recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics General Social Survey 2014 shows

that there were 5.8 million volunteers nationally in 2014 and that the percentage of the population who engage

in volunteering had dropped from 36 per cent in 2010 to 31 per cent, the first decline in the volunteering rate

in almost 20 years; and

(b) acknowledges the need to address the barriers to volunteering identified in Volunteering Australia's report

entitled "The State of Volunteering in Australia 2016", including:

(i) the challenge of matching the preferred areas of volunteering with the most pressing needs for

volunteers;

(ii) a lack of funds for reimbursement of volunteers' expenses; and

(iii) a lack of resources to engage and support volunteers with special needs such as disabilities or

limited English.


(a) congratulates the volunteer organisations in New South Wales and the long standing and the new volunteers

across this State for the essential role they play in the welfare and wellbeing of the people of New South

Wales;

(b) reiterates its recognition of the social benefits and financial savings to this State because of the selfless

activities of volunteers; and

(c) recognises that the volunteer sector requires adequate support and funding so that it can continue its role as

an essential adjunct to government and non-government services.

CLUBS OF SOROPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL SOUTH WEST PACIFIC CONFERENCE

Dr MEHREEN FARUQI (10:06): I move:


(a) the 20th Conference of Clubs of Soroptimist International South West Pacific was held from Friday 29 April

to Sunday 1 May 2016 at Bicentennial Park;

(b) the theme of the 2016 conference was "Challenge the Future—Women Accepting the Challenge";


(c) the conference was attended by several hundred delegates from around the region and focused on challenges

facing women around the world, including domestic violence and human trafficking; and

(d) the Soroptimist International South West Pacific has grown to include 13 countries, including Australia,

New Zealand, Fiji, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, Papua New

Guinea and Solomon Islands.

(2) That this House congratulates Soroptimist International of Sydney and Soroptimist International South West Pacific on

their successful conference and for their work in supporting women's and girls' rights and empowerment.

Documents

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water)

(10:06): I table the following papers:

(1) Report of the Department of Family and Community Services entitled "Ready Together: Annual Report 2015"

(2) Report of Multicultural NSW entitled "The state of community relations in NSW: Community Relations Report

2014-15"

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I move:

That the reports be printed.

Motion agreed to.

Business of the House

ORDER OF BUSINESS

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES (10:17): I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the moving of a motion forthwith relating to the conduct of business of

the House.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: I move:

That the order of Private Members' Business for today be as follows:

(1) Private Members' Business item No. 746 outside the Order of Precedence standing in the name of Mr Green relating to

Anzac Day.

(2) Private Members' Business item No. 2 in the Order of Precedence standing in the name of Mr Shoebridge relating to the

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2015.

(3) If not previously concluded, Private Members' Business item No. 746 outside the Order of Precedence standing in the

name of Mr Green relating to Anzac Day.

(4) Private Members' Business item No. 6 in the Order of Precedence standing in the name of Mr Primrose relating to the

sub-continental community in New South Wales.

(5) Private Members' Business item No. 8 in the Order of Precedence standing in the name of Mr Amato relating to

Fairfield's Youth off the Streets program.

Motions

ANZAC DAY

The Hon. PAUL GREEN (10:18): I move:

(1) That this House acknowledges the service and sacrifice of our war veterans.


(a) Anzac Day, 25 April, is one of Australia's most important national occasions, marking the anniversary of the first major

military action fought by Australian and New Zealand forces during the First World War;

(b) in subsequent years, Anzac Day also served to commemorate those who lost their lives in all the military and

peacekeeping operations in which Australia has been involved; and

(c) the spirit of Anzac, with its qualities of courage, mateship, and sacrifice, continues to have meaning and relevance for

our sense of national identity.

I have moved this motion on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party because it is an honour to continue a

dedication so passionately served in this House by a former member, the Hon. Charlie Lynn, MLC. Anzac Day,

25 April, is one of Australia's most important national occasions. It marks the anniversary of the first major

military action fought by Australian and New Zealand Forces during the First World War. Gallipoli was different


for Australia as it was the first major battle we, as Australians, fought as a nation. Soldiers from every State from

the newly federated Australia volunteered and fought. What was to sear itself into our national soul was the sheer

scale of casualties that we faced.

The battle at Gallipoli lasted eight and half months, during which time 7,600 Australians and 2,500 New

Zealanders were killed and 24,000 were wounded. Gallipoli was not the first time that Australians had been in

battle, and it was by no means an outstanding success. In fact, Gallipoli was a battle we lost. I note Charlie Lynn

would say, "And Kokoda we won." People still ask why we celebrate defeat, but there is something very Australian

in coming together for such a cause. In subsequent years Anzac Day has served to commemorate those who served

and/or lost their lives in military and peacekeeping operations in which Australia was involved. Anzac Day is

when we mark our respect and gratitude for their service and the very freedom that we enjoy today. The Australian

Army states:

It is sometimes difficult to understand why it is with gratitude that we should remember, but we have enjoyed the benefits of the

peace and easy existence, which was purchased at the cost of many lives. Few of us have ever had to risk everything ourselves, or

chance our loved ones to the dangers of war. But, for older generations of Australians, remembering such things is easier. War and

death came far too frequently into their lives as, in the past, the men and women of our armed forces saw active service in places

such as Belgium, Borneo, France, Korea, Malaya, the Middle East, New Guinea, Palestine, Turkey and Vietnam.

Today a new generation of soldiers, airmen and sailors are serving in the troubled locations, including Afghanistan, Timor-Leste,

Egypt, Iraq, the Middle East, Sudan and Solomon Islands. It is now a long standing tradition that on ANZAC Day we all pause to

remember those who offered up their lives in the defence of their nation and communities, which is the greatest contribution any

one citizen can make.

The Army continues:

Future generations need to be reminded that happiness has a price. For surely if happiness is the product of freedom, then freedom

is the reward of courage. We should be grateful to those that have helped preserve our nation and way of life through their sacrifice.

In doing so, we keep bright the memory of those lives. It is in the remembrance of these things that communities across the nation

come together on this day.

As per my usual custom, this year I attended the Nowra RSL Sub-Branch Anzac Day dawn service at Greenwell

Point to commemorate the immortal day when our young men, by their deeds and sacrifice, demonstrated to the

world at Gallipoli that Australia was truly a nation. On that day we remembered the sacrifice those men and

women made for an ideal, a way of life. We were asked to take strength in the knowledge and hope that our sons

and daughters will never forget the example of their forefathers. We were asked to mourn with pride but also

remember with pride those who served and fell and those who live.

On Anzac Day we are asked to remember the brave and gallant soldiers, undaunted airmen and noble

women who were faithful to this country unto death; the men and women who gave up their jobs, passions,

pastimes, families and friends to lay down their lives; and the doctors, nurses and workers under the Red Cross

and those fulfilling ministry of help and healing who saved others but could not save themselves. On Anzac Day

we are asked to remember the innocent and helpless lives that have been lost and the beloved sons, brothers,

fathers, husbands and friends who did not come home. The spirit of Anzac, with its qualities of courage, mateship,

and sacrifice, continues to have meaning and relevance for our sense of national identity. The Anzac spirit is a

concept that suggests that Australian and New Zealand soldiers possess shared characteristics, specifically the

qualities those soldiers exemplified on the battlefields of World War I such as endurance, courage, ingenuity,

good humour, larrikinism and mateship. In our research for this debate my adviser and I came across an interesting

quote. It reads:

I am an Australian soldier

I am a warrior and a member of a team

I serve the people of Australia

I will always place the mission first

I will never accept defeat

I will never quit

I will never leave a fallen comrade

I am a guardian of freedom and

the Australian way of life

I am an Australian soldier

In my journey to become a politician I have enjoyed learning about the lives of those who have gone before me.

As Mayor of Shoalhaven I had the privilege of being part of a team that led some young people along the Kokoda

Track. I must admit that being part of the political process has led me to become more involved with Anzac Day


and Remembrance Day as well as commemorations of the Boer War and other conflicts. My enthusiasm to attend

such events is constantly renewed when I reflect upon the importance of never forgetting the price others have

paid for us.

In my life I have had the sad privilege of attending my pop's funeral. At his service members of the RSL

performed a small ceremony to honour him as a former soldier. I do not think many of those people knew my pop

and I do not think he had a particular association with the RSL. In fact, he was a keen bowler and spent most of

his time on the bowling green. At the time of his funeral I was not aware of the depth of my pop's history of

service but I loved the way in which the RSL members honoured him for the things he had done in times gone by

but never spoken to us about. Recently I have been discovering more about his journey through applications for

information to the Australian War Memorial. I will share his story now.

My pop, Private Edwards George Phipps, enlisted in Paddington, New South Wales, on 21 October 1941.

He joined the 2/4 Australian Infantry Battalion. I learnt from my research at the Australian War Memorial that the

2/4 Battalion's first drafts of recruits arrived at Ingleburn camp on 3 November 1939, following the formation of

its headquarters at Victoria Barracks in Sydney the previous week.

The battalion departed Sydney to serve overseas on 10 January 1940 as part of the 16th Brigade of the

6th Australian Division. While the battalion was en route for the Middle East, Australian Infantry brigades were

reorganised along that British lines, with three pertains instead of four. This meant that the 2/4 Battalion was

eventually transferred to the 19th Brigade but remained part of the 6th Division.

Arriving in the Middle East on 14 February 1940, the 2/4 Brigade trained in Palestine and Egypt in

preparation for its campaign against the Italians in eastern Libya but was more active during the battle of Tobruk

from 21 to 22 January 1941. In early April 1941 the 2/4 Battalion, together with the rest of the 6th Division, was

deployed to Greece to resist the anticipated German invasion. After a period of training in Palestine, the

2/4 Battalion joined in the force garrisoning Syria. It completed this duty in mid-January 1942, embarked for

home on 12 February and arrived in Adelaide on 27 March.

In June the 19th Brigade was deployed to defend Darwin and the 2/4 Battalion remained there for what

became a boring and frustrating year. The brigade rejoined the rest of the 6th Division, training in northern

Queensland in June 1943, but another 18 months would pass before it again saw action. The 2/4 Battalion landed

at Aitape in New Guinea on 2 November 1944 to undertake its only campaign against the Japanese. Its most

intense effort took place between April and July of that year. Following the Japanese surrender on 15 August,

drafts of 2/4 Battalion men began returning to Australia for discharge. The remainder of the battalion arrived home

on 26 October and disbanded at Chermside in Queensland on 12 November 1945.

My pop was discharged on 12 December 1945. He never mentioned any of this war service. Indeed,

many servicemen were silent about what they saw and did. I think, sadly, that was because of the deprivation they

experienced and the carnage they witnessed. No good comes from humans hurting each other. It would be one's

worst nightmare to be confronted with firearms and bombs. It is little wonder that so many returned service men

and women did not share their stories.

Shared images of life's experiences can stick and some images cannot be erased from our minds. Our

Anzac forefathers kept their experiences to themselves in order to protect our hearts and minds. It is to their credit

that they protected us from the unintended consequences of learning about the evil of war but I am sure that for

many the suppression of their emotions came at a great cost to their marriages and families. Christopher Reeve

once said, "A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of

overwhelming obstacles." My pop, Private Edward George Phipps, among many others, was a hero. I am honoured

and humbled to share a history and legacy with the Anzacs through my pop.

They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old;

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ (10:35): I thank the Hon. Paul Green for moving this important motion. In

this House we often acknowledge the service of Australians who have fought in past conflicts and those who are

still involved. This July marks the centenary of the battles of Fromelles and Pozieres. A century later both those

battles are still deeply etched in the memories of many Australian families.

The Battle of Fromelles was the first major battle fought by Australian troops on the Western Front. In a

single night of battle 5,533 Australian casualties were claimed, and of that number 1,917 troops were killed. That

was the greatest loss of Australian life in a single 24-hour period—not just in the war, but ever. The sheer scale


of that loss has changed the history of this nation forever. The Battle of Fromelles began 19 days after the

beginning of the Battle of the Somme. Its aim was to prevent the Germans from redeploying forces from areas of

the front to reinforce the Somme front, which was 80 kilometres to the south.

The first day of the Battle of the Somme was the second bloodiest in the history of the British Army. The

British suffered 57,420 casualties, including 19,240 dead. Justifiably, the British wanted to prevent further

German troop reinforcements to the area. At the same time, the Battle for Verdun, a German offensive, was still

raging and was costing both the French and the Germans heavy casualties. Only two divisions were deployed in

the battle because of serious troop shortages in the British Army.

The battle was fought by the inexperienced troops of the 5th Australian Division and the under-strength

61st Territorial British Division. The 5th Division of the Australian Imperial Force comprised troops from the 8th,

14th and 15th brigades. This division was the last to arrive in France from Egypt and was the most inexperienced

of all the Australian divisions. However, it was the first to launch into serious battle on the front. Of the

12 battalions that made up the 5th Division, one had yet to set foot on the front, three had been on the front for

part of a day, and two more had been on the Western Front for two days. The 5th Division, which was largely

unfamiliar with the terrain or the nature of fighting, was now committed, with short notice, to attack a defence

system that was described 14 months earlier as "well-developed".

The 5th Division launched an offensive against the troops of the 6th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Division,

which had been stationed on the front and maintaining the defences for more than a year. Initially, the plan at

Fromelles was to launch a surprise attack on German troops in a strongly held German area known as the Sugar

Loaf salient. This was designed to make the German military believe that a serious and large-scale operation was

being launched in the area. It was hoped this would result in Germany drawing its troops away from the main

battle at Verdun and the Somme.

In spite of this, a change of plan took place just days before which favoured a three-day artillery

bombardment to weaken the German position before the offensive. However, due to wet weather and other

limitations, the artillery bombardment originally scheduled for three days was reduced to seven hours. It was also

intended to commence at 4.00 a.m. but did not begin until the mist cleared at 11.00 a.m. on the morning of

Wednesday 19 July.

With the element of surprise eliminated and a greatly reduced period of bombardment, the German troops

had ample warning that an offensive was imminent. In response, the German artillery began to shell the

communication trenches and the reserve and support lines of both attacking divisions. In the Australian area, the

ammunition and bomb dump of the 31st Battalion was blown up and the battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel

Toll, and most of his battalion signallers, messengers and medical staff were wounded.

At 1800 hours the Australian and British infantry courageously began their advance, with just over two

hours of daylight remaining. The frontline to the north of Sugar Loaf was, on average, 200 metres wide and the

Australians quickly seized the German frontline. The first wave of troops was left to consolidate the position while

the second, third and fourth waves pushed on for 140 metres in search of the third and last line of the German

trench system.

However, as often happened to Australian soldiers, no such line existed and the Australians began

forming a thin, disjointed series of posts, confused about their objectives. In addition, the shallow Laies River,

which intersected the Sugar Loaf salient, was mistaken for a trench and many Australian troops advanced too far

into the enemy position, leaving their flanks vulnerable to counterattack. The Germans survived the British

shelling and quickly manned their machine guns. Within 15 minutes they had decimated the attacking waves of

Australians, forcing the survivors to find shelter. At no stage did the British division succeed in neutralising Sugar

Loaf, its primary objective.

The German defenders concentrated their counterattack forces on the two Australian brigades that had

captured part of their line. The first, at dusk on 19 July, was driven off, but the second succeeded. At 0800 hours

the remaining defenders of the 14th Brigade, under attack from three sides by the German troops, were ordered to

retire. Soon after, the line returned to the same state it was in before the attack. The wounded were left lying on

the battlefield for days while attempts were made to arrange a ceasefire to enable their collection. The high death

rate among Australians can be attributed in part to the failure to arrange such a truce; many Australians risked

their lives trying to rescue their fallen comrades on the field.

The Battle of Pozières occurred a few days later. At this point, I would like to acknowledge the Australian

War Memorial for its account and, more importantly, for the work it does archiving essential war histories and

making the information accessible to all Australians. While researching for this speech, I read the handwritten


notes in the diaries of Charles Bean. His account; although cryptic in places, adds a direct link to the horrors of

these battles. Of Pozières, Charles Bean notes:

After an awful series of adventures with shrapnel and gas shells arrive at Gen Macagans dugout—

I assume that is the name; it is hard to read his writing—

In the scurry of the last 100 yards across shrapnel swept road in middle of which I had to put on my gas helmet. Felt very sick just

before getting in but helmet is certainly a help. We have had several men lose their way here already … Musty gas smell in the

dugout all the time, explosives outside about 3 and a half to the second.

The Australian War Memorial appears to stand almost alone, amongst a handful of places, in providing the nation

with this type of free research. I will put on the record the Australian War Memorial's account of the Battle of

Pozières. In late July 1916 the Australians fought their first action in the Battle of the Somme. At this point the

British strategy focused on the seizure of the ridge east of Pozières village from where an attack could be mounted

on German strongholds. By the time the Australians entered the Somme battle the operation had become a series

of attacks aimed not so much at a breakthrough of the German lines as the capture of key positions and the wearing

down of the enemy.

Between 23 July and 5 August 1916, the Australian 1st and 2nd divisions captured Pozières village and

Pozières heights, a ridge 500 metres east of the village. The initial attack began at 12.30 a.m. on Sunday 23 July

when the 1st Division seized the German frontline and in the following hour reached the main road through

Pozières. At dawn the Germans counterattacked, but the Australians held on. The rest of Pozières fell on the night

of 23 and 24 July and further gains were made on the night of 24 and 25 July. The Germans reacted to the seizure

of Pozières by concentrating the bulk of their artillery on the Australians. Constant barrages were directed onto

the village and the narrow approaches, creating a nightmarish situation for troops forming up and attacking in the

dark. By 27 July the 2nd Division had taken over in Pozières.

The 2nd Division was ordered to take Pozières heights. The attack commenced at 12.15 a.m. on 29 July,

but the Germans were ready and the attack failed, at a cost of 3,500 Australian casualties. The Australian

commander of the 2nd Division asked that his men might attack again rather than be withdrawn after failure.

Following an intense bombardment on 4 August 1916, the Australians seized Pozières heights. The exhausted

2nd Division was now rested and the 4th Division took up positions on the Pozières heights.

Attacking north along the ridge, the Australians, in 10 days of continuous action, reached Mouquet Farm.

The 4th Division was now relieved. Mouquet Farm resisted capture until 26 September 1916, the day after the

commencement of a major British offensive. In less than seven weeks in the fighting at Pozières and Mouquet

Farm, three Australian divisions suffered 23,000 casualties. Of these, 6,800 men were killed or died of wounds.

It was a loss comparable with the casualties sustained by the Australians over eight months at Gallipoli in 1915.

This year I will be fortunate to travel to the north of France to join many other Australians to mark the

centenary of the battles of Frommelles and Pozières. As part of that trip I will stay in the town of Albert, six

kilometres from Pozières. This holds special significance for me for this is where my great-grandfather David

Lumsden fought as part of the Kings Own Scottish Borderers. He died when I was 15 and he is one of the few

people I can ever recall meeting who also had fought in the Boer War.

David Lumsden was one of 13 Lumsdens who went to war from his immediate family. He called himself

lucky because, despite losing a hand, he came back, unlike many of his brothers and nephews. He called his lost

hand the million-dollar wound, as his being sent home saved his life. However, it meant that he could not work in

the coalmines, so he moved his family, with my grandmother Jeannie in tow, to New Zealand.

The participation of this country in wars, particularly the First World War, changed the direction and

history of our nation. Those who were left behind to suffer and grieve often struggled on alone, never able to

overcome their loss. In the modern era of war, many more families are coming to grips with their loss from

conflicts in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

We should always remember the bravery of our soldiers, such as Sergeant Brett Till, who was conducting

a route clearance to establish a safe path for his mates and the people who live in the area. Sergeant Till was a

10-year-plus Army veteran and a member of the elite Explosive Ordinance Disposal Unit of the Corps of

Engineers. He was killed as he tried to defuse a bomb. He leaves behind his wife, Brianna Barclay, and his three

children.

Corporal Mathew Hopkins, a member of the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force from 7RAR, was

killed in a firefight with the Taliban near a village 12 kilometres north of Tarin Kowt. He leaves behind his wife,

Victoria, and their son, Alexander. Private Gregory Michael Sher, from the Sydney-based 1st Commando

Regiment, was killed as a result of an indirect rocket attack in Oruzgan Province. Private Sher, who was born in

South Africa, leaves behind his parents, two brothers and a partner.


Lieutenant Michael Fussell, from the Sydney-based 4RAR, was killed during an operation against

Taliban insurgents in Oruzgan Province after an improvised explosive device was detonated. Michael leaves

behind two loving parents, his younger brother, Daniel—who also served—and two younger foster sisters, Nikki

and Nyah. Signaller Sean Patrick McCarthy, from the Perth-based Special Air Service, was killed by an

improvised explosive device [IED]. Sergeant Matthew Locke, from the Special Air Service, who was born in

Bellingen, was killed by Taliban fighters in Oruzgan Province.

Lance Corporal Jason Marks, also from 4RAR commando unit in Sydney, was killed in a battle with the

Taliban in Oruzgan Province. Lance Corporal Marks leaves behind his partner, Cassandra, and their two children.

Trooper David Pearce was killed in a roadside bomb attack in Oruzgan Province. Trooper Pearce, a member of

the Brisbane-based 2/14 Light Horse, was serving in the Reconstruction Task Force when he died. Trooper Pearce

was born in Liverpool, New South Wales, and leaves behind his wife and two daughters.

Sergeant Andrew Russell, from the Special Air Service, was the first to be struck down in Afghanistan.

He was killed when the vehicle in which he was travelling struck a landmine in southern Afghanistan. He leaves

behind his wife, Kylie, and his daughter, Leisa. Australian Special Forces soldier Lance Corporal Todd Chidgey

was killed whilst serving with protective services in Afghanistan. Corporal Cameron Baird, from the Special

Operations Task Group, was killed in small arms fire engagement in Afghanistan. He was posthumously awarded

the Victoria Cross after leading his team to come to the aid of another team that had come under small arms fire

and whose leader had been wounded.

Corporal Scott James Smith of the Special Operations Task Group was killed in an IED explosion. Private

Nathanael Galagher and Lance Corporal Mervyn McDonald were killed when an International Security Assistance

Force [ISAF] helicopter they were travelling in crashed while attempting to land in Helmand Province. Sapper

James Martin, Lance Corporal Stjepan Milosevic and Private Robert Poate were killed in southern Uruzgan by a

man wearing an Afghan Army uniform.

Sergeant Blaine Diddams was killed during an engagement with insurgents while on a partnered mission

with Afghan security forces targeting an insurgent commander. He was a member of the Perth-based Special Air

Service Regiment. Corporal Ashley Birt, Lance Corporal Luke Gavin and Captain Bryce Duffy were killed inside

a forward operating base at Shah Wali Kot in Kandahar province. Private Matthew Lambert, who was a member

of the Mentoring Task Force, was killed when an improvised explosive device [IED] detonated as he was on a

night patrol near an outpost patrol base in the Khaz Oruzgan region.

Sydney-based 2nd Commando Sergeant Todd Langley died from a gunshot wound to the head after an

incident in southern Afghanistan. Australian soldier Sapper Rowan Jaie Robinson was shot dead by insurgents in

the northern Helmand province. Lance Corporal Andrew Gordon Jones was shot by an Afghan soldier who fled

the scene, while another, Lieutenant Marcus Sean Case, died when the Chinook helicopter he was travelling in

crashed. Sergeant Brett Wood was killed conducting clearance operations in southern Afghanistan.

Sapper Jamie Larcombe was killed during an un-partnered patrol in Oruzgan province where insurgents

launched a coordinated attack with machine-gun and small arms fire. Corporal Richard Edward Atkinson was

killed by a roadside bomb while conducting a foot patrol with the Afghan National Army. Lance Corporal Jared

MacKinney was killed in a firefight. The soldier from the 6th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment was

patrolling in the Green Zone in the Oruzgan province, which had recently been handed over by the Dutch.

Private Grant Kirby and Private Tomas Dale from the sixth Battalion Royal Australian Regiment were

both killed by an improvised explosive device, which went off when the pair were overseeing an Afghan army

patrol in the Baluchi Valley. Trooper Jason Thomas Brown from Perth's Special Air Service Regiment died after

being shot during an engagement with insurgents. Private Nathan Bewes of the 6th Battalion of the Royal

Australian Regiment was also killed by an IED. A helicopter crash killed three Australian Army Special Forces

soldiers from the 2nd Commando Regiment: Private Timothy Aplin, Private Scott Palmer and Private Benjamin

Chuck.

A Taliban bomb killed Brisbane-based 2nd Combat Engineer Regiment's Sapper Jacob Moerland and

Sapper Darren Smith, as well as their bomb sniffing dog. An improvised explosive device claimed the life of

Private Benjamin Ranaudo from the 1st battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment north of Tarin Kowt. Two

Australian soldiers were also lost in Iraq. David Nary Warrant Officer Nary died as a result of injuries suffered

during a training activity in the Middle East and Jake Kovco died from mishandling a pistol in Iraq. It is important

that their families know that our thoughts are still with them and that this Chamber acknowledges that a century

after the Great War Australian families are still being affected by the involvement of our defence personnel in

present-day conflicts.



(10:52): I make a contribution to this debate and associate myself with the motion moved by the Hon. Paul Green.

It is a worthy motion that I think will be supported by all members, as Anzac Day has meaning for each of us.

Anzac Day should be commemorated, not celebrated. It allows us to remember our family and community

members who have paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we can stand here today to debate and fight for what we

believe in and we can all be free from the restrictions that are placed on people in other parts of the world.

I place on record my appreciation to the Parliament, particularly the Presiding Officers, the Clerks and

parliamentary staff, for the efforts that have been made to commemorate the Centenary of the First World War

and for providing information on the history of the roles played by the Legislative Assembly and Legislative

Council and the members of Parliament as well as on the battles and decisions that were taken at the time of

conflict. It is a very worthy exercise for the President in this Chamber and the Speaker in the other place, at the

commencement of proceedings, to reflect on Australia's contribution to the war effort. It allows all members to

gain a greater understanding and appreciation of the role played by those who have gone before us in shaping our

nation, particularly during those difficult times, as well as the role played by the State.

I appreciate, as I am sure do other members, the stories of those who were sitting on the benches in this

Chamber and, putting their money where their mouth is, backed up their words with actions and signed up. I am

in a different position to many other members in this Chamber, particularly that of the last two speakers. I am a

first generation Australian and I do not have any family who served in the Great War as part of the Australian

Imperial Forces. However, I have learned to appreciate the sacrifices that their family members have made for

this State and nation.

I learned about the significance of their sacrifices at different stages throughout my life. The first time

was when I attended Hawkesbury Agricultural College. New students to the college are presented to the Fairy

Circle, which is dedicated to past students who paid the ultimate sacrifice, and the memorial hall, which was built

as a mark of respect to those students. In addition, large images are displayed around the campus depicting

returned soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice. I had the privilege of attending the 100th year commemoration

dinner at Hawkesbury last year. It was held exactly 100 years to the day when students, lecturers and teachers

from Hawkesbury Agricultural College who were on their way to the conflict in Gallipoli and who during a

stopover in Egypt for training purposes decided to hold a Hawkesbury dinner in Cairo.

At the commemoration dinner there was a list of all the students and lecturers who had signed up. It was

significant that the students and lecturers of Hawkesbury Agricultural College had signed up side by side. They

were on different levels in the classroom but had signed up as equals in the Armed Forces. The attendees at the

commemoration dinner were able to enjoy the same menu that had been enjoyed 100 years earlier. A menu was

found from the archives showing the order of proceedings for the dinner in Cairo. We enjoyed the same menu and

had the same toasts and speeches, albeit 100 years later in a very different location. It was truly an amazing

experience and I am honoured to have attended that dinner.

At the dinner, one seat was left vacant at each table and at that spot a postcard or photo was placed of the

former student who had paid the ultimate sacrifice, together with information about his role in the conflict and his

background. Hawkesbury Agricultural College paid an enormous price for their involvement. The majority of the

students and lecturers who signed up came from rural backgrounds and many were accomplished horsemen.

Therefore, they made up a large contingent of the Light Horse Brigade and suffered significant losses.

We also learnt about the families of the students, some of whom were prominent. They included a former

Premier of this State who lost one of his children as part of the Hawkesbury team in the Great War. I have a link

to the Anzacs through Hawkesbury Agricultural College, like the Hon. Paul Green and the Hon. Rick Colless,

who also attended that school. I was honoured to attend the dinner.

I am a first generation Australian. My parents come from Northern Ireland. It would be remiss of me not

to inform the House that there are many Anzac memorials in Northern Ireland. Members may not be aware of

that. They list the names of people who lost their lives as part of the Australian Imperial Force and whose grieving

families back in Northern Ireland established memorials in their villages.

I want to put on record my view of the evolution of our remembrance of those who paid the ultimate

sacrifice. I have attended the Anzac ceremony and march in Bowral for many years. There was a record crowd at

last year's 100-year commemoration, but this year the crowd was just as large. A great number of schoolchildren

participated in the parade, my son included. I believe that future generations will continue to pay their respects

and mark the ultimate sacrifice that people across this country made to allow us to enjoy our freedoms. I had not

previously thought about the fact that when the returned service men and women marched at the front of the

parade in Bowral there was nothing but silence. The parade was three or four people deep. There was nothing but


silence until the service men and women drew level with the people standing at the side of the road and then there

was sombre but strong and proud applause as they marched past.

The veterans were followed by a stream of schoolchildren, proudly wearing their school uniforms at the

end of school holidays. It is always a feat to convince your child—in my case a 12-year-old—that they need to

dig out the school uniform at the end of school holidays. I was overwhelmed to see the number of children proudly

wearing the medals of their relatives. Those without medals proudly displayed a piece of rosemary on their chest.

Schools in our area have also established pipe bands. This year, for the first time, Oxley College had a pipe band

in the parade. That was significant. Something else that stood out for me this year was the address delivered by

the school captain from Chevalier College. It was outstanding. All those factors will contribute to a strong presence

at these ceremonies for generations to come. We should be proud that we are getting the message through to

children in particular that they need to be a part of this.

I have one other thing to say, and I did not think I would say this. I have previously attended the Anzac

Day rugby league match between my mighty Dragons—who, unfortunately, are not so mighty at the moment—

and the Sydney Roosters. In years gone by I have been disappointed that the minute's silence has not been

respected by some in the crowd. I put on record that this year the silence was absolute. The minute's silence was

respected. Other people have commented in the past that the minute's silence has not been respected. The message

is getting through. No matter the forum, whether the minute's silence is at the start of proceedings here in this

Chamber, at a dawn service, at the end of an Anzac Day march or during a rugby league match, we all understand

the price paid by those who have gone before us. We want to pay homage and pay our respects to them.

I thank the Hon. Paul Green for moving this motion so that we can reiterate what it means to us, to our

families and to our communities. This debate allows us to share our reflections. We must make sure that we, as

custodians of those memories, keep the fire burning into the future.

The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD (11:05): I speak in support of the motion moved by the Hon. Paul

Green and thank him for bringing it to the attention of the House. I associate myself with the comments of all

members who have preceded me in this contribution on the Anzac commemoration. Anzac Day has many

meanings for many people. It has evolved over the one hundred years since the landings at Gallipoli. More than

8,000 Australians were killed on that peninsula. The initial Anzac Day was to commemorate that loss. As we have

heard from other speakers, the number of losses in World War I continued to multiply. The unfolding tragedy of

lives lost had a dimension which still deeply moves our nation today.

Anzac Day has a meaning for the nation. There is a national commemoration of the sacrifice of those in

not only World War I but all conflicts, including all those occurring now. As the Hon. Lynda Voltz reminded us,

the loss of life in service to our nation continues. Anzac Day is not just a commemoration of the loss of life; it

also shows respect for those who served in conflicts. It is important to note that. As the Hon. Paul Green said, we

who are left grow old, and veterans are growing old. They carry the lifelong scars of the conflict that they shared

with others who did not return from it. World War I veterans have passed away into history and the number of

World War II veterans is dwindling.

Anzac Day is not just a national commemoration; it is also a community commemoration. The Hon. Niall

Blair spoke about the Anzac Day commemoration in his community. I spoke in debate on an earlier motion about

the service I attended at Memorial Park in Penrith, which is the epicentre of commemoration for the community

of Penrith. In World War I and World War II Penrith was a semi-rural community. I grew up there in the seventies,

and it was still a satellite township. In Penrith we felt keenly the losses from World War I and World War II. My

school, Castlereagh Upper Public School, had a war memorial in the playground that we maintained. I do not

recall any services there in the 1970s. There was also a memorial board in the classroom. I remember, as a child,

seeing the asterisks next to the names and knowing that those people had died in service. It was a one-teacher

school and that memorial board was in the classroom.

As a councillor on the City of Sydney Council I had the honour of representing the city on many memorial

occasions. It is always moving to see those giant memorial rolls of honour in town halls and churches. To see the

scale of the contribution by working class men, many of Irish working class stock, from the inner city, one need

only go upstairs at Redfern Town Hall to see the huge memorial roll of honour there. There are so many names

there, and many of those who departed did not return.

Recently I represented Minister Elliott at the rededication of the restored World War I roll of honour at

St John the Evangelist in Birchgrove. Again that roll reflected the commitment of the working class in responding

to the call to arms in World War I. So the story of local communities and their sacrifice is another part of the

Anzac story, and in particular the family stories. We heard a number of members talk about this. In particular, the

Hon. Paul Green spoke about his father. Unlike the Minister, I am a seventh generation Australian, directly

descended from a First Fleeter. My great-great uncle Frank Farrar fell in World War I. My grandfather on my


mother's side fought in Papua New Guinea in World War II and was injured. So my family always felt great pain

around this issue and an emptiness. As the Hon. Paul Green said in his contribution, nothing was ever said about

these things.

I attended the funeral service of a 100-year-old gentleman recently. He was the father of a friend of mine.

I was not aware previously but he was an Australian Imperial Force [AIF] pilot who was captured during

Operation Market Garden and imprisoned by the Germans. He did not talk about that much, and only ever to his

family. I had met him and I had no idea about that until I was at the funeral service and the RSL members came.

I sat next to them. They commemorated his service. There are many stories unfolding around our nation as we

learn more about the past. I asked myself whether if I had known when I was younger I would have asked more

questions. But you cannot ask those questions. I have tried to ask those questions and found that people did not

want to open up.

There are many parts to the Anzac story. There is the loss of those who did not return. There are the

wounds of those who did return and who lived on. There is the impact on families. The Anzac story also includes

those who served on the home front. When my nana passed away I inherited the family archives. It had to go

somewhere, and I inherited it. I found the letters from my great-great uncle Frank Farrar from the war and the

letters in reply from family here as they corresponded backwards and forwards. I found the telegram confirming

his death at Perrone in 1918 from a shell. I also found my nana's certificate saying that she was a trained volunteer

air raid warden in Sydney. So in particular the women who stayed behind served as well and supported the

overseas service of our troops.

I have a whole file on my great-great uncle Frank Farrer and I will speak more about him, his service and

his letters on another occasion. He enrolled at the age of 19 in 1917. His family had a farm at Badgery's Creek,

which is now the site of the proposed airport. He enrolled as a very young man, but quite late in the war. I suspect,

looking at the history, that the cooee posters played an important role in recruitment. The posters had the headline

"Cooee" and said, "Your mates need you." It was a very moving call to action. The poster with the image of

Kitchener was designed to recruit the English. The cooee poster was really the call to action for young Australian

men to go and help their mates. It is a very moving poster and an emotional call to action.

Frank enrolled at Liverpool. I attended a service at Liverpool right next to the historic train station from

which he would have departed. I can imagine him going down there and getting on the steam train to Sydney to

go and fight. He fought in the 5th Australian Division and he was killed on the Western Front at the battle of

Perrone on 1 September 1918, which was the first day of that battle. There is a poignant photo of his division

taken on 3 September during that battle. It is just the one photo that I found. I wonder if those in the photo were

his "cooee" mates who fought with him. So I was aware of the pain of his loss for my family.

One of the things that we had hanging on the walls of the house at Badgery's Creek were pictures of

battles. There were no pictures of him but we had pictures on the walls of other soldiers. We had no photos of

him. I just wanted to reflect on that. My grandfather Bruce Peterson was in the Citizen Military Forces [CMF],

which is the reserve army. So our army went to fight in World War II and then when the Japanese invaded Papua

New Guinea we sent the CMF to hold them back. He went over there and was involved in the medical corps. He

was injured and came back to Australia. His external injuries healed but he was much more injured on the inside.

Ultimately he suffered a marriage breakdown and alcoholism.

So for me as a young man Anzac Day was tinged with a whole lot of anxiety because it brought up a lot

of family emotion. For me as a young man, medals were associated with family anguish. It is only in recent years

that I have really worked out what that was about. My examples are but a small way to touch upon what Anzac

means to families, individuals and communities across Australia. I am an avid plaque reader, so I often stop to

read a plaque or to look at a foundation stone to see who unveiled it. These are often the most tangible records of

history. Wherever I go as I travel around, whether in country towns or in the suburbs, I stop and look at these

records and I remember the sacrifice of our troops during wartime. I remember them and why they made that

sacrifice. Now that I am in this place, I remember that they fought to preserve a true liberal democracy. It is

democracy that we appreciate today and that is why we are in this place. We must never forget their sacrifice.

The Hon. ERNEST WONG (11:16): I join my colleagues in this House in briefly contributing to this

debate to acknowledge Anzac Day. I congratulate the Hon. Paul Green for this motion reflecting on the spirit of

Anzac and the qualities of courage, mateship and sacrifice, which continue to have meaning and relevance for our

sense of national identity in Australia. Anzac Day was originally marked to honour the members of the Australian

and New Zealand Army Corps who fought at Gallipoli against the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Now the

day goes beyond the anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli in 1915. It is now the day on which we remember all

Australians who served and died in war and on operational service, and indeed those who continue to serve today.


All across Australia, people gather to remember and reflect on the great sacrifice our Anzacs made for

our country. Some 101 years have passed since our troops first landed in Gallipoli, yet Anzac Day continues to

be recognised as a vital part of the Australian story. It is a national day of remembrance in Australia and New

Zealand that broadly commemorates all Australians and New Zealanders "who served and died in all wars,

conflicts, and peacekeeping operations" and "the contribution and suffering of all those who have served". Anzac

Day marks the anniversary of the first major military action fought by Australia and New Zealand forces during

the First World War. This was to be "the war to end all wars".

To the outside world and to those who do not share our patriotism and pride, it seems almost absurd that

we celebrate an event that many view as Australia’s greatest defeat. For us, however, it is a celebration of the

lifestyle we are able to enjoy today due to the ultimate sacrifice that those troops made in our honour. On Anzac

Day we come together to honour them and to reflect on and commemorate those fine young men and women,

many of whom died in battle. Whether or not someone believes in the premise of war, they would be hard pressed

to ignore the leadership and bravery that our troops display when they go into combat, particularly those who pay

the ultimate sacrifice.

Dawn is central to Anzac Day services as this was one of the most favoured times for an attack. Soldiers

were woken in the dark so that their eyes had time to adjust to the dull grey light that crept across the battlefield.

This way, at first light, our troops were awake and alert, and the fresh light instilled a sense of optimism for the

new day—tempered by fear that it could indeed be their last.

Anzac Day is also observed in the Cook Islands, Niue, Pitcairn Islands and Tonga, and previously also

as a national holiday in Papua New Guinea and Samoa. I speak on this matter as an Australian, as a member of

this Parliament and, most important of all, as an immigrant who made the choice to be a member of this community

that I am proud of. I want to be a role model for any of the new settlers in this beautiful land of Australia to

appreciate the history of Australia, the core value of Australia, which is the utmost important element of making

this a home that we treasure. In conclusion, I will recite a poem by D. Hunter, a veteran of Shaggy Ridge with the

2/12 Battalion in World War II:

Anzac Day

I saw a kid marchin’ with medals on his chest.

He marched alongside Diggers marching six abreast.

He knew that it was ANZAC Day - he walked along with pride.

He did his best to keep in step with the Diggers by his side.

And when the march was over the kid was rather tired.

A Digger said “Whose medals, son?” to which the kid replied:

“They belong to daddy, but he did not come back.

He died up in New Guinea on a lonely jungle track”.

The kid looked rather sad then and a tear came to his eye.

The Digger said “Don’t cry my son and I will tell you why.

Your daddy marched with us today - all the blooming way.

We Diggers know that he was there - it’s like that on Anzac Day”.

The kid looked rather puzzled and didn’t understand,

But the Digger went on talking and started to wave his hand.

“For this great land we live in, there’s a price we have to pay

For we all love fun and merriment in this country where we live.

The price was that some soldier his precious life must give.

For you to go to school my lad and worship God at will,

Someone had to pay the price so the Diggers paid the bill.

Your daddy died for us my son - for all things good and true.

I wonder if you understand the things I’ve said to you”.

The kid looked up at the Digger - just for a little while

And with a changed expression, said, with a lovely smile:

“I know my dad marched here today - this is ANZAC Day.


I know he did. I know he did, all the bloomin’ way”.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS (11:21): The past is another country. The Australia of 1915 is not the

Australia of 2015; it is not even the Australia of 1955. While I can agree with paragraph (1) of the motion moved

by the Hon. Paul Green, I find paragraph (2) far more problematic for the simple reason that as a historian one

has to question the gradual transmission of the mythologised view of the Anzac tradition into some sort of all-

encompassing understanding of the Australian condition.

A search for national identity was something which we would assume would have been lost in the great

post-Soviet era; when the wall came down, old ideologies disappeared, a new era of internationalism would

bravely come upon us and old nationalisms would go swiftly away. That was quickly dispelled by events in the

Balkans. There is something vaguely attractive about nationalism and how nationalism is constructed. Of course,

prior to Britain's entry into the European Union, Australians were Britons and Britons were Australians. The idea

that there was some sort of indigenous understanding of what it meant to be an Australian above and beyond being

a British Australian would have been considered laughable.

Post Britain's entry into the European Union things became a little more difficult and so in the 1970s we

had the rise of a sort of new nationalism; an attempt to create a fabricated Australian nationalism which could be

accepted by all. Unfortunately that too met a barrier between the sort of ocker supremacy of the working class and

I might call it, the Peter Weir elites of Picnic at Hanging Rock, and this remained a matter of some concern until

the 1980s. The 1980s were a formative time in the creation of this new Australian nationalism. It was a time when

films such as Gallipoli, the Anzacs and The Lighthorsemen were released.

And so as many other nations did, we chose to appropriate a military version of nationalism which could

encompass all presumptive classes within Australian society. We had the good old working class, dinky-di, blue-

singletted digger out there looking after his mates, and we had the bourgeois left, anti-British residual effort from

the new nationalism of the 1970s, giving rise of course to that ludicrous scene in Gallipoli where the charge at

The Nek is ordered to be continued by a British officer. That is terrible: sipping tea on the beaches of Gallipoli

sending our poor Aussie lads into the machine guns that awaited them. Of course, that is utter nonsense. The order

to continue the charge was given by an Australian officer, John Antill. But that did not fit the narrative of certain

people.

There had to be a villain, and the villain could not be us. It had to be the British. Fortunately that has also

ameliorated somewhat over time with a little more understanding of the nature of it. But what we have instead

today is a nationalism—and many in the Left proclaim it was a John Howard fabricated nationalism which looked

to our military past. Of course, the first Prime Minister to really give evidence of this was Hawke, but it

culminated, ironically enough, in, of all people, Paul Keating.

Paul Keating sought to create an indigenous Australian nationalism over the Tomb of the Unknown

Soldier when he said, "We are him, and he is us." That is a very interesting thing to say, especially by a Labor

leader, but it has undoubtedly resonated with the Australian population, especially younger Australians. But is he

us and are we him? The person who is lying in the tomb is, axiomatically, unknown but we know pretty much

what he might have been like. We know he probably would have been a working class, white, male;

proportionately the chances are he was one of the Protestant denominations who probably strongly believed in the

White Australia Policy, trade unionism, high tariff walls and the British Empire.

Of course the idea that somehow the Anzac tradition unified Australia is palpably false from a historical

point of view. It was of course in the First World War that the first and proportionately greatest split in the Labor

Party took place—Billy Hughes left and became a nationalist Prime Minister, and even in this Parliament Premier

Holman left the Labor Party and took a large number of his colleagues with him again to form a nationalist party.

So there was no unity there. There was no unity amongst the socialists and the more radical trade unionists, the

Industrial Workers of the World, the workers on the North Coast railways, and certain elements of the Roman

Catholic community who after the 1916 Easter Uprising did not look so favourably upon military service.

It certainly was not the case in the 1920s when the Returned Sailor's Soldier's Airmen's Imperial League,

now the RSL, was essentially a very conservative organisation which often had not just arguments but physical

fights. If members read a book on the red flag riots in Brisbane at the time they will understand exactly what the

case was. It was not the case when these same members were also key members of the Old Guard and New Guard,

who were concerned about a possible socialist rising in Australia in the 1920s and the 1930s and even had plans

to blockade the Sydney Harbour Bridge so that the socialists from south of the harbour would not invade the

northern suburbs of Sydney.

It was not the case amongst the Jindyworobaks of the 1950s. It was not the case when The One Day of

The Year was a popular play in the 1960s.


break

It was not the case when the RSL was mocked and ridiculed. It was not the case during the moratorium riots. It

was not the case during the 1970s when Anzac Day marches were dwindling down to nothing. It was not the case

when Women Against Rape in War decided to protest the Anzac Day marches in the mid-1980s. But we just

discard all of that.

Even though I consider myself to be somewhat right wing, I will acknowledge the excellent work of a

number of what might be described as left wing historians on this matter. For those who are interested,

I particularly recommend the Honest History website, although I come to different conclusions from the people

who operate that site. They are outraged that this national mythology has now become part of Australian

nationalism. I am a little more sanguine, but we have to acknowledge what it is. When servicemen returned and

decided to use their own funds to build their own memorials from their own subscription committees made up of

their own members they did not write on those memorials "mateship", "red bandannas on your head", "good times

overseas" or "having a bit of a jolly old stoush". They wrote on them things along the lines of "God, King, Empire"

and "God, King, Country". Let us not, as some choose to do, infantilise what people went overseas to fight for.

People might not like it but we should not hide the fact that those who went to the Second World War were

fighting essentially—as Menzies pointed out—a war for empire.

Of course, after 1941 when Germany attacked the Soviet Union a larger number of people decided that

it was probably a good time to start fighting Hitler. The so-called second wave of people who only bothered to

start fighting when their beloved Stalin was attacked is another rather sad thing that is consistently overlooked in

the historiography of Australia's warfare. The people who fought in Korea were all volunteers. They were

overwhelmingly World War II veterans who made a conscience choice to fight communism, just as those who

volunteered after World War I to fight against communism in north Russia. Let us not infantilise what those people

fought for and stood for. Anyone who has joined the military after 11 September 2001 is unambiguously clear

about what they are and are not fighting for. In that respect I read the following passage written by a contemporary

serviceman about Anzac Day:

March. Observe with humble gratitude the genuine folk who respect what you've seen and done, wearing their ancestors' medals

with genuine pride, not the hubris of those "marching the medals". Fall out and mill around some more. Sit. Listen to some

bare-chested politician blather on about how "fantastic" it is to see *us* here, as if it's his event. Roll your eyes as said politician

chants, teenage-like, "In Flanders Fields" in the stale ennui of the iambic tetrameter.

Sing hymns, as one of the ten percent who know the words. Recompose after the narcissism and recall what actually happens in

war-like operations as you try to sing Abide with Me and The Lord is My Shepherd, knowing that the words of the latter were the

last thing some soldiers heard as they gave their lives for our freedom. Stop, 70% of the way through Abide with Me, lest you

embarrass yourself. Recite the Lord's Prayer, as one of the five percent who know the words.

Listen to a child read a poem they wrote about what the ANZAC spirit means to them, that is, recite the usual post-1960s claptrap

about both sides being wrong in the First World War and oh just aren't we evil but our great-grandfathers were just pawns with no

moral agency of their own so we can't blame them but we all know the evil British sent them to their deaths while they drank tea

on the beach at Gallipoli because we saw it in Peter Weir's film so it must be true and my teacher said it was.

Sing the first verse of the national anthem. Sing the second verse as one of twenty to thirty percent who know the words. Sing the

Royal Anthem as one of the twenty percent who know the words. Stand in respectful silence as the NZ national anthem is sung.

Fall out, resume positions at RSL for lunch and chat about old times.

The acts of our servicemen throughout many wars have been remarkable and have brought glory to them and the

name of this country, but we must always be aware and concerned about the appropriation of certain images for

nationalistic mythology. I strongly recommend that anyone who wants to read further on this subject gets hold of

the book entitled The Unknown Nation: Australia After Empire by James Curran and Stuart Ward. Through that

they will gain a deeper understanding of what it means to be Australian and the role that the national mythologising

of warriors has played in that.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE (11:35): I am honoured to speak in debate on this motion

moved by the Hon. Paul Green that acknowledges those who have sacrificed their lives on the battlefield and calls

on this House to note that:

(a) Anzac Day, 25 April, is one of Australia's most important national occasions, marking the anniversary of the

first major military action fought by Australian and New Zealand forces during the First World War;



(c) the spirit of Anzac, with its qualities of courage, mateship, and sacrifice, continues to have meaning and

relevance for our sense of national identity.

For more than two decades I have attended the dawn service held each year at the Arncliffe RSL Sub-Branch.

Every dawn service is as moving an occasion as the other as many people from across the community come


together to be part of a most important and defining commemoration. This year I had the honour of attending my

first overseas Anzac commemorative dawn service marking the 101st anniversary of the Gallipoli campaign at

the Commonwealth War Cemetery in Qasqas in Beirut, Lebanon. Led by Leader of the Opposition Luke Foley,

I was proud to join with a number of my Labor colleagues including Tania Mihailuk, MP, Clayton Barr, MP, Julia

Finn, MP, and Jihad Dib, MP, as well as Canterbury councillor Karl Saleh and community representative Omar

Yassine on a friendship delegation to Lebanon. The occasion presented an opportunity for Julia Finn to proudly

don the medals that her father, William Thomas Finn, received as an airman in the RAAF in the Pacific War.

Along with my colleagues I had the honour of visiting the graves of many soldiers including that of

Sapper Kevin Thomas, service number NX1Q440. Kevin Thomas was an apprentice carpenter from Adaminaby

in New South Wales, in the electorate of Monaro, who was killed at just 20 years old in 1942. He spent two years

with the 3rd Battalion militia before enlisting in the AIF in May 1941. He arrived in the Middle East the following

September and joined the 1st Railway Construction Company as a Grade III Platelayer. In March 1942 he was

graded as a Group III Driver Transport Plant and was sent to Syria. On 5 November 1942 he was admitted to the

3rd New Zealand General Hospital suffering second degree burns and hypostatic pneumonia. According to an

investigation, Sapper Thomas suffered severe burns to his face, neck, chest, arms, hands, feet, legs, thighs and

buttocks after an unexplained explosion. His final resting place is the Beirut War Cemetery in Syria, now known

as the Lebanese Republic. Tragically for the Thomas family, Kevin's younger brother Private Harold Thomas was

killed in 1944 serving in New Guinea.

To participate in an Anzac dawn service is a moving experience in itself. To visit the actual graves of our

soldiers on Anzac Day is even more moving.

Gratitude must go to Australia's Ambassador-Designate to Lebanon, Mr Glenn Miles, for organising our visit to

the dawn service ceremony and bestowing upon us the honour of attending that most moving and wonderful

occasion, where we offered our homage and sincere prayers to those who gave their lives. I thank Ambassador

Miles, his acting deputy at the time, Ed Russel, and all embassy staff for their organisation of more than 120 senior

government officials, officers from the Lebanese Armed Forces and security services, as well as ambassadors,

United Nations personnel and civilians. Ambassador Miles spoke of the sacrifice of more than 8,000 Australians

and almost 3,000 New Zealand soldiers, and a further 25,000 who were wounded in the campaign. The

Ambassador focused on the theme of loss and reconciliation, and spoke of how Anzac Day allows us to share with

Turkey a deep and long-lasting mutual respect—a friendship borne out of shared horror of the trenches.

The Ambassador spoke of the story of one young soldier whose grave he had walked past a decade ago

near Gallipoli. The grave was that of Private James Martin, an Australian soldier with a New Zealand father.

Martin died of typhoid aboard a medical vessel, having survived a torpedo attack on the transport ship carrying

him to fight in the trenches at Gallipoli. Martin was a child; he was only 14 years of age. Martin was the youngest

Anzac. Like many, he lied about his age in order to join up. Luke Foley had the honour of reading John McCrae's

poem In Flanders Fields during the ceremony. I quote:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie,

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

The final address was given by His Excellency Mr Cagatay Erciyes, the Turkish Ambassador. I read onto the

record some of the wonderful words he said at that time:


There are events which change the destiny of nations and flow of history. No doubt, the Gallipoli campaign/the Battle of Canakkale

was among such events. It was a defining moment in the history of Australia, New Zealand and Turkey in their revolution has

modern nations.

Despite heavy casualties on both sides and no matter which side was victorious or defeated, the Gallipoli campaign has gone down

in the annals of history as the war of valour courage and chivalry. It was a battle where both sides respected each other not only

soldiers but also as human beings.

Out of the horrors of war grew mutual respect that over the years has grown into friendship between Turkey, Australia and New

Zealand.

So I believe today's ceremony symbolises also the wisdom of reconciliation and strength of compassion between our nations who

fought against each a century ago.

In conclusion he recited the words of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who had sent a message to the Anzac mothers who

came to the shores of Gallipoli in 1934. I quote:

Heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives! You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There

is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side now here in this country of ours. You, the

mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries, wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace.

After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

I congratulate the Hon. Paul Green on moving this important motion and thank the House for supporting it.

The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (11:44): I make a brief contribution to this debate, which reflects on

one of Australia's most important national occasions. My father is no longer with us but he always reiterated to

my family the importance of our service men and women. I am making this contribution in his honour. Anzac

Day holds a special place in our hearts. It is a day when we reflect on our national identity and those in our defence

forces who dedicate their lives to protecting that identity. Today I remember those who participated in the Men

from Snowy River Recruitment March in 1916.

Recruitment marches had been held across rural New South Wales in late 1915 and early 1916. The Men

from Snowy River began their march in Delegate, which is not that far from where I live, on 6 January 1916. On

setting out there were 12 men and four Army personnel destined for the new Australian Infantry Force training

camp at Goulburn, also in the mighty south of New South Wales. The small group set off in what has been

described as "rain and enthusiasm". Their route included Bombala, Nimmitabel, Cooma, Queanbeyan and

Bungendore, where they were greeted by local residents. Along the way the marchers were greeted with civic

receptions, complete with bands, flags and stirring recruitment speeches.

On 29 January 1916 the Men from Snowy River arrived at Goulburn, having marched 325 kilometres.

Their numbers had grown to 144; noted to be small in number but of impressive quality. After completing their

training in Goulburn at the newly opened Australian Infantry Force camp, the Men from Snowy River travelled

by train to Sydney, and after marching through the streets they departed on the Port Sydney bound for England

via Africa. The majority of the Men from Snowy River joined the 55th Battalion and after further training in

England were sent to the frontlines in France. Of the 144 men who enlisted in the march, 39 were killed in action

and 75 were casualties.

Ernest Albert Corey, a blacksmith's striker, was one of the marchers. He joined the march in Cooma.

Ernest bravely volunteered, along with other men, and went on to become a distinguished Australian soldier. In

1917 he was twice awarded the Military Medal for his devotion to duty in aiding wounded soldiers, and then twice

again in 1918. He was the only person to be awarded the Military Medal four times. On every occasion, under

heavy fire, he continually assisted the wounded with first aid and carried them to medical stations. Ernest was a

true Australian hero. He embodied the qualities of the spirit of the Anzac with his courage and sacrifice. Indeed,

he put everything on the line to help those in need. In circumstances that any of us could hardly imagine, Corporal

Corey went above and beyond for his fellow men.

The Men from Snowy River Recruitment March has since been repeated, with a recruitment drive

following the same route during World War II, and re-enactment marches in 2006 and 2015. Across New South

Wales other communities have re-enacted marches that passed through during World War I and remembered all

those involved. We also need to remember the men and women who returned to us. We must continue to look

after not only their physical health and needs but also their mental health.

I am patron of the NSW Young Nationals and I am proud to inform the House that at this year's

conference there was a terrific and heartfelt debate about the need to look after our veterans and they should be

honoured with the care they need on their return home.

That was a terrific motion from a group of young people, which embodies and encapsulates how they still feel

about our ability to recognise our veterans. We thank all those who volunteered to defend our nation, from the


men from Snowy River who joined that march in 1915 through to those men and women who serve in our forces

today. It is hard to put into words just how very much we owe them. Lest we forget.

The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (11:50): I make a brief contribution to this important debate today.

I congratulate the Hon. Paul Green on moving such an important motion. As the motion notes, Anzac Day was

the date of the ill-fated Gallipoli invasion, but we now commemorate all those men and women who have served

or who continue to serve their country in the armed services. I take this opportunity to thank them for their service.

Anzac Day serves as a solemn reminder to the Australian community of the tragedy of war and conflict.

Like so many members in this place and in the other place, I attended a range of events around Anzac

Day to pay tribute to the service of our ongoing service personnel and to those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

I laid a wreath at the Martin Place Cenotaph on behalf of the New South Wales Opposition with a number of

consular officials and I attended the large Anzac Day march in the city with my daughter Anna. Anzac Day

marches never cease to give me goosebumps. An incredible mix of people take part—older men and women who

often struggle but are determined to march in memory of their fallen comrades and as a reminder of the service

they gave to our country, together with younger people who often now walk carrying photographs of their relatives

who served our country. It is an incredible display of the service that has been given to our country and it is a

really special day for everyone.

I particularly took the time to attend several events in the lead-up to Anzac Day to commemorate the

sacrifice and loss of some of the innocent victims of war who are sadly forgotten in too many aspects of our

day-to-day life. One of those events was the inaugural Legacy Women's Breakfast held by Sydney Legacy. A large

number of people attended the breakfast and people spoke a lot about not only the past challenges that Legacy

dealt with but also the modern-day challenges and how the work of Legacy has been renewed due to so many

Australians now serving overseas. I pay tribute in particular to Detective Superintendent Deborah Wallace, who

spoke at the Legacy Women's Breakfast in a very entertaining way and showed her ongoing support for the

organisation.

I also attended the War Widows' Guild of Australia's sixty-fifth Anzac Field of Remembrance Service at

St Andrew's Cathedral. Widows attended from each period of conflict—World War I, World War II, Vietnam and

Korea, and more recent conflicts. It was incredibly confronting to see women of a similar age to me

commemorating the ultimate sacrifice that was paid by their partners and to know that that will be a lifelong

reminder to them and their families. I also put on the record my sincere thanks and congratulations to the

RSL NSW Chief Executive Officer, Glenn Kolomeitz—a friend of mine—and the RSL NSW President, Rod

White, who worked tirelessly in the lead-up to Anzac Day to ensure that the many services, particularly around

the city, were conducted properly.

I had the opportunity to hear David Morrison, the Australian of the Year, speak in the lead-up to Anzac

Day. He is far more qualified than I am to reflect on this but he spoke about how the modern connotations of an

Australian digger are generally of a white male who has a fair amount of cynicism about authority. But he made

the important point that that fails to consider the women and the Muslim men and women who serve our country

and it does not reflect the modern-day reality of our armed forces. As we consider the important role that Anzac

Day has come to play in our national identity, we need to ensure that it is an inclusive day and one that is

particularly mindful of the modern make-up of our armed forces.

With that in mind, I particularly pay tribute to the Hellenic Club, the Joint Committee for the

Commemoration of the Battle of Crete and also the Greek Consul General, who brought out for both the

seventy-fifth anniversary of the Battle of Crete and for Anzac Day the Hellenic Presidential Guard, the Evzones,

who were a spectacular display of the ongoing and immediate connection Australia continues to have with Greece.

It was an excellent initiative to ensure that Anzac Day becomes an inclusive and commemorative day for all of

our Australian community.

In closing I will read some remarks from another friend of mine, Dr Mike Kelly, OAM, who spoke about

Anzac Day. After more than 20 years service in the army and having served overseas in Kenya, Somalia, Bosnia,

East Timor and Iraq, he spoke about the essential need to remember the sacrifices but also bringing the idea of

serving others into everyday life. He said:

You don't need to join the military, service is something you can do every day. In your career or life always look for an opportunity

to do something above yourself. That's how you honour the legacy of Anzacs.

When reflecting on the suffering and sacrifice of the Anzac tradition think of the service they fought for, our values. It's not about

a community of race or religion; it's a commitment to values of inclusion, service and endurance, it's about making the country

better.

Lest we forget.


The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (11:56:4): I speak in support of the motion moved by the Hon. Paul

Green and I commend him for moving this motion. The Hon. Paul Green and I reflected on this in the wee hours

of this morning and, as the Hon. Paul Green said to me, it is important for this House to be able to recognise the

importance of the service of so many and of their sacrifice, and how it is a wonderful way to do it through this

motion. I would like to speak about the celebrations and the commemorations within our community because it

was not always so that our community commemorated Anzac Day as it does today. Many years ago, probably

through the 1990s, people started to question whether Anzac Day would continue when those men and women

who had served in World War I and World War II had all passed.

This year I attended the dawn service at Davistown on the Central Coast. An interesting address was

given by the padre Allan Bate, the senior minister of Kincumber Anglican Church. He reflected on his time in

Western Australia in the 1990s and on the desecration of the King's Park War Memorial. King's Park is a

significant park on the headland in Perth. A group of Anzacs passed by and said—this is unparliamentary

language—"Darn those bastards for everything that we gave them that they should treat us like this." He remarked

on how from the 1990s, when people thought that Anzac Day was dead, when people thought the community had

forgotten their sacrifice and their service, there is now a renewed gratitude for the service and the sacrifice of so

many through World War I, World War II and, quite rightly, through the other conflicts that have occurred since.

That feeling was obvious at that dawn service in Davistown on Anzac Day.

Many people thought that perhaps the high point would be the centenary of Anzac, but more people

attended this 100th Anzac Day service—the 101st year—in Davistown than there had ever been before. From a

community of a little under 6,000, more than 1,000 people attended the service. It was quite a remarkable sight to

see in the electorate of Terrigal.

I caught up with the member for Terrigal, Mr Adam Crouch, MP, after that service. He had been to a

couple of other services that morning as well and commented on the huge turnout across the Central Coast. I noted

that also when I attended at Gosford. Last year I attended the 11.00 a.m. service at Poppy Park to commemorate

100 years of Anzac. This year at Terrigal Haven poppies were placed throughout the area to remember the service

and sacrifice made by our service men and women. I was surprised to see as large a crowd as had attended the

year before, when the 100-year commemoration service had been a focal point of the community. More and more

people are becoming engaged to thank and remember the sacrifice of those who gave so much for all of us.

Those involved in discussions in the mid-1990s about the changing face of government and the nation

could not have foreseen this situation; it has definitely changed over the last 15 to 20 years. Australians, and young

Australians in particular—my generation—are conscious of the sacrifice and the need to ensure that we do not

forget and that the words "Lest We Forget" live on. At the Gosford service Seo Kyoung and Connor, two recipients

of the Kokoda Youth Leadership Challenge from the Central Coast, told their stories of the Kokoda trek. They

told of their hardships but acknowledged that it would have been much harder for those who served there during

World War II to protect Australia and Papua New Guinea.

Interestingly, Seo Kyoung, a relatively new Australian who had come from Korea, said that she had not

considered herself as a proud Australian until she did that walk. On the trek, she felt the pride that Australians

have for the sacrifice made by the Anzacs. We have much to be proud of in this country but there is nothing more

to be proud of than the service and sacrifice of those who have gone before us, what they have done for us and

how they have given their lives for the protection of their fellow Australians and so that future generations of

Australians could live in a free country.

I note the point made by the Hon. Courtney Houssos about the diversity of our military today. I attended

the annual Anzac Day service held at my church. The member for Davidson, Jonathon O'Dea, also attended. In

an address made during the service, Commodore Lee Goddard, RAN, reflected on a Navy deployment of which

very few people know. This year the Navy had two deployments that were headed by females. This historic first

was not publicised because the two females in charge requested that no fuss be made; they just wanted to do their

job. That is typical of our modern military, which has done an exceptional job in encouraging people from a broad

range of backgrounds to be involved in military service.

My wife comes from a naval family. Two of her brothers have served in the Navy and one continues to

serve. Her father served in the Navy and her grandfather was a naval chaplain. Before she was diagnosed with

diabetes she was looking to enlist in the Army. Military service is something that is passed down from generation

to generation. Indeed, it is open and welcoming to those who come to our country without military service and

their inclusion will assist Australia into the future and reflect our broad and diverse nation.

Anzac Day this year is the 101st anniversary of the Gallipoli landings. It is important that our country

reflects on that service. I want to reflect on the meaning of the word "Anzac"—which I was encouraged to see

displayed throughout the Anzac services this year—and recognise New Zealand's contribution as well as


Australia's contribution. We are divided by sea but we are brothers in arms. I was particularly impressed to see on

the Central Coast the involvement of the New Zealand military service, particularly at the Davistown service.

A local New Zealand family with members in military service was very much involved in the service. They sang

the New Zealand national anthem and took part on behalf of the New Zealand military forces.

It is important for us to remember that we are not alone and that our brothers and sisters across the ditch

have been shoulder to shoulder with us in military combat through many theatres of war. It is important for us to

be thankful and to recognise on Anzac Day the service of New Zealand soldiers as well as Australian soldiers and

to acknowledge the sacrifice they made for their country and for our freedoms as well.

I turn to Gallipoli 101 years on. It is rare for nations to commemorate military defeats. Many nations

around the world trumpet their victories but it says something about Australia and our respect for our soldiers that

we commemorate a defeat in Gallipoli. Indeed, it is one of the most significant days on our calendar. Why do we

do it? We do it to recognise the contribution of the soldiers who sacrificed their lives for us, to remember the

British Empire at the time and to commemorate this historic time for Australia. It was the first time that Australians

came as a nation into battle in their own right and that the Australian corps was recognised in its own right. Last

year I moved a motion in this House relating to Lemnos, particularly the start of that campaign, because there

could be no Gallipoli without Lemnos. I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to contribute to this

debate.

Debate adjourned.

Bills

CRIMES (APPEAL AND REVIEW) AMENDMENT (DOUBLE JEOPARDY) BILL 2015

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 June 2015.

Dr MEHREEN FARUQI (12:08): I strongly and proudly support The Greens bill introduced by my

colleague Mr David Shoebridge. Outside Parliament today I have seen once again the passion, the need and the

strong and loud call for justice. I welcome all of those people inside Parliament, where we also need to see the

same strength, passion and call to find peace and justice. Between September 1990 and January 1991 three

children went missing from the same street in Bowraville. Colleen Walker was aged 16, Evelyn Greenup was four

and Clinton Speedy-Duroux was 16. The bodies of Evelyn Greenup and Clinton Speedy-Duroux were both found

in the same stretch of bushland, and there has only ever been one person of interest connected to the cases.

Tragically, while Colleen's clothes were found weighed down on the bed of a nearby river, her body has

not yet been found. The three cases have never been tried together in a court and there has never been a conviction.

If this had happened on the north shore or in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, if there had been a serial killer and

three murdered children, extraordinary steps would have been taken to bring the alleged offender to justice.

Instead, after 26 years, two court cases and a coronial inquest, the families are still waiting for justice. As Dr Tracy

Westerman of Indigenous Psychological Services commented at the parliamentary inquiry:

In a country where the names of missing or murdered children remain indelibly in the national consciousness, why do the

Bowraville children not figure? The Beaumont children, Samantha Knight, Jaidin Leskie—these and many more are embedded in the

Australian lexicon of tragedy. Why are Colleen Walker, Evelyn Greenup and Clinton Speedy-Duroux not firmly fixed in our national memory?

Federal Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care Ken Wyatt has said:

If this had been three children in Sydney's Point Piper, then would there have been a different approach? The approach would have

been tackled with a lot more rigour ... by police, by authorities. There would have been an outcry.

The initial police investigation was riddled with inadequacies and oversights and plagued by racism. Some of the

officers involved in the initial investigation were dismissive of the concerns of the families. I note for the record

the extraordinary effort of the police since then. The team, led by Detective Inspector Gary Jubelin, has sought to

overcome many of the failings and inadequacies of the initial police investigation and has slowly and meticulously

rebuilt trust with the families and the community. In considering the part failure of the initial police investigation

it is essential that we acknowledge the efforts since of Detective Inspector Jubelin's team.

The fact is, though, that after two separate trials no conviction has been secured. This is the only unsolved

serial murder in the modern history of New South Wales. This bill would implement a crucial reform that could

change that. The purpose of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2015 is to

amend the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 to extend an exception to the rule against double jeopardy in

relation to an acquitted person where previously inadmissible evidence becomes admissible.


This proposed amendment is designed to give effect to what many thought were the intentions of double

jeopardy reforms implemented in 2006. Through a drafting technicality, those reforms have continued to fail the

Bowraville families in their search for justice. This bill is necessary because despite the 2006 legislation being

passed with Bowraville in mind there has been a difficulty with the interpretation of the term "adduced" in section

102. It was considered that the Bowraville case could not be retried because the prosecution tendered some

evidence of one murder in the trial of another of the murders but it was not admitted under the common law of

evidence. What "adduced" means is untested in New South Wales courts.

One legal interpretation of "adduced" is that if the evidence is presented to the judge but rejected as

inadmissible under the law of evidence then it has been adduced. An alternative interpretation is that evidence is

only adduced once it is both presented to the court and admitted into the evidence before a jury. This is important

in the Bowraville case because if "adduced" has the former meaning then the tendency and coincidence evidence

linking all three murders cannot be fresh under the New South Wales double jeopardy laws. If it is the latter

meaning then the evidence could be the basis for a double jeopardy application.

These reforms balance against the principle of finality an acknowledgement that the criminal justice

system is an imperfect one that has been demonstrated to produce serious miscarriages of justice on occasion. The

proposed bill contains a narrow clarification of the meaning of the word "adduced" that is highly unlikely to

produce a flood of retrials. It continues to be subject to all the checks and balances set out above, including the

essential "interests of justice" test in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The current definition of "adduced" is untried

in New South Wales courts but adopted by the Attorney General, making it an artificial legal barrier that prevents

the case from being heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The parliamentary inquiry recognised this by

recommending that:

The NSW Government review of section 102 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 to clarify the definition of "adduced",

and in doing so consider:

• the legal or other ramifications of defining adduced as "admitted", particularly on the finality of prosecutions

• the matters considered by the English courts under the equivalent UK legislation

• the merit of replacing section 102 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 with the provisions in section 461 of

the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), and

• the merit of expressly broadening the scope of the provision to enable a retrial where a change in the law renders

evidence admissible at a later date.

This bill seeks to implement the intent of this recommendation. Three innocent children were murdered in

Bowraville. Families told the inquiry that the loss of their three children was not valued by some of the police

who conducted the initial investigation or by the courts and the Parliament in the same way that the loss of any

other children in this State would have been valued. The justice system failed Colleen Walker, Evelyn Greenup

and Clinton Speedy-Duroux. We should not be ignorant of the fact that part of the reason for this was the colour

of their skin. As a parliament we have an obligation to recognise and act on that. Elaine Walker told the inquiry:

The saddest thing today is that we are still being judged by the colour of our skin and looking back our children were judged

wrongly then by the colour of their skin as the proper procedures were not carried out. Today we are still suffering.

Nothing can take away the pain and suffering of losing a child, but at the very least we can finally clear the path

to justice. On the T-shirts of the Bowraville community members in the public gallery today there is this message:

The path we have travelled is long and hard but we will never give up until we find peace and get justice.

I assure you that we will never give up either until you find peace and justice. I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): I welcome to the public gallery members of

the Bowraville community and Detective Jubelin. I also welcome students from regional New South Wales who

are participating in the Secondary School Leadership Program.

THE HON. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for

Multiculturalism) (12:16): I lead on behalf of the Government in debate on the Crimes (Appeal and Review)

Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2015. As did Mr David Shoebridge in his second reading speech on

4 June 2015, I begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land and pay my respects to elders past

and present. I also pay my respects to the families of Colleen Walker-Craig, Clinton Speedy-Duroux and Evelyn

Greenup. I understand why Mr Shoebridge brings this bill before the House. I know that he does so with the best

intentions. However, the Government is unable to support the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (Double

Jeopardy) Bill 2015, for reasons that I will outline.

The Standing Committee on Law and Justice held an inquiry into the Bowraville murders. The members

of that committee heard the heartbreaking stories of the families of three innocent children. They listened to their

experiences. They heard about the trauma they suffered and how it had affected them and their entire community.


I acknowledge the pain that the families suffered then and clearly continue to suffer to this day, almost a quarter

of a century after the death of these three innocent children. I acknowledge their continued determination to

achieve justice. Their determination has not wavered. The committee received more than 30 submissions from

family and friends of the three victims, as well as from the NSW Police Force, community support workers, legal

representatives and the New South Wales Government. The committee tabled its report on 6 November 2014,

recommending that the Government review the operation of section 102 of part 8 of the Crimes (Appeal and

Review) Act 2001 to clarify the definition of "adduced".

I take this opportunity to commend the work of all committee members: the Hon. David Clarke, chair;

the Hon. Peter Primrose, deputy chair; the Hon. Catherin Cusack; Mr Scot MacDonald; the Hon. Sarah Mitchell;

the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane; and Mr David Shoebridge, who brought forward this bill. The Government tabled

its response on 2 June 2015 accepting the recommendations. In response to recommendation 8 of the committee's

report, the Government commissioned the Hon. James Wood, AO, QC, to review the operation of section 102 of

part 8 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 and consider possible options for reform to the statutory

exception to the common law rule against double jeopardy. Mr Wood is a former Supreme Court judge, former

chairman of the NSW Law Reform Commission and current chairperson of the NSW Sentencing Council.

Part 8 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 provides that the Court of Appeal may order a retrial

of an offence punishable by a life sentence on an application from the Director of Public Prosecutions based on

evidence that is "fresh" and "compelling". For the purposes of determining whether evidence is "fresh" and

"compelling", the evidence must be evidence that has not previously been adduced in a trial and could not have

been adduced even with the exercise of "reasonable diligence" by the prosecution.

Part 8 commenced on 15 December 2006 and was the result of extensive consultation, which took into

account developments in other jurisdictions and work undertaken at a national level by the then Model Criminal

Code Officers Committee. It is consistent with other jurisdictions. The provisions were carefully drafted to ensure

that police and prosecutors carry out their duties diligently and that the principle of finality is retained as far as

possible. This principle of finality is a fundamental tenet of our criminal justice system and seeks to ensure that

the finality of proceedings is not able to be altered by the political whim of the government of the day.

Mr Wood considered the arguments for and against amending part 8 and recommended that no change

to the double jeopardy law be made. Mr Wood's report "Review of Section 102 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review)

Act 2001 (NSW)" was tabled on 18 December 2015. Mr Wood's recommendation is supported by the Office of

the Director of Public Prosecutions, Legal Aid NSW, NSW Public Defenders, the New South Wales Bar

Association, the Law Society of New South Wales, NSW Young Lawyers and the District Court of New South

Wales. Mr Wood confirmed that the word "adduced" bears its common meaning and does not mean "admitted".

He noted stakeholders' strong arguments against amendment, which he considered persuasive, and the difficulty

in estimating the potential reach of any of the options for change.

Mr Wood concluded that the disadvantages of changing section 102 of Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act

2001 were clear and included: it would further erode the longstanding rule against double jeopardy, that is, a

person should only be tried for an offence once; it would be impossible to anticipate how many past acquittals

could potentially be subject to applications for retrial if a change in the law could make evidence "fresh", noting

that the introduction of the Evidence Act 1995 significantly changed the law of evidence across the board, and

may lead to different outcomes were the cases tried before it to be reconsidered today; and it would create

inconsistencies between the legislation in New South Wales and other jurisdictions. Providing a means by which

the legislature could change the law in response to an acquittal in a specific case would also breach the

longstanding principle that changes to criminal laws should not operate retrospectively. In his report, Mr Wood

stated:

In my view, the damage to the principle of finality of prosecutions, and the uncertainty it would create outweighs its potential to

aid justice. Accordingly, I am unable to recommend any amendment to section 102 of Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 at

this time. I do, however, see value in Government conducting another review of the provision at some future date, giving time for

applications under the provision to have been heard in NSW and other Australian jurisdictions.

The Government understands that the families want justice for the victims, these three young children who were

murdered in Bowraville almost 25 years ago. However, the 2006 amendments altered the long-established law of

double jeopardy and finality and also inserted strong safeguards so that the interests of justice and the rights of an

accused were finely balanced.

This bill is not consistent with the findings of the Wood review that there should be no changes made to

double jeopardy laws. It is also not consistent with the commitment that members of this House make to act in the

interests of justice for all members of the community and not to create a new law for a specific circumstance that

is likely to have significant and untold effects on an innumerable number of people. For the reasons I have

mentioned, the Government is unable to support this bill.


The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (12:24): I lead for the New South Wales Opposition on this bill. The

Opposition also does not support the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2015. This

of course is an enormously difficult issue. No doubt in this particular case, the Bowraville murders, a gross

injustice has been done to not only three families but also of course the wider community, and that is to say nothing

of the wider impact that such matters have on the administration of the system of criminal justice. I think instances

such as the Bowraville murders really do bring the administration of our criminal justice system into disrepute.

Of course it is a testament to the commitment and resilience of that community and the families that they

have kept their campaign for justice going since the time of those murders, even to the present moment. I take this

opportunity to acknowledge their efforts, their commitment and their resilience. Given the way this debate is

going, that journey still has some way to go. Like the Minister, I acknowledge that we meet on the lands of

traditional owners and I pay my respects to their elders past and present.

I also recognise the efforts of Detective Inspector Gary Jubelin in this matter. I encountered Detective

Inspector Jubelin when he was a witness in a trial that I had carriage of many years ago and I was impressed by

him as an officer of the NSW Police Force. What I have learned of his role in connection with this matter has

deepened my appreciation of Detective Inspector Jubelin as an officer. Nevertheless, although this legislation has

been brought forward to try to correct the injustice that has occurred, for the reasons that I will shortly outline,

I do not believe that it would do so. In trying to correct a past wrong to particular families and to a particular

community, we may do further harm to the administration of criminal justice in this State.

In 2006 the New South Wales Parliament did change the law with respect to double jeopardy to allow an

exception to the rule that citizens should not be tried for the same offence twice. Of course, the rule against double

jeopardy prevents a person who has been acquitted from being tried again for the same offence. It is one of the

key protections in our legal system for individuals. Its rationale is to prevent multiple attempts to convict an

individual and also to bring finality to criminal proceedings.

It is a statement of the obvious to say that the State will always have vastly greater resources than any

individual in a criminal trial. So the principle is also one of fairness—allowing multiple attempts to pursue an

individual through a criminal prosecution encourages inadequacies in prosecution. There is also something

unseemly about the power of the State being brought to bear against a citizen for the same offence or for the same

facts situation more than once. That is why in the debate yesterday on those cognate crimes bills the Opposition

took the view that we thought there was something seriously untoward about serious crime prevention orders

being brought on the same facts situation against persons who are in fact acquitted of serous criminal offences.

It would be inconsistent with our approach taken yesterday to support this legislation today. We know

that two trials in relation to the Bowraville murders resulted in acquittals. It is a matter of record now, and I think

it is broadly accepted, that the police investigation was bungled, incompetent and, in my view, racist.

The consequences for the families, the wider community and I think the system of criminal justice have been

appalling. The 2006 change to the law was at the time controversial. Its intention was to allow a retrial following

a murder acquittal if there is "fresh and compelling evidence and it is in the interests of justice". It is quite clear

that the intention of the legislature in enacting that provision as an exception to the rule against double jeopardy

was that fresh evidence really meant newly acquired or newly discovered evidence, as I understand it.

The bill before the House proposes to redefine that to say that evidence is also fresh if it was merely

inadmissible in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted, and as a result of substantive legislative change

in the law of evidence since the acquittal, it would now be admissible. If enacted, that would bring about a great

and fundamental change to the law. I pay tribute to the work of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on

Law and Justice and its inquiry, and I congratulate all of its members on the unanimous recommendations it made.

The Minister has identified two of those recommendations, one of which is that the New South Wales

Government review section 102 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act to clarify the definition of "adduced" and

to consider certain things which have been outlined and which I will not repeat. A former Chief Judge at Common

Law and former Royal Commissioner, Mr James Wood, QC, delivered a report after he inquired into those matters.

He examined, as he was required to do, a number of potential issues, one of which was: what does the word

"adduced" mean? Does it merely mean evidence that was brought to the court although not admitted into evidence?

Does it mean evidence that was admitted?

The consensus from the expert legal bodies was that its technical meaning was evidence produced but

not necessarily brought into evidence. I must say from my decade and a half of legal practice the meaning was

not so clear. I think the term "adduced" has been used fairly interchangeably with both of those concepts. Former

Justice Wood reached the obvious conclusion in regard to making substantive changes to the law, in light of the


fact that the 2006 amendments have not been subject to any judicial interpretation and have not been used or

engaged with, that there should not be any legislative change.

A range of stakeholders were asked to comment on different reform proposals, one of which was

changing "adduced" and "admitted", and another was a change which is embodied in the legislation that is now

before the Parliament which was whether fresh evidence in section 102 should be expressly extended to include

evidence previously inadmissible but made admissible due to a later change. Stakeholders gave a lot of

consideration to that second proposition.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, the Law Society of NSW, the NSW Bar Association and Legal Aid

NSW made the point that its effect would not only be in connection with the Bowraville matter but there would

be unintended increases in applications for retrials because it would have a broader impact. They also pointed out

that there would be a significant departure from the current provision and it would provide the foundation to

greatly broaden the number of matters that may well be considered. Of significant concern was the fact that

previously unadmitted evidence could, if this change were made, constitute fresh evidence following a change in

the law and that could lead to a wider number of matters.

The Public Defenders described such a change as being totally unacceptable and a scandalous erosion of

the fundamental human right, that is, the right to protection against being pursued twice for the same criminal

matter. There was a fair degree of consensus amongst the stakeholders most directly concerned with this area that

none of the reform options should be embraced: the terms "adduced" and "admitted" should not be interchanged

and there should not be the extension of the definition of "fresh". The Western Australian legislation was described

as strange, unhelpful and uncertain and, having read it, I tend to agree. It too has not been the subject of judicial

interpretation.

The English and Welsh cases do not really provide much support or assistance in the difficulties in which

we find ourselves. Former Justice Wood concluded that the disadvantages of changing the law were clear and

certainly outweighed any advantages to the interests of justice and would be a further encroachment on the rule

against double jeopardy. The uncertainty of the effect of any proposed amendments to the statute was not a good

thing and should not be embarked upon. There would also be a departure from the approach across many

jurisdictions and there would be damage to the principle of finality of prosecutions. The Opposition fully agrees

with those observations.

The Opposition believes that changing the law in the way sought would involve some retrospectivity in

the criminal law by applying laws other than those that were applicable at the time, which is a very significant

change in the way in which we ordinarily approach criminal matters. Even with proposed changes in the criminal

law, the usual rule is that those changes, even procedural ones, are prospective, not retrospective. I think the

intention of this bill is that it would reach back in time to assist those in the Bowraville community and while that

is an understandable objective in order to try to secure justice for those families and that community, it would not

be limited to that matter.

The Opposition believes that the rule against double jeopardy has a sound basis in principle and its

weakening imposes dangers to the rule of law and protection of individuals. We know that persons from

Indigenous backgrounds are well and truly over-represented in our criminal justice system and people may well

be brought unintentionally into the net of these expanded provisions, if they were enacted. I do not say that in any

way being critical of the author of this bill; I understand that like all the members of the law and justice committee

he is trying to right an historic wrong.

Having closely considered the matter the Opposition respectfully but profoundly disagrees with the path

chosen in this bill and is not able to support it. The difficulty is obviously with the original police investigation.

The Opposition notes that the NSW Police Force is one of only two stakeholders to support the changes, and given

the embarrassment it must feel in this matter, that is understandable. The Opposition also thinks the prospect of

this legislative change effectively being used against a particular individual is also troubling. The idea of

Parliament legislating with respect to a single matter or a single individual is also troubling as a matter of principle,

and that is one of the reasons why the Kable legislation was struck down by the High Court. It is possible this

legislation could face the same fate.

For all of those reasons, and with the best will in the world, and recognising the goodwill and the good

intentions of the author of the bill and those who will support it in this place, the Government and the Opposition

as the alternative government, are forced to take that broader view of the impact of the change on the system, not

without mindfulness and being cognisant of the impact on the individual case and the families and the

communities. It is a hard call, and we have to make that call by opposing this legislation.


The Hon. ROBERT BROWN (12:38): I will speak briefly on the Crimes (Appeal and Review)

Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2015. It is a mouthful of words. This seems to be a story about the views of

what I term—please do not take offence, ladies and gentlemen—the legal elite. Of course we have to take into

account the findings of learned committee inquiries.

However, I would say generally speaking that if we polled everyone in Australia and asked whether they think

the justice system delivers justice—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: The legal system.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I should have said whether the legal system delivers justice. That is

what I am talking about: we are dealing with definitions and getting carried away with reading previous decisions

and those sorts of things. I will interrupt my line of thought to say that the representatives of the Bowraville

community have returned to the gallery. That is a promising sign. It means that irrespective of their high level of

feeling the people of Bowraville are prepared not to let this go. It is obvious that this bill will be defeated; I can

count and so can everyone else. I will not call for the Christian Democratic Party members but I believe they will

join with us in voting for this bill.

If because of all of the good legal reasons that have been given this Parliament cannot support this bill

and allow for an exemption in this case, my question is what are we going to do? What is each individual member

going to do to try to ameliorate the sense of loss and injustice that the people in the gallery and their community

feel? I cannot answer that question, but I will say that members from both major parties had better get their heads

together and think seriously about this issue. It is not all right for them to say that with all due respect they agree

they cannot do it and therefore the bill is defeated. What does that do? It only leaves an empty place in the hearts

of the people who are affected. I am not a lawyer, I cannot comment on any of the learned assertions that have

been made today, but this bill seems as though it is a worthwhile attempt. We do not normally agree with The

Greens on anything but on this issue I commend Mr David Shoebridge for having a go. We will support the bill.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN (12:41): In light of the limited time remaining I will quickly place on record

my thoughts about the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2015. The Bible says "a

hope deferred makes the heart grow sick". Another saying is that justice delayed can be justice denied. The

Christian Democratic Party supports justice above the spirit of the double jeopardy law. I cannot accept that in

this day and age in which we can build driverless cars and operate crewless ships we in this Chamber cannot

change a law that might bring justice to a long-running situation. We are the masters of this ship and the masters

of the law. I acknowledge the points made by my learned friends but at the end of the day if justice is denied what

sort of society are we living in?

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (12:42): In debate on the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment

(Double Jeopardy) Bill 2015 I lend my support to my colleague Mr David Shoebridge and commend him for his

efforts over many years to bring justice to the people of Bowraville. I acknowledge that I live on Gumbaynggirr

country in Bellingen and I am beginning to understand a little bit more about that country. To the people of

Bowraville I say giinagay. I join with my colleague in fighting for justice for three murdered children. That is

what this is about: We are attempting to catch a murderer. Walking amongst us is a murderer who snuffed out the

lives of three children and we can do something about it. I ask members to just for a moment imagine it was their

child. What would they do today? They would demand that this bill be passed. It is natural justice. A sign out the

front of this Parliament read, "There can be no healing without justice". That is the case.

I do not accept the argument of the Hon. Adam Searle that there will be a flood of cases. This bill applies

to the most heinous of crimes—murder and serious sexual offences. So what if we err on the side of the victims?

Some people may be brought back to court to face a retrial and they may be acquitted again, but we should err on

the side of the victims in this matter. This bill is about ensuring that if previously inadmissible evidence—which

in this case I think was inadmissible through a bungling of the court and a failure of the judicial system—is

considered fresh it should be made admissible and justice should be served. The Bowraville community has

already been through so much. They have been ignored time and again by the police and the judicial system.

Without the efforts of Mr David Shoebridge to bring this matter to the House we would not be having this debate.

As the Hon. Robert Brown and the Hon. Paul Green said, this matter will not go away. It will fester because there

is a murderer amongst us. I had prepared a much longer contribution about the inquiry and its recommendations

but time is short and we need to go to a vote. I will wrap up now by asking members to imagine that they were in

this situation.

The Hon. MARK PEARSON (12:46): I speak in debate on the Crimes (Appeal and Review)

Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2015. A great deal of work and struggle went into a major change to bring

justice for prisoners facing the death penalty. That change was to be able to use DNA material to free people who


were unlawfully imprisoned, many of whom were facing death. In this case three children faced death. Members

of this House are in a position to turn things around so that justice can be done for those young souls.

This is not a one-off; it is a test case in which we are looking for a precedent. The courts bring precedents

all the time. We take matters to higher levels in the courts to ask the judiciary to turn its mind to something which

is out of date, draconian, cruel or against the fundamental principles of a society that protects the vulnerable. This

is about turning around a terrible situation because there is new and compelling evidence. The evidence is provable

and has standing. It is not fickle evidence or hearsay and it will not bring into question somebody who should not

be brought into question. The Animal Justice Party commends this visionary and compellingly important bill to

the House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (12:48): On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I support the

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2015, which is a very simple bill to extend an

exception to the rule against double jeopardy in relation to an acquitted person where previously inadmissible

evidence becomes admissible.

Disappointingly, the Government and the Opposition appear to have adopted the position taken by Justice Wood,

who undertook the review of the legislation. Justice Wood said at page 68 of his report:

In my view, the damage to the principle of finality of prosecutions, and the uncertainty it would create outweighs its potential to

aid justice. Accordingly, I am unable to recommend any amendment to [the legislation] …

He said he had to weigh up how this bill will affect justice in this State in the future. But as other members who

spoke in support of this bill have said, we need to look at ways of solving this problem. Three children have been

murdered and the murderer walks free on the streets of New South Wales. I thought the job of members of

Parliament was to aid justice. I reject the conclusion of Justice Wood. We have to ensure justice in this matter and

support this legislation.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (12:51): In reply, I thank all members who have contributed to this debate.

When I first spoke to this bill last year it seemed as if we may have had a real chance. I thank my colleagues Dr

Mehreen Faruqi and Mr Jeremy Buckingham, the Hon. John Ajaka for the Government, the Hon. Adam Searle

for the Opposition, the Hon. Robert Brown, for the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, the Hon. Paul Green and

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for the Christian Democratic Party, and the Hon. Mark Pearson, for the Animal

Justice Party. They all made their contributions in a genuine and positive way, but ultimately we are not going to

be delivering justice today.

In November 2014 the Standing Committee on Law and Justice presented its report into the Bowraville

murders. At that time we made a collective commitment to move heaven and earth to deliver justice for these

families. We listened to the Hon. David Clarke, who chaired that committee with courage, decency, humanity and

compassion—David and I do not agree on a lot but for I commend him for his work on this. We listened to what

the Hon. Melinda Pavey, the now local member, said in her touching contribution. We listened to what the

members of the Labor Party said. We all committed to do justice; we committed to right a wrong. We said 25 years

was too long to wait for justice—26 years will be even longer. It is an appalling shame.

The matter was then referred to Justice Wood. He had a look it and said that it was all very tricky. He

said that the word "adduced" can be read in different ways. In this State we have a set principle about double

jeopardy, and as a general rule we do not allow people to be retried—it is unjust to keep retrying people. But as

my colleague Mr Jeremy Buckingham made clear, we are talking about a marginal increase in a very narrow

gateway that applies only to the most heinous crimes—murder and the most appalling sexual assaults. We are

talking about a tiny handful of crimes and a tiny widening of the window of clarification. We contend that the

definition of fresh evidence we have here under the 2006 laws should be the same as they have in the United

Kingdom.

The lead case in the United Kingdom was decided in 2009, so it is clear that the very change that the

Bowraville families are asking for and demanding here, the change that we want to make to the laws, has been

operating in the United Kingdom for the better part of a decade. I challenge any member in this Chamber to review

the cases that have been decided under the United Kingdom law and not say, "Thank goodness that application

got up. Thank goodness there was a retrial. Thank goodness that miscreant was brought to justice." I have reviewed

them. It is a good law; producing just outcomes. I accept the genuineness of the contribution of the Hon. John

Ajaka. I accept also that there are many friends for this law reform on the Government benches but they have not

won the day. I accept this is a challenging moment for many Government and Opposition members. I accept that

genuineness, but for the last five years this Government has ridden roughshod over concepts of criminal justice.

It has retreated on the presumption of innocence on bail and just last night it gave huge new powers to police

contrary to established principles of the criminal law.


The Government has put in place consorting laws that jail people for mixing with the wrong people—

criminalised association. Time after time this Government has passed laws that in their application will almost

certainly act adversely against the Aboriginal community. We will see more Aboriginal people in jail and more

Aboriginals brought to the courts as subjects of the criminal law. On this one occasion when the Aboriginal

community has come to the Government and said, "We would like a little bit of tightening of the criminal law to

deliver justice for the murder of our kids", it slams the door on them. The reason for not doing so is given as some

belated respect for those civil liberties that have been trashed repeatedly for five years. How would members feel

as a member of the Aboriginal community if the one occasion on which they want the criminal law changed to

deliver justice is the one occasion when the civil liberties argument is raised by the Government to say no?

I do not agree that this change will have a significant or real impact on civil liberties. This change will

still be governed by the interests of justice test, by an appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and by the

fundamental rules of evidence. We are talking about a marginal change to a law that has fundamentally failed. In

2006 this Parliament passed double jeopardy laws and those sitting in the gallery—the Bowraville community—

are the principal reason it was raised at that time. We put these double jeopardy laws through in 2006 to give these

families a shot at justice. They are still sitting in the gallery and the laws have failed them. We want the laws

fixed. I read the contribution of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile in 2006; he wanted the laws to be fixed. This will

not end here. Like the Hon. Robert Brown, I can do the numbers. We might have The Greens, the Christian

Democratic Party, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, and the Animal Justice Party supporting the bill but

we are going to lose this.

Earlier I was speaking with Detective Inspector Gary Jubelin and he assures me, and through him I assure

the community, that the police are ready to put a fresh application to the Attorney General, albeit under the laws

that we have failed to fix today. Recommendation No. 9 of the committee's inquiry was to ensure that the

application be heard outside this room, outside this system and outside this State. It was to be heard by someone

genuinely independent—a senior judge or prosecutor from outside New South Wales. It looks to me as if this pool

has been poisoned when it comes to considering the application for these families. We ask the Attorney General

to live up to the commitment to ensure that that application is seen by somebody genuinely independent of New

South Wales. I give my heartfelt hope and thoughts to the families that we will get that application before a

genuine pair of eyes. I feel as if I should apologise to the families for not delivering; and I do. We have not done

the right thing by them, but we will not forget and we will not stop. We will stay with them until they get their

justice.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The question is that this bill be now read a

second time.

The House divided.

Ayes ................... 8

Noes ................... 25

Majority .............. 17

AYES

Dr Faruqi (teller) Mr Borsak Mr Brown (teller)

Mr Buckingham Mr Green Mr Pearson

Mr Shoebridge Reverend Nile

NOES

Dr Phelps Mr Ajaka Mr Amato

Mr Blair Mr Colless Mr Donnelly (teller)

Mr Farlow Mr Franklin Mr Gallacher

Mr Gay Mr Khan Mr MacDonald

Mr Mallard Mr Mookhey Mr Pearce

Mr Primrose Mr Searle Mr Veitch

Mr Wong Ms Houssos Ms Maclaren-Jones (teller)

Ms Mitchell Ms Sharpe Ms Taylor

Ms Voltz


PAIRS

Mr Clarke Mr Moselmane Mr Secord

Ms Cusack Ms Cotsis Mr Mason-Cox

Motion negatived.

THE HON. JOHN AJAKA: Mr President, to suit the convenience of the House I suggest that you do

now leave the chair and cause the bells to be rung at 2.30 p.m.

The PRESIDENT: I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 2.30 p.m.

Questions Without Notice

FEDERAL BUDGET AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (14:30): My question is directed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for

Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Given that this week's Federal budget cut $80 million from

support from refugee resettlement, how will it impact on the Baird Government's promise to settle up to 7,000

Syrian refugees in New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for

Multiculturalism) (14:30): I thank the honourable member for his question. The member fails to realise that we

in New South Wales are undertaking our own extensive work in the resettlement of refugees. The Premier has

appointed Professor Peter Shergold as the Coordinator-General for Refugee Resettlement to ensure a

whole-of-government approach to refugee settlement. That is what is occurring and what will continue to occur.

I indicate how proud I am of my agency, Multicultural NSW, for the great work it is undertaking in refugee

resettlement. I am proud of not only the work it is undertaking to settle the approximately 7,000 refugees who will

be coming to New South Wales but also its previous work on refugee resettlement. In New South Wales we are

welcoming refugees. We will ensure that they are resettled appropriately. I am proud of all communities in New

South Wales for their great work—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: That is beautiful.

THE HON. JOHN AJAKA: I acknowledge that. What they are doing is beautiful. I thank the Hon. Greg

Donnelly for that interjection. Communities are welcoming refugees. They are opening their hearts, their minds

and their homes to refugees to ensure proper settlement. I congratulate the Premier, who took appropriate control

and who ensured that the right man, in Professor Peter Shergold, was appointed. That is what we are doing and

that is what we will continue to do.

CRUISE SHIP INDUSTRY

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN (14:32): My question is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and

Freight. Would the Minister update the House on the most recent cruise season in New South Wales?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the

Executive Council) (14:33): I thank the honourable member for his question. I acknowledge his interest in

cruising. The cruise industry continues to be the fastest growing tourism sector in Australia, with cruise ship visits

to Sydney showing no signs of slowing.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I encourage members on both sides of the Chamber to come to order and

listen to the Minister.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: A record 302 ships are expected to visit Sydney this financial year—

20 more than the previous year—bringing more than half a million passengers to the city's shores. The growing

trend of cruising has cemented Sydney's place as the premier and unrivalled cruise destination in Australia and

the South Pacific. The latest statistics from the 2015 economic impact study released by the Cruise Lines Industry

Association show that the cruise industry is worth $3.6 billion nationally, with 67 per cent attributed to New South

Wales.

The record season comes at a time when the New South Wales Government has invested in new facilities

and infrastructure to ensure that Sydney can continue to cater for existing cruise ships and attract new ones from

around the world. Late last year I had the honour of opening the upgraded overseas passenger terminal at Circular

Quay. What a cracker it is. It has significantly improved processing capabilities and enhanced passenger

experience and ship turnaround time. The overseas passenger terminal is Australia's premier cruise gateway. The

new facility meets ship turnaround time needs better than ever before, potentially doubling the number of cruises


on offer to tourists. The upgrade also means that two cruise ships can dock simultaneously at the overseas

passenger terminal for the first time.

Work will start this month to install a new super-mooring at the southern end of the overseas passenger

terminal to allow access for the next generation of cruise ships, which hold up to 5,000 passengers. It will be used

for the first time in December, when the mega-liner Ovation of the Seas arrives. I know the Hon. Trevor Khan

will be there with me to meet it. That will be the first time Sydney has hosted a newly launched cruise ship—an

honour usually reserved for ports in North America and Europe. Work on the mooring will involve the installation

of four piles, a concrete pile cap and two kidney-shaped mooring bollards and is expected to be completed by

September. The industry keeps growing and the New South Wales Government continues to spread the word that

New South Wales is ready and open for business.

As former Ministers on the Opposition side of the Chamber would know, departmental liaison officers

work with us—always for a short time so that they cannot influence us too much and we cannot influence them

too much. This week Adrian Toovey, who has been with me for 12 months, is going back to the department. We

wish him well. I acknowledge him for the work that he has done. I know that members on both sides who have

worked with Adrian have found him good to work with. We will miss him, but the department will benefit from

his return. I am sure that his wife will be happy that he is no longer working at Parliament House.

FEDERAL BUDGET AND AGED CARE

The Hon. WALT SECORD (14:37): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing,

Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Given the $1.2 billion in cuts in

Commonwealth aged-care funding in this week's Federal budget, what will be the impact on older residents in

New South Wales?


Multiculturalism) (14:37): I thank the honourable member for his question. Opposition members fail to realise

that this Coalition Government continues to deliver for the residents of New South Wales. The problem is that

when Labor was in government it could not deliver anything. Labor relied on the Federal Government —

The Hon.Walt Secord: Point of order—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis will remain silent.

The Hon.Walt Secord: My point of order goes to relevance. My question was about Commonwealth

cuts and their impact on New South Wales residents. It did not ask for a historical discourse from the Minister.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

THE HON. JOHN AJAKA: Labor relied on the Federal Government to do everything because it could

not do anything in government. It could not deliver. The problem Labor had was that it had to rely on the

Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Government. So there was no action from State Labor in government and no assistance from

its Federal colleagues. Where did that leave Australia? In an utter mess. We now have a Federal Government that

understands the concept of delivering a responsible budget. At the same time, the people of New South Wales

have the Baird-Grant Government, which knows how to deliver. That is why I am confident we will continue to

deliver for our seniors. We will continue to maintain the Ageing Strategy, which this Government implemented.

Those opposite did not introduce the strategy—they did not care about seniors and the Ageing Strategy when they

were in government.

I am confident that this Government will continue to deliver for our seniors. I am proud of the fact that

we are currently reviewing the Ageing Strategy to again deliver more for our seniors, and that is what we will

continue to do. If only those opposite had done a little work on this when they were in government. If only they

had been able to ensure that their Federal colleagues did not continue to destroy this great country. Shame on

them.

The Hon. WALT SECORD (14:40:2): I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister elucidate

his answer in regard to his description of the Federal budget and the cuts as "reasonable" in his answer, and does

he stand by that description?


Multiculturalism) (14:40:4): The term I used was "responsible". As I have indicated, this Coalition Government

will continue to look after our seniors. We will continue to ensure that they live an active, healthy and inclusive

life, and we will continue to deal with Federal Government in relation to that. Those opposite are well aware that

aged care falls within the domain of the Federal Government, and those opposite know that the irresponsible

behaviour of the Rudd-Gillard Government put our seniors in the worst possible position. Those opposite should


hang their heads in shame, each and every one of them. There was not a peep out of them when they saw what

their Federal colleagues were doing.

ROYAL NATIONAL PARK

Dr MEHREEN FARUQI (14:42): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing,

representing the Minister for the Environment. What progress has been made in nominating the Royal National

Park for World Heritage status, given it has been more than a year since the Federal and New South Wales

governments announced the joint bid?


Multiculturalism) (14:42:2): I thank Dr Mehreen Faruqi for her question. I will refer it to the Minister for the

Environment and come back with an answer in due course.

MULTICULTURAL NSW REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCILS

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (14:42): My question is directed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for

Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. What is the Government doing to understand and resolve

issues faced by our culturally diverse communities in Sydney and regional New South Wales?


Multiculturalism) (14:43:0): I thank the Hon. David Clarke for his question. I am very proud to say that the

Government has established new Multicultural NSW Regional Advisory Councils [RACs] across the State.

Regional Advisory Councils are established under the Multicultural NSW Act 2000, and their operation is central

to building social cohesion and community harmony. Each RAC is chaired by a board member of the Multicultural

NSW Advisory Board. The RACs will identify issues that affect communities across regional and metropolitan

centres, and work to resolve them through cooperation and partnerships among community groups, specialist

service providers and government agencies.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Greg Pearce to order for the first time. I call the Hon. Walt

Secord to order for the first time.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: By actively engaging with the broader community and bringing issues of

cultural diversity to the table, the RACs will be able to act on and support solutions that are guided by people at

the front line of their community. There are five metropolitan RACs, covering every local government area in

Sydney, and seven RACs covering all regional areas of the State. The result is that, for the first time, all geographic

areas are represented across metropolitan Sydney and regional New South Wales. This will significantly improve

engagement with local communities and maximise opportunities to link the objectives of government and the

priorities of communities.

Each RAC is composed of community members, and State and local government representatives. I have

complete confidence that we have the right mix of people who will play an active role in discussions, decisions

and solutions. The first round of RAC meetings began last week, and I was delighted to attend the first meetings

of the West Sydney RAC in Parramatta, the Murray-Lower Darling RAC in Albury, the Illawarra-South East

RAC in Wollongong and the North Sydney RAC in Ryde. I look forward to attending all the others in due course.

[Interruption]

It is a real shame that those opposite continue to interject and to treat this as a joke.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will come to order. Indeed it is. I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order

for the second time.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I want to ensure that consultation, participation and cooperation happens at

a grassroots level between all communities, from those in the Murray-Lower Darling regions in the south to those

in the northern regions, and everywhere else in between. The abilities of the community representatives, coupled

with the expertise and experience of our local government and State Government representatives—many of whom

work tirelessly to include, to support and to build the capacity of our communities—place the RACs in a prime

position to make a real and significant difference to the lives of people in New South Wales.

While RACs have been created to cover all geographic areas in metro Sydney and across the State, we

recognise the challenges that vast distances can create. To help break down barriers created by distance, we have

developed an online forum that will enable members to stay engaged and continue discussions between meetings.

This collaborative response will assist us in expanding our reach and help us to stay connected. There is much to

celebrate in this culturally rich State of ours, and I am proud of the continued contribution our community

members make to strengthening community harmony and social cohesion. I very much look forward to hearing


about the important work each RAC has started to undertake, and the remarkable achievements each RAC will

make as a united forum of committed and engaged community and Government members.

NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS (14:47): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing,

Minister for Disabilities, and Minister for Multiculturalism. What is the response of the New South Wales

Government to the 28 April request by the NSW Council for Intellectual Disability for independent oversight of

the transfer of Ageing, Disability and Home Care [ADHC] services to the non-government sector, which will

ensure the rights of people with disability are protected during the process?


Multiculturalism) (14:47:3): I thank the Hon. Sophie Cotsis for her question. It is important to remember—and

this is what the members opposite should remember—that this Government is undertaking extensive consultation

with the entire community in relation to the transition of disability services to the non-government sector. It has

been accepted by all, and I have repeated numerous quotes in this House by the relevant stakeholders. They

support the Government's move to transition disability services to the non-government sector. It allows for the

best possible outcomes. At the same time we want to ensure that it is undertaken appropriately. We want to ensure

that we are consulting with the entire community—with people with disability, their families, their carers, the

non-government organisations, the academics and the experts—to ensure that the transition occurs appropriately,

and that is what will occur, with the appropriate safeguards. I will continue to maintain that process.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS (14:49): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his

answer in relation to safeguards and protections?


Multiculturalism) (14:49): On numerous occasions I have spoken about the work being undertaken by this

Government, together with all State governments and the Commonwealth Government, to ensure there are

appropriate safeguards during the transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and post-transition. The

Commonwealth and other States are looking at the safeguards currently applied by the State of New South Wales

as the example. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis has no idea. [Time expired.]

NORTH STRATHFIELD LAND REZONING

The Hon. PAUL GREEN (14:50): My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and

Freight, representing the Minister for Local Government. Given that the area of North Strathfield along the

Powells Creek canal has a noted history of flooding and that a new road and bridge has been proposed to pass

through the protected habitat of Mason Park Bird Sanctuary and Wetlands, how will the issues of flooding, a

protected bird sanctuary and rare vegetation saltmarshes be addressed if the current zoning for residential homes

is rezoned for high density development?


Executive Council) (14:51): The short answer to this question is that it will not be easy. A number of issues have

serendipitously arrived at the one spot at the one time.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Say it again.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, do not mock my lisp. How dare you. That is a disgrace.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I know we had a very late night last night. I encourage members to listen to

the answers given by Ministers in relative silence. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: As I indicated, there is a degree of serendipity with the number of issues

occurring in the one place. Obviously I am not aware of the detail of this particular site. I am more than happy to

do the research and refer the question to the Minister for Local Government, and if it is a Roads and Maritime

Services matter I will also address that.

SHARK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN (14:52): My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries.

Will the Minister update the House on the rollout of the New South Wales Government's $16 million Shark

Management Strategy?


(14:53): The New South Wales Government is forging ahead with the rollout of trials of emerging technology as

part of its $16 million Shark Management Strategy.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane to order for the first time.


The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: Last week I joined the team from Shark Mitigation Systems at Bondi Beach,

along with some of its most famous residents, the Bondi lifeguards, to see firsthand the results of the Clever Buoy

trial. The use of sonar technology is the Holy Grail of shark detection and will be another great tool that can be

used to better inform lifeguards and beachgoers of the movements of sharks around our beaches. We will now

look to deploy the Clever Buoy at a location with a known shark aggregation so as our scientists can truly put it

through its paces.

A number of drone trials on the north coast have been completed and we are impressed so far with the

capabilities of unmanned aerial vehicles. Another trial is planned for Port Macquarie shortly. We are also poised

to install the first of two new technology shark barriers with the first Eco Shark Barrier to be installed at Lighthouse

Beach, Ballina. After Easter, divers from the Eco Shark Barrier team have made attempts to begin installation but

recent storms and large waves have deposited huge amounts of sand in the wave zone. This has made it too

dangerous for the divers to safely install the barrier and has led to an unfortunate delay. The team from Eco Shark

Barrier will continue to monitor water depths and will begin installation of the barrier at the earliest and safest

opportunity.

We are in uncharted territory here: this is the first time this technology has ever been deployed in New

South Wales. Dealing with Mother Nature can be challenging, but we are determined to see these barriers in the

water as soon as possible. Meanwhile, construction of the Aquarius Barrier for Lennox Head is well underway,

with installation expected in the coming months. In addition, our Shark Tagging Programs continue, with 14 white

sharks tagged on the north coast last year and 15 bull sharks tagged so far along the New South Wales coast. I am

very pleased to report that we have also now installed a total of nine VR4G listening stations. These are now in

place at Ballina, Byron Bay, Coffs Harbour, South West Rocks, Port Macquarie, Forster, Lennox Head, Yamba

and Kingscliff.

We have recently completed an increased and extended aerial surveillance schedule up and down the

New South Wales coast over the busy Easter and April school holiday period. Last month I announced that aerial

shark surveillance along the New South Wales coast will be conducted year round for the next 12 months. We

have some of the best beaches in the world and it does not have to be the middle of summer to attract people to

the beach. This is why aerial surveillance will be carried out on selected weekdays, weekends, school holidays

and public holidays over the next year.

The surveillance will take place over six regions from Moruya all the way up to Tweed Heads, to ensure

we have the right measures in place to give people extra confidence when hitting the water all year round. New

South Wales is at the forefront of trialling a wide range of new and innovative technologies to minimise risk to

beachgoers. Our strategy is unparalleled in this space and New South Wales is proudly leading the world in rolling

out innovative shark mitigation measures to bring back confidence to our New South Wales beachgoers and we

can all continue to do what we love year round, that is, going to the beach.

The PRESIDENT: I welcome to the public gallery Dr Cameron Archer, Chairman of the Primary

Industries Education Foundation of Australia, together with visitors in international food and fibre education,

guests of the Hon. Rick Colless.

SCHOOL CHAPLAINCY PROGRAM FUNDING

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (14:56): My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime

and Freight, representing the Premier. Is there uncertainty concerning the Federal Government's future funding of

360 chaplains, of whom 200 receive the maximum $20,000 and 103 receive $10,000 per annum, in New South

Wales State schools? If the Turnbull Federal Government axes the funding for chaplains in New South Wales

State schools, will the New South Wales Government fund this vital chaplaincy program to help meet the total

wellbeing needs of New South Wales students?


Executive Council) (14:58): Thank God the Premier gets paid more than I do because that is a tough question.

I will refer it to the Premier; I am not making decisions above my pay scale.

MINISTER FOR DISABILITY SERVICES OFFICE FURNITURE

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY (14:58): My question is directed to the Minister for Disability Services.

Why is the Minister the only parliamentarian who insists he does not need a work desk in his parliamentary office

to carry out his ministerial and parliamentary duties?


Multiculturalism) (14:59): That is a very good question. I recommend the arrangement to other members.


The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister does not need the assistance of Government backbench

members to answer the question.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: As the Minister for Disability Services who introduced the Disability

Inclusion Act to this Parliament and the Minister responsible for ensuring the inclusion for all people—

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: You're speaking too fast, John. We can't hear you.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: This is a very serious question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane to order for the first time.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: This is a serious question because it allows me to explain that my office is

inclusive for people with disability and people in wheelchairs. The Hon. Greg Donnelly is welcome to come to

my office any time he wants. Walt can be the perfect example in his wheelchair.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Walt Secord that he is on two calls to order. He will be

removed from the Chamber is he makes another outburst. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: When I hold meetings with people with disability and people in wheelchairs

or with mobility issues I ensure that they are comfortable in my office. That is why I do not have a work desk. I

am happy to say that I have the same arrangement in my ministerial office. I have a conference table that I am

more than capable of working from. At that table I can do my paperwork, make phone calls and hold meetings if

needed.

If my saving this Parliament the cost of a desk upsets the Hon. Greg Donnelly I do not care. I care about

ensuring that people with disability are included. People in wheelchairs are grateful that I have made arrangements

so that at my meetings people can sit on chairs and lounges and everyone can be included on the same level. The

Hon. Greg Donnelly should learn about being inclusive. It is unbelievable. Members opposite truly have no idea.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY (15:01): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate

his answer with further details about why he does not have a desk to work at in his parliamentary office?

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is out of order; it merely restates the original question.

HARWOOD BRIDGE

The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD (15:02): My question is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime

and Freight. Will the Minister update the House on the recent announcement by the New South Wales and Federal

governments relating to Harwood bridge on the Pacific Highway?


Executive Council) (15:02): I thank the member for his question and acknowledge that he is a regular visitor to

the area. Last week I visited the tidy town of Harwood to announce the preferred tenderer for the new Harwood

bridge across the Clarence River, which is an important feature of the $4.36 billion Federal and New South Wales

government-funded Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway upgrade. Alongside my colleagues the member for

Clarence, Chris Gulaptis, and the Federal member for Page, Kevin Hogan, I was proud to announce Acciona

Ferrovial Joint Venture as the preferred tenderer.

This will be no walk in the park. Those guys will design and build a 1.5 kilometre new Harwood bridge

across the mighty Clarence River. The bridge will be built some 70 metres downstream from the existing bridge

and will be the longest of more than 100 bridges to be built as part of the Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway

upgrade. Including the Harwood bridge, we now have an impressive 38 kilometres of the 155 kilometre project

under construction with an additional 53 kilometres being currently prepared for major work.

The new bridge will not only be a key part of the important highway duplication but also remove a

notorious traffic hotspot for locals and will be futureproofed to meet increased traffic demand. The existing

Harwood bridge is opened about five times a week to allow vessels to pass underneath, creating lengthy traffic

hold-ups on the Pacific Highway. The new bridge will fix those delays by removing the need for it to be opened

thanks to a 30 metre clearance for passing boats. When the existing bridge was opened in 1966 the old girl was

the third-longest bridge in the State.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: The old girl?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is now.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Why is it a girl?


The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Because it is a delightful bridge that plays an important role. Girls play

important roles. The Hon. Lynda Voltz wants to demean women. When will members opposite learn?

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will ignore interjections.

Mr Jeremy Buckingham: What happened when you opened the bridge?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Funny you should ask whether I opened the bridge in 1966. Unfortunately,

I was too young but I did travel on the punt that was there before it. When my mother, father, sister and I went on

our holidays in the caravan we travelled across the punt that was in place before 1966. It was really exciting. The

bridge construction will create around 200 jobs as part of the 2,500 direct and 4,500 indirect jobs being created

on the Woolgoolga to Ballina section of the upgrade. The old bridge will turn half a century old this year and will

remain as part of the local road network so that local people do not have to go onto the highway for local

commutes. We hope to turn the first sod for the new bridge on its birthday in August and to have it completed in

2019.

KANGAROO MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Hon. MARK PEARSON (15:06): My question is directed to the Minister for Ageing, representing

the Minister for the Environment. Recently, along with Uncle Max Harrison, elder of the Yuin people, I discussed

with the Minister the significance of the kangaroo, or malu, to the Indigenous people and their lore. Concerns

around cruelty and sustainability practices were also raised. Considering the Kangaroo Management Plan has not

been reviewed in 20 years, will the Minister recommend the plan be sent to the relevant general standing

committee for review? If so, will the review include a term of reference in regards to the cultural and spiritual

significance of the malu to the Indigenous people and their lore and laws?


Multiculturalism) (15:07): I note the member mentioned in his very good question that he has recently discussed

this matter with the Minister. As I am not aware of those discussions and he is seeking specifics I will refer the

question to the Minister and come back with an answer.

THOMPSON SQUARE, WINDSOR

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (15:08): My question is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and

Freight. Is the Minister aware of the 24-hour-a-day vigil at Thompson Square in Windsor that has now been going

for 1,000 days, and is he aware of the forecasted population growth in Windsor over the next two decades? Given

those two issues, will he reconsider the bypass route to save an important and unique piece of Australian heritage

and also meet the future planning needs of Windsor?


Executive Council) (15:08): I hear the Labor Party and their political allies The Greens, who have been espousing

civil disobedience across the State in recent days. The Greens who beat the Hon. Penny Sharpe, Jenny Leong—

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: This is clearly irrelevant to my question.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is relevant to what is happening here. The member is talking about people

who are running a 24-hour-a-day vigil in Thompson Square.

Thompson Square and the building of Windsor Bridge has gone through the full community process, including

planning and court processes. The very small group that opposes this, as against the larger community group that

supports it, has tried everything to stop this project and it has lost. The New South Wales Land and Environment

Court threw out its allegations as untrue. If one cares to examine what the Government is doing, we are restoring

the square—the square that has not been there for several decades—and replacing the bridge. As a result of

consultation and, I suspect in part, the action of people in relation to the square, we have made changes that will

deliver a better outcome for the community.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: You are knocking down more of the heritage buildings.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: You asked the question, listen to the answer. You obviously did not learn

much when you were in this role.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has the call.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Otherwise you would still have it.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: How long were you in Opposition, Duncan?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Long enough to learn that I do not want to go back there. We did make

changes as a result of community liaison. That is appropriate and we will have a better project. But to perpetuate


a view that the great majority of the community are against the bridge and the outcomes is just plain wrong and

dishonest.

NSW STRATEGIC PLAN FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (15:11): My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister

for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Will the Minister outline the findings of the

consultations with children and young people on the NSW Strategic Plan for Children and Young People?


Multiculturalism) (15:11): The Baird Government is of the strong view that children and young people should

have a voice within government. As the Minister responsible for youth, I am proud to inform the House that work

is progressing on the State's first legislated strategic plan for children and young people. The Government is

determined that this plan will be a product of those it is intended to serve.

For that reason, I asked the Advocate for Children and Young People, Andrew Johnson, to conduct

extensive consultations with children and young people. As members will be aware from the extensive media

coverage, the Advocate has recently delivered his findings, which I will now share with the House. The report of

the consultations with children and young people contains input from more than 4,000 children and young people

of all backgrounds from across this State. The consultations focused on four questions: what is and is not working

well for children and young people in New South Wales, their priorities for government, and the qualities of a

good society.

As one would expect from such open and genuine consultations, there were some diverse views on these

questions. More surprisingly, however, was the extent to which children and young people held broadly shared

views. Children and young people across New South Wales want to live in a place where they are safe, respected,

connected and healthy. They also want opportunities and a voice in the decisions that affect them. They identified

several areas that they believe the New South Wales Government should focus on to improve their lives, and

education, transport, employment, healthcare, and mental health were mentioned as key priorities.

The results of the consultations and related polling show that this generation of children and young people

is strongly motivated to bring about positive change to the world in which they live. When asked about their hopes

for the future, the top response was to receive a good education and to make their world a better place. So simple,

yet so powerful. Three in five New South Wales children and young people have undertaken volunteer work and

their motivations for doing so were overwhelmingly to give back to the community.

We acknowledge and celebrate this "generation compassion" and will continue to work with them to

make New South Wales a great place for children and young people to live in and grow. One of the ways we will

be doing this is by ensuring that the voices of children and young people are strongly reflected in the forthcoming

NSW Strategic Plan for Children and Young People. We also will be ensuring that their voices are heard in the

work being done in the interests of children and young people across all portfolios. I look forward to releasing the

plan with the Advocate shortly.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the first time.

NORTHERN BASIN WATER ALLOCATIONS

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (15:15): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for

Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. I recently visited southern Queensland where I saw a

large amount of cotton coming off Cubbie Station and irrigated farms near St George and Dirranbandi. Can the

Minister update the House on the representations he previously stated he would make to the Queensland

Government regarding water allocations in the Darling, Culgoa, Condamine and Balonne river systems?


(15:15): I would be delighted to update the House because I recently made representations—I am trying to

remember; I do not want to mislead the House—two or three Fridays ago when the water Ministers met in

Brisbane. Not only did I make representations but I did it on their turf. One issue I raised on behalf of New South

Wales was the Northern Basin Review and the work that is being done by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

New South Wales has met a lot of its obligations under that review, including the water recovery that has

occurred from our system. Queensland is lagging behind, and that frustrates me as the New South Wales Minister

for Lands and Water. Indeed, I have commented at every ministerial council meeting that the results of the

Northern Basin Review are outstanding—meaning they are overdue. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority

engaged consultants to conduct this review but, unfortunately, they made a mess of it and we had to engage another

set of consultants. They messed up part of the socioeconomic review relating to the northern communities, which

for a long time have relied upon a strong agricultural sector and the use of productive water.


That is the first matter I have addressed with my Queensland counterparts. The other measure—and it

was a win at the ministerial council, on behalf of the people of New South Wales—was to make sure as we move

through the key decision points of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that New South Wales continues to advocate

for infrastructure projects to deliver water savings. We need to start thinking outside the box in order to deliver

those water savings and so that we do not see productive water being purchased out of New South Wales and

flowing downstream to South Australia and then eventually out to sea.

If that water and those savings can be made through infrastructure projects or projects such as the carp

eradication program, we know that we can do great things for the environment and our agricultural sector.

Significantly, at the last ministerial council meeting, all States and the Commonwealth agreed to look at non-flow

related projects to help bridge the gap, particularly for the sustainable diversion limit [SDL] projects and the

required 650 gigalitres.

What does that mean for New South Wales? If we can stop the release of cold water or black water events

in our river systems, then we can deliver proper outcomes for the environment, such as the eradication of carp or

the prevention of the death of fish populations. It will mean that we will not have to enter the market and buy

productive water from our producers in regional New South Wales, and it will ensure that we have better rivers,

more productive regional businesses and better socioeconomic outcomes for the people of regional New South

Wales.

I thank the member for the Dixer. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to stand up and show that we are

advocating on behalf of all of New South Wales and that if we have to have uncomfortable conversations with

other States or the Commonwealth we will.

HILLSBOROUGH ROAD CONSTRUCTION

The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (15:19): My question is directed to the Minister for Roads,

Maritime and Freight. Given in 2015 the New South Wales Government announced $4 million for planning and

pre-construction along Hillsborough Road near Lake Macquarie, why has construction work not commenced and

when will it begin?


Executive Council) (15:20): I thank the honourable member for her question. Before a government undertakes

a project it has to do the planning and we have put forward $4 million to do that. I have 4,600 projects underway

in New South Wales and I am more than happy to take this question on notice and come back with a detailed

answer.

LOCAL LAND SERVICES

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (15:20): My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries,

and Minister for Land and Water. Will the Minister update the House on Local Land Services activities and his

recent tour with the chair of Local Land Services?


(15:20): The New South Wales Government is committed to supporting landholders, primary producers and

industries across New South Wales. We know that engaging communities in environmental conservation and

management at the local and regional levels through a range of programs and initiatives is essential for

sustainability within the primary industries sector. That is why the New South Wales Government and agencies

such as Local Land Services are working with communities to educate them and ensure the right measures are put

in place at all levels to protect primary production.

In early April I travelled around the State with the recently appointed chairman of Local Land Services,

Tim de Mestre, to meet with a range of organisations and community members doing great innovative work within

their region. In the Central West region we met with Local Land Services staff to hear about how technology is

being used in the ongoing fight against wild dogs. Wild dogs are devastating to landholders, both in terms of

financial losses and the emotional impact of having to deal with continued loss of stock. Local Land Services staff

are working closely with landholders and the community to roll out new canid pest ejectors, which deliver a

precise dose of the toxin 1080 when activated by wild dogs.

The New South Wales Government recently regulated the use of these ejectors, which are an

improvement on previous baiting measures. Landholders can access information and training from Local Land

Services to ensure that the ejectors are used properly and that landholders are in the know about other new

technologies and approaches to wild dog and fox control.

I also had the chance to see the Feral Fighters program in action in the south-east region. This program

commenced in 2015 and involves large-scale baiting programs across two districts in the south east. More than


650 landholders will be provided with baits and they will work together to lay them over a 350,000 hectare area.

By participating in a strategic control program, these landholders are working with their neighbours and local

networks. This means they will achieve better results for themselves, the community, local industries and the

environment.

In Richmond, in the Greater Sydney Local Land Services region, I visited a demonstration site for the

Next Generation Compost project—a joint venture between Local Land Services, NSW Farmers and the Institute

for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney. Through this initiative two growers in the Greater

Sydney region will be supplied with compost at a subsidised rate and the sites will be monitored to determine how

composted sites perform compared to non-composted sites. This is a fantastic initiative and demonstrates the type

of innovation that the New South Wales Government is fostering in all sectors, including in agriculture, and I will

keep the House informed of those results. It also aligns with our commitment to the environment in supporting

sustainable practices and reducing waste.

I also visited the Eight Mile Travelling Stock Reserve near Young to see how the local Wiradjuri

community is working with the New South Wales Government to preserve cultural heritage. At Eight Mile an

innovative pilot is being led by the Local Land Services that involves Wiradjuri assessors locating sites of cultural

significance on travelling stock reserves and making recommendations for their maintenance and protection. Right

across the State the hardworking staff in Local Land Services are always looking for new and better ways to assist

landholders and their communities. These are just some of the examples; there are plenty more. I commend Local

Land Services for the great work they are carrying out to ensure that landholders, industry and farmers are kept

up to date with the latest information. The new chairman of Local Land Services, Tim de Mestre, has hit the

ground running. He is a man from the industry; he is well known and well respected and is doing great things for

Local Land Services.

BIOFUELS INDUSTRY JOBS

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (15:24): My question is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime

and Freight, the Hon. Duncan Gay, representing the Premier. Is the Minister aware that the Minister for Innovation

and Better Regulation recently corrected the record regarding inflated jobs figures he included in his second

reading speech to the Biofuels Amendment Bill 2016 and that he has admitted that these figures came directly

from ethanol producer Manildra? Is it normal government practice to include information from an outside source

that is benefited by legislation, and what due diligence does the Government undertake to ensure that the

Parliament is provided with accurate information and is not misled?


Executive Council) (15:25): I thank the member for his question. For his greater education I direct him to

Hansard on that day.

ABORIGINAL REMAINS BURIAL

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE (15:26): My question is directed to the Minister for Primary

Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Given Western Australia is developing a statewide policy on the

burial of Aboriginal remains in traditional country, what steps is the New South Wales Government taking in this

regard?


(15:26): I thank the member for his question; it is a very good question. I was not aware of the situation in

Western Australia. I recently met with the NSW Aboriginal Land Council at its office and sat down with its board

as the Minister responsible for Aboriginal land claims. It was a good opportunity to discuss a range of issues but

that was not something that was discussed . I am not saying that to be smart, I am just saying that that was not

something that was on the council's radar. I will undertake to look into this issue and speak to the department

through Cemeteries and Crematoria NSW to find out if they have had a look at what has happened in Western

Australia.

If it is something that warrants further discussion I am happy to initiate those discussions in conjunction

with my other counterparts, particularly the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. Leslie Williams, and to help

to facilitate any meetings with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council—that is, of course, if this issue has

not been addressed or looked at in the past. At this stage I am not aware of that, but it is a good question and I will

take it on notice and come back to the member with some information.


SYDNEY MOTORWAY NETWORK

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (15:28): My question is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and

Freight. Will the Minister update the House on progress in improving Sydney's motorway network to help relieve

congestion across Australia's largest city?


Executive Council) (15:28): I thank the honourable member for his question and for his knowledge. He at least

knows where the M5 is, unlike some others. I am pleased to report that work continues steadily on much-needed

improvements to Sydney's motorway network as we continue to fill in the missing pieces. State Government

approval was given last month for the second part of WestConnex, the New M5, which will double capacity of

the existing M5 East corridor. We are also proceeding well on early works for the M4 East twin tunnels, and it is

great to see all the construction being done along the section of the M4 that is being widened between Parramatta

and Homebush.

Unlike The Greens, who have only a call for civil disobedience to fall back on, which is practically

nothing—ask what they stand for: "We stand for civil disobedience"; good on you, guys—this Government has

solid plans and is delivering solid results. I was heartened to see the Leader of the Opposition throw his support

behind the M4 East and the new M5 in a Daily Telegraph interview—he is there for the west. However, I was

further concerned to see that the Hon. Luke Foley described the most crucial element of WestConnex, the link

that will join the M4 and M5, as 'highly dubious'—the thing that makes it really hum, the thing that makes it work

as 'highly dubious'.

For the full benefits of WestConnex to be realised that link is of utmost importance. It will be the final

element in creating the free-flowing motorway network. It will create a city and inner west bypass and mean

considerable time savings for motorists, including those in Western Sydney who are headed to the airport and the

port. Crucially, it will take traffic congestion off local roads. How does Labor hope to achieve this without the

M4 to M5 link, the missing link? What plan does it have? Does Labor have any plan at all or is this something the

Hon. Penny Sharpe dreamed up? While I am talking about Labor and its plans or lack of them, I want to know

how Labor members are going to fund it. They have done the "me too". They say, "If you can build it, we'll build

it as well", but they have not said how they are going to fund it. Are they going to toll it? Tell us that you are not

going to toll it. Here is your chance. Stand up and say, "No, we are not going to toll it."

The Hon.Walt Secord: How are you going to pay for it?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We are going to toll it; we have said we are going to toll it right up front

and the Hon. Walt Secord has told everyone that we have said we are going to toll it, but he has not said how

Labor is going to pay for it. The question is: if they are not going to put it a toll on it and they are not going to

lease any infrastructure, how are they going to pay for it? The only way they can pay for it is to cut funding to

schools, cut funding to hospitals, cut funding to police. If you are not going to toll it, tell the people of the inner

west, the south-west and the west which schools you are not going to build, which ambulance stations you are not

going to upgrade and which hospitals you are not going to build. Come on, tell us. You have got the plan; where

are the answers? [Time expired.]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is with great reluctance that I indicate that the time for questions is over.

HILLSBOROUGH ROAD CONSTRUCTION


Executive Council) (15:32): Earlier in question time I was asked a quite appropriate question about $4 million

for planning along Hillsborough Road. Roads and Maritime Services is currently carrying out a traffic study for

Lake Macquarie which was extended in August-September 2015 to include all State roads between Warners Bay

and Charlestown. The investigations are considering options such as widening and providing additional lanes

along Hillsborough Road—and my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated sadly there was a tragic

accident involving a young girl yesterday—traffic lights at Chadwick and Crockett streets and upgrades to the

Warners Bay and inner city bypass roundabouts. The studies will allow Roads and Maritime to develop short,

medium and long-term priorities for the road network to support future funding requests. Community consultation

is expected to be carried out on the Lake Macquarie traffic study in the coming months and the draft Charlestown

to Warners Bay corridor strategy is expected to be displayed for community feedback later this year.

Announcements

TRIBUTE TO SUSANNA MONTRONE


Executive Council) (15:34): I was asked a number of times yesterday why Susanna Montrone is leaving us; the


answer is that frankly she needs and deserves a break from members—and especially from me. Susanna came to

my office described as potentially a Young Liberal, which gave me very grave concerns. I was relieved to discover

she was not a Young Liberal and has not been a member of the Young Liberals, but is a young woman with

incredible motivation.

She was one of the originals in our ministerial team. She stuck by us and has grown with the office as it

evolved over the years. In each and every role she has carried out with me, which included parliamentary liaison

officer [PLO], adviser, senior adviser and legislative director, she has surpassed expectation—and we had high

expectations. If I had a dollar for every member from every side of politics who has complimented me on

Susanna's role here over the five years, I would be a very, very rich man. And I have been rich with luck to have

had such a supportive staffer, and now friend, working so closely in our crew for half a decade, which in Susanna's

short life is a very large amount of time.

She is strong, yet kind, determined and almost always open to solutions. She has proved to us all that she

is an outstanding staffer and a woman who is intelligent, competent, confident and reliable. There is not a job that

she cannot do or a task too hard. I am sure each and every member in this Chamber and in the other place will

agree that her hard work and dedication have been proven time and time again to make our jobs in a hard area

seamless. Susanna, you will be missed by the Parliament, the members, the staffers and our office but mostly by

me. We wish you all the best in your future endeavours and I am sure you will attack your next appointment with

as much grace and fortitude as you have here with me from day one. I know you will be working on your farewell

in the bar this afternoon but I am still paying you tomorrow and I want you at work early!

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (15:37): On behalf of the Labor Opposition I, too, would like to record our

thanks and appreciation for the hard work of Susanna Montrone in her time working for the Leader of the

Government in this place. Having been both an Opposition and Government staffer in this place I know how

difficult such a role can be. Trying to run the upper House is a little like herding cats, particularly when it seems

that governments, no matter their political stripes and being focused in the other place, fail to have an appreciation

of the ways of the upper House and sometimes the unique challenges government faces in managing the legislative

agenda in this place.

It is not an easy role but it is one that Susanna has undertaken always with courtesy and good humour

within the constraints of her role. We as members have appreciated our relationship with you, as have our staff

who have worked closely with you. We wish you all the best in your future endeavours. Some of us may have a

drink with you in the bar this afternoon. We will miss you as well.


Multiculturalism) (15:38): The second saddest aspect is that Susanna is actually leaving the Leader of the

Government. The saddest aspect is that she is not coming to work for me. That would have justified her leaving

the Leader of the Government.

Mr Scot MacDonald: It is not about you, John.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I know it is not about me. Susanna, I am well aware that you are an incredible

assistant, adviser and manager in any office that you are part of. I am well aware of that because in 2011, when

I was appointed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Roads, you took me under your wing. You were

the person I worked most closely with in that period as Parliamentary Secretary. I saw firsthand what you bring

to an office. I saw firsthand what you bring to a team. You have continued in that role. The assistance that you

have afforded me as a Minister, and my entire office, has been wonderful and I am eternally grateful. I too wish

you the very best for your future. I am confident that in whatever role you take on you will again be the one person

who brings everything to that office. I wish you all the very best.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (15:40): I put on record the appreciation of the Christian Democratic

Party for the cooperation and help we have received from Susanna Montrone over the past five years. She has

helped us greatly. As members know, it is critical that those of us in the upper House know what the Government

is doing and what the agenda is. Susanna has always been honest and frank with us. We appreciate her help. She

said in a note to me that we should look her up when we are in London, if we have time. I probably will! Thank

you.

The PRESIDENT: Only Susanna would warrant a fifth speech. I call Mr Jeremy Buckingham.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (15:41): I will be brief. I join other members in thanking Susanna

Montrone for her fantastic work over the years. I wish her all the best with her move to the United Kingdom. I am

sure she will be as successful there as she has been here—worse luck. She has done a great job of shepherding

Government legislation through and representing the Government in a good-natured way. She has dealt well with

the challenges and the late nights. It is a difficult place in which to work, with late nights and all kinds of pressure


in her role at the pointy end of delivering Government legislation. She has done it amiably and in good spirits.

She has always been warmly received by The Greens, in all our variations. We thank her for her work over the

years and wish her all the best. We will join her in the parliamentary bar for a cold drink very soon.

Members

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES


Executive Council) (15:42): I inform the House that on 5 May 2016 Mr Kevin Anderson, MP, was appointed as

Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Premier and for Regional Roads and Rail.

Documents

TABLING OF PAPERS


(15:42): I table the following report:

Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—Report of Cemeteries and Crematoria NSW for year ended 30 June 2016.

I move:

That the report be printed.

Motion agreed to.

Motions

ANZAC DAY

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (15:43): I continue my remarks on the commemoration of Anzac Day.

An event that reflected the broad contribution of the community was held by the NSW Association of Jewish Ex-

Servicemen and Women. I recognise the attendance at that event of the Hon. Greg Donnelly, representing the

Leader of the Opposition. I represented the Premier. The Hon. David Clarke also attended. The event highlighted

the broad commitment to service by communities across New South Wales and the recognition by diverse

communities of our military service. In the lead-up to Anzac Day I had the good fortune to speak to the Australian

Korean Friendship Group about the relationship between Australia and Korea, our involvement in the Korean

War and the ties that Australia and Korea forged through that encounter. The Korean community is now significant

in New South Wales, but at the time of the Korean War it was not. Australia was unaware of Korea. Nowhere was

the fight for freedom more evident than in the Korean War.

I turn to the contribution of my own family. I mentioned this before in my contribution to a debate about

Lemnos. My family does not have a history of overseas service. My great-grandfather and great-uncle served in

the military in World War I and World War II on the home front. They were not deployed overseas.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN (15:46): I move:

That, according to sessional order:

(1) the time for debate on this motion be extended for 90 minutes; and

(2) the member speaking prior to the interruption of the debate be permitted to conclude their contribution for a total

speaking time of no longer than 15 minutes.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: I was speaking about my great-grandfather, Rupert Stanley Reeves, and

my great-uncle, Victor Stanley Reeves. Another uncle, Cyril, had an intellectual disability. In one of the darker

moments of our military history, he received white feather letters because he was not active in military service.

He was very proud. Although intellectually disabled and unable to serve, he tried every day to enlist and was

turned down. That incident caused my family a great deal of distress. The Anzac spirit meant that people enlisted

voluntarily. They wanted to serve for the greater good and to ensure the freedoms that we share today. I thank the

House for its indulgence.

The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN (15:48): I am proud to speak to this motion. This motion speaks to an

extremely important sentiment to Australians, a sentiment that is just as important now as it was in 1915. I thank

the Hon. Paul Green for his timely motion and the Legislative Council for allowing debate on this important topic.

Last week I was honoured to lay a wreath on behalf of the New South Wales Government at the Byron Bay Anzac

Day service alongside veterans, members of the RSL and representatives of almost 50 community organisations.


It was inspiring to see how many people from the community of Byron Bay turned out for the dawn service as

well as the parade and mid-morning service. Servicemen, veterans and members of the community stood together

to honour our diggers, as they did at services all around Australia.

In Byron Bay, the service was held at the Byron Bay Memorial Gates, which were built in 1955. They

list the names of locals who did not return from the First World War on the left-hand pillars and the names of the

fallen from the Second World War on the right-hand pillars. The memorial gates have just undergone a major

upgrade, with three natural finish granite columns added to the existing structure. It is a great addition and a

worthy upgrade. However, some funds are still needed to pay for the work. The Byron Bay RSL Sub-Branch is

doing fantastic job fundraising within the community to make up this shortfall, and I encourage anyone in the

community who wishes to make a contribution to contact the sub-branch. I know everyone in the community will

rally around this important local cause.

As Australians, the legend of the Anzacs is something we all hold dear. On Anzac Day we remember our

first participation in a global conflict, and all conflicts since then. They have seen us mature as a nation and keep

the flame of the Anzac tradition alive. From Gallipoli in World War I to the Kokoda Track in World War II, the

battle of Long Tan in the Vietnam War and Operation Slipper in Afghanistan, we remember the sacrifice so many

Australians have made in these conflicts. Most of all, on Anzac Day we show our gratitude to our service men

and women. Their service to our nation is the very reason that our children will grow up in safety, with a brighter

future than any who came before. I think many who fought and fell in these wars would have gained some solace

in knowing that they were protecting the freedoms of their descendants.

My own grandfather, Dad's father, Frank, was a signalman in the Second World War and was killed on

the Sandakan Death March in 1945. It was the single worst atrocity suffered by Australian servicemen during the

Second World War—where only six Australians survived. Some say that you cannot miss what you never had,

but growing up without my grandfather is a loss I have always felt deeply. But of course it impacted far more

seriously on my father. As an only child and Legacy kid, he never knew his father; and he has been affected by

this loss for his entire life. In my inaugural speech in this place I said that his tragic and unnecessary death taught

me three things: that we must always honour those who fell for us, that we must always support the families of

those who do not return and that as a society we have a moral obligation to provide whatever support is needed to

those who have returned from conflict but still carry the mental or physical scars of their service to our nation.

Looking after our veterans is so very important. To keep us safe we need a defence force, and

consequently we need people to serve in it. We ask a great deal of these people. We ask them to spend long periods

of time away from their families; we ask them to bear an incredible workload; and we ask them to endure

extraordinary mental and physical pressures which impact on them for the rest of their lives. But their job is not

done when they return home. Many of our veterans need our help. They have seen and endured horrors most of

us will never know or ever understand.

There has been an attempt in the last decade to de-stigmatise and properly deal with mental health issues

in the military and veteran communities. Given the Australian Defence Force's increasingly high operational pace

and the current number of personnel who have experienced multiple operational deployments, addressing mental

health issues has never been a more important priority. Let us never forget what these men and women have

sacrificed for the rest of us.

I sometimes wonder what the world today would look like without our Anzacs, but it does not bear

thinking about. Instead, we should be grateful for their courage and their sacrifice and know that today we enjoy

the privilege and freedoms we have because of those who fought for them. Throughout Australia's military history

there have been scores of young men and women who have stood prepared to give their life for the safety, security

and freedom of their nation. It is an extraordinary sacrifice, and one that we must always honour.

In conclusion, I will read an excerpt from a letter sent home by 20-year-old Lieutenant William Sydney

Duchesne. He was one of 20,000 Australian Imperial Force [AIF] personnel who were in the first contingent of

Anzac troops at Gallipoli. This letter was written from the Australian Imperial Force camp in Egypt. He wrote:

Tell them, Dad, that for them and our country, we who are from Australia are ready to give what is most precious to all—that is

our life.

That if by doing so we help to keep you all safe and free tell Mother and Aunt Ada that I wish them to remember the text of one of

Canon Vaughan's sermons, "Weep not for the dead but for the living."

If by chance my time has come to leave this world I wish not for a better death than one on the battlefield helping Englishmen keep

our Empire in freedom.

I know that my father will only be too pleased to know that his son was able to go and take the share of his family's safekeeping.

Remember mother I am only a son and that many a husband with families are here and it is for them who we must pray that they

be spared to return to their wives and families, and not for us single boys, who have nobody depending on us.


Mother don't worry; I am enjoying myself and am happy.

From Egypt, this young man travelled to the Greek island of Lemnos and onto the battlefields of Gallipoli, where

he was one of 903 Australians and New Zealanders who died on the first day of the Gallipoli campaign. This was

exactly one month before his twenty-first birthday. He, like so many, was prepared to give his life for his family

and his country. It is that spirit of courage and sacrifice that we honour on Anzac Day. Lest we forget.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (15:55): I am pleased to speak in support of the motion moved by the

Hon. Paul Green that:

(1) That this House acknowledges the service and sacrifice of our war veterans.


(a) Anzac Day, 25 April, is one of Australia's most important national occasions, marking the anniversary of the

first major military action fought by Australian and New Zealand forces during the First World War;



(c) the spirit of Anzac, with its qualities of courage, mateship, and sacrifice, continues to have meaning and

relevance for our sense of national identity.

I was very proud of my father. He served in World War I. He was born in Britain and was a British citizen. He

served in the British Army and so technically is not an Anzac. He fought in World War I. His regiment, the

Gloucestershire regiment, was very active in France. During the various engagements he was machine gunned.

We heard the Hon. Lynda Voltz talking about machine guns earlier. He was machine gunned in his leg and sent

back to the United Kingdom to a military hospital. One may expect that he was then sent home but, no, he was

sent back to France to continue fighting. Thankfully he survived those years.

He was only 17 years old when he enlisted in the British Army. If that machine gun had been successful

and had killed him then, of course, I would not be standing here today. So I am very appreciative of the fact that

he survived World War I and migrated to Australia at the age of 20. I was always very proud to take part in the

Anzac Day marches, along with other members of the British Army contingent in our Anzac Day marches

division. They had their own contingent in the Anzac Day march.

The Gloucestershire regiment is a famous regiment. It is known as the "back to fronts" because it has an

unusual cap. Everybody has a military badge on their cap, but the Gloucestershire regiment has the badge on both

the front and the back. The idea is that if the regiment is surrounded by the enemy, the enemy will always know

that they are dealing with the Gloucestershire regiment. It is amazing to learn that in so many battles the regiment

was literally surrounded. For example, in the Korean War the regiment was surrounded by the Chinese Army on

some hilltop and it was very fortunate to survive. That is where the nickname the "back to fronts" was again

proven correct. The regiment survived being totally surrounded on that occasion, but the same thing happened in

many other battles throughout the years.

Due to the participation of my father in the British Army, he had put the idea of military service into my

mind. So when I turned 14 I joined the 45th battalion regimental cadets. I was treated the same as an 18-year-old.

I did the same training and was issued with a .303 rifle, which in those days we could take home with us after

training. So when National Service started in 1952 I was worried I might miss out on being called up because the

ballot system they had was based on birth date. I went down to the Army depot in Belmore and said, "I'm only

17 but I don't want to miss out on National Service. Can I enlist now?"

As it was the Army, it immediately enlisted me into a National Service Battalion at Ingleburn. I finished

my National Service full-time training three months before I turned 18 years of age. I appreciated the opportunity

to be part of the defence of our nation. I am a very patriotic Australian, as members have probably already

gathered. I continued to serve in the Citizens Military Forces [CMF], which became the Army Reserve, for

22 years to 1974. I was an Infantry Company Commander in the 4th Battalion Royal New South Wales Regiment,

something which was very unusual for a clergyman, a minister.

In 1955 I was commissioned in the St George Regiment, the 45th Battalion as a lieutenant. I was very

proud to receive a Queen's Commission and later I was promoted to a captain. I then served as a company

commander in the 4th Battalion, Royal New South Wales Regiment. During those years, especially when I had

my own D-Company at Merrylands, I emphasised the importance of Anzac Day. I would send a detachment of

soldiers from the company to take part in the various Anzac Day commemorations that were being held by the

RSL in the western suburbs.

The National Service Association asked me join one of its three contingents in the Anzac Day parade.

Each contingent had about 100 men. It is one of the largest groups in the Anzac Day march in Sydney, and I have

taken part in it every year since. This year I was asked to lead that detachment, which I was very pleased to do.


I commend all those who have served in the Australian Military Forces, as well as the Navy and Air Force.

I commend them for their outstanding qualities of courage, mateship and sacrifice, as noted by military forces

from other nations who have been very proud to serve with Australian soldiers in the Boer War, World War I,

World War II, Vietnam, Korea and so on.

In 1952 I was trained in National Service by experienced sergeants who were sent back from Korea. At

the time the rule was that national servicemen could not be sent overseas, but when that changed they were sent

to serve in the Vietnam War. Again I commend those people in our Army, Navy and Air Force who have served

our nation. Lest they be forgotten for their service. Lest we never forget those who have given their lives to serve

our nation. God bless them.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): Pursuant to sessional orders proceedings

are interrupted to permit the Minister to move the adjournment motion if he desires.

Adjournment Debate

ADJOURNMENT


Executive Council) (16:03): I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

ETHANOL PRODUCTION

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (16:03): I refer to the debacle, shambles and corruption regarding

biofuels and ethanol in Australia. I will start by putting forward the Federal timeline for the development of

ethanol, if I can call it that, in Australia.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: May ethanol live and reign.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Yes. In February 1980 the Fraser Government abolished the

$19.25 per litre excise on ethanol when used as a fuel, to encourage research into the production of ethanol as a

fuel in internal combustion engines. In 1994 Paul Keating introduced an 18¢ per litre bounty payable to ethanol

companies. In 1996 the program was quickly discontinued because "evidence concerning the greenhouse gas and

pollution impacts of fuel ethanol is ambiguous" and "current production and use of fuel ethanol is not cost effective

in reducing emissions of greenhouse gas and environmental pollutants".

On 12 September 2002 John Howard introduced the Ethanol Production Grants Program, a production

subsidy of 38¢ per litre for Australian ethanol producers in order to prevent a shipment of 12,000 litres of ethanol

from Brazil. John Howard went on to mislead Parliament about whether he met with Dick Honan prior to this

decision, after documents released under freedom of information proved he met Dick Honan on 1 August 2002 to

discuss subsidising ethanol. In July 2012 a specific program with objectives and outcomes for the ethanol subsidy

were finally introduced, 10 years after its initial introduction.

On 30 June 2015 a Federal ethanol subsidy finally ends at a total cost to the Commonwealth of some

$895 million over the program's life with one participant, Honan Holdings Pty Ltd, receiving $543.4 million or

70.2 per cent of all program funding. In January 2015 the Australian Audit Office found:

The Australian Government's recent decision to close the EPGP was informed by a consistent body of analysis and advice—

provided to successive governments since the program's earliest days—drawing attention to shortcomings in the overall policy

approach and the likelihood that program costs would exceed benefits.

In relation to donations that run parallel to these developments, since 2010 Manildra has donated $574,867 to

Labor and $1,306,071 to the Coalition. Since 1998 Manildra has donated $4.3 million to the various Coalition and

Labor entities of which we are currently aware. After this Manildra quickly moved off the Federal teat and onto

the State teat at the expense of motorists and fuel retailers in this State. Leaked Cabinet documents show that in

2011 the New South Wales Coalition Government ignored advice from energy Minister Chris Hartcher, senior

bureaucrats, the Crown Solicitor and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on removing the

ethanol mandate and former Premier Barry O'Farrell chose to double the mandate instead. According to a story in

the Daily Telegraph in January 2012:

A senior government source said last night the only producer of ethanol in NSW, Manildra, "gives a lot of money to political parties

and has bought (itself) a monopoly".

Customers don't want it and we have a mandate to make people take it. If you (were to) dump the mandate, then you don't have to

abolish unleaded petrol," the source said.

Subsequently there were 20 meetings with senior Ministers in three months. This week the Hon. Victor Dominello,

the responsible Minister, was caught misleading the House by an order of magnitude by simply using Manildra's


job figures—figures that members relied on—without bothering to check them. I can tell this House that the dots

are being joined, the rocks are being flipped and investigations are ongoing. This scandal may well be the undoing

of the Government, but it is at the expense of all the motorists and the retailers of New South Wales. As the

Hon. Dr Peter Phelps has said, it is the antithesis of Liberal doctrine to support this sort of crony capitalism. The

people of New South Wales are watching and investigating. [Time expired.]

NSW POLITICIANS AND MEDIA ALLEGATIONS

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (16:08): Last month the Daily Telegraph engaged in one of its favourite

obsessions, an attack on New South Wales politicians. Under a barrage of front-page headlines—including "Jobs

for the boys", "Baird's MPs get a bit on the side", "Where the money is", "How our pollies make pay dirt"—

Andrew Clennell claimed under red "Exclusive" banners that:

The vast majority of Baird Government MPs are earning tens of thousands of dollars on top of their generous base salaries through

parliamentary side roles, some of which require hardly any work at all.

He claimed to reveal this as a result of a Daily Telegraph "Investigation". What a lame effort. Where was the

Tele's trademark parody and ridicule? They could not even be bothered photoshopping the MPs. In fact, all of the

appointments are publicly disclosed in multiple locations and are consistent with similar arrangements in all

Australian parliaments with governments of all persuasions. The remuneration arrangements are also consistent

with Australian governments of all persuasions. The quantum of remuneration is determined by the Independent

Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal and published.

Consistent with this tabloid's record of lazy work, the story is not a result of any "Investigation" but is,

as disclosed in the article, the work of an Opposition member. Also consistent with that lazy approach and

unethical journalistic practices, as one of the committee chairs named I was not contacted or given any opportunity

to comment before being slurred again by this newspaper. The State Development Committee that I chair is

undertaking two very important inquiries—one into Aboriginal enterprise and development and the other into

regional planning. I also serve on several other committees including what is probably the busiest committee, the

Legislation Review Committee.

When my ministerial career ended in 2013, I was not allowed to defend myself. Media responses were

suffocatingly controlled by the then Premier's office. I am not going to continue to allow this newspaper and other

lazy media organisations to carry on peddling the line that I was "sacked" for a "jobs for the boys scandal".

Members know the campaign that was conducted against me. They also know of the mistakes I made and the fact

that I accepted the outcome and have got on with life and my job since. However, getting onto three years from

the event it really is time for the Daily Telegraph to stop repeating the slur. Then Premier O'Farrell stated that

I was being removed because of a "perceived conflict of interest", which he said was not disclosed. His action

came after nearly two months of a campaign led by the Daily Telegraph, during which time he had continued to

support me.

For the record, I did not make the appointment in question and there was no conflict of interest. I was

portfolio Minister for Sydney Water. Under the legislation directors of Sydney Water are appointed by the

shareholding Ministers, who at the time included the then Premier. All appointments were subject to personal

approval by the then Premier. For the record, to the extent that there was any perceived potential conflict of interest

I had disclosed that relationship to the Premier in writing in accordance with the requirements. Several of my

colleagues have seen the letter. For the record, the appointment was not a Cabinet appointment or decision. As

with other appointments, Cabinet was provided with a list that foreshadowed the appointments for information.

Andrew Clennell and others know full well that the appointment was by the shareholding Ministers. Indeed, on

the day of my removal Clennell had emailed the then Premier a list of questions indicating that he understood this

and foreshadowing that he was going to implicate the then Premier in the story. He also wrote an article on

27 November 2013 outlining the process and roles.

It is not as though my position has not been aired. I am sure Clennell read the Sean Nicholls story headed

"Pearce says conflict was disclosed" in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 September 2013. There was no "jobs for

the boys scandal". It existed in Clennell's mind and in his paper. As I have said before, despite all of Clennell's

innuendo, misrepresentation, defamation and slurs, and his resort to guilt by association, there has never been any

evidence of inappropriate influence, unqualified or improper appointments or incompetence in my ministerial

performance—because there was none. I have no argument with Barry O'Farrell, although he has been known to

have a faulty memory. I also have no problem with the Daily Telegraph doing what it thinks it has to do, but I do

expect it to at least make some attempt to be even handed and accurate.


NSW STADIA STRATEGY

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ (16:13): Recently the Baird Government's stadia policy has been a movable

feast. On the eve of last years' budget estimates hearings the Premier was on Channel 7 announcing that the Sydney

Cricket Ground Trust and Stadium Australia Group had signed a heads of agreement whereby the control and

operation of ANZ Stadium would be returned to the New South Wales Government via the Sydney Cricket Ground

and Sport Trust. How those two entities came to be negotiating a heads of agreement that appeared in the Brogden

Stadia Strategy is anyone's guess. That the Brogden report seemed to have already decided that the control of

stadiums was going to the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust is even more interesting. In light of the current outcome,

the government's stadia strategy—although the term "strategy" may give the wrong impression—is extraordinary.

Try getting a copy of the heads of agreement and you will come up with nought. Where that heads of agreement

is now is anyone's guess, but I think I can safely say it will never see the light of day.

The most poignant comment within the Brogden report is that the heads of agreement centralised control

within the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust. The views of the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust on the Sydney Olympic

Park stadium are well known in sporting communities. The lobbying by the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust for a

55,000 to 60,000 seat stadium to be built at either Centennial Park and Moore Park Lands, which is the Minister

for Sport's preferred option, or a new stadium built on the site of the Sydney Football Stadium, which is the

Premier's preferred option, rested on a view that the stadium in Western Sydney was a white elephant and all

sporting events should be centred around Moore Park. That view belied the growth of events in the west at a

stadium built closer to the geographic heart of Sydney. It would appear the Government did not flinch at the idea

that the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust would be given control of the site under the heads of agreement.

With the heads of agreement now dead and the Government committed to investment in a rectangular,

covered stadium at Sydney Olympic Park the big question now is what is the Minister for Sport's vision for the

so-called super trust? In February this year he was talking up a super trust to create in his words "an entity with

positive cash flows" that would "reduce cross city duelling for major events". That sounds awfully like that very

un-liberal idea of a monopoly. I am sure the members of the sporting codes will see it as such. Rather than the

earlier comments that the Government would not tell sports where to play, it sounds awfully as though they will

and that they will tell them how much they will pay. Even more extraordinarily, the Minister for Sport argues the

competition is not between Moore Park and Sydney Olympic Park but between Singapore and Sydney. Really?

I am not sure the last time he was in Singapore but certainly John Brogden never visited the Sports Hub whilst

writing his report.

I was in Singapore earlier this year when there Sports Hub had only three events. One of those was a

Super Rugby game with new Japanese team the Sunwolves—hardly an event taken from the Sydney market.

Another was a World Rugby Sevens tournament, which, by the way, we also still play in Sydney. The only

upcoming sporting events I could find in Hong Kong was the Mega Ice Hockey and the Hong Kong Cricket Sixers.

They are hardly competition to the Sydney market. If the competition is with Melbourne would not a rectangular

stadium of 77,000 seats—something the Minister has consistently railed against—make more sense than a 55,000

seat boutique stadium? The so-called stadia strategy is sounding less and less like a strategy every day and more

and more like a Byzantine court. It is pretty short on detail. Crucially, it will be interesting to see if the Government

will hand control of Western Sydney's sporting infrastructure over to a super trust from the big end of town in the

eastern suburbs.

PORT OF NEWCASTLE PROTEST

Mr SCOT MacDONALD (16:16): This Sunday an anti-fossil fuel protest is planned with the intention

of disrupting shipping in the Port of Newcastle. The protest has already succeeded. The Oceania cruise line

announced earlier this week that its ship the Insignia has cancelled its visit to Newcastle this weekend due to

concerns about the risky activities of the protesters. This narcissistic, selfish behaviour by Break Free, 350.org,

Greenpeace, The Greens and allied groups has had a material economic impact on Hunter businesses. The tourism

sector estimates that $250,000 has been lost by family businesses that were to supply tours, food, Hunter produce

and other activities that passengers of the Insignia had planned.

More than 300 tour places were booked to the wine country, Nelson Bay and other sites around the

region. The Insignia is one of the Oceania ships that operates out of North America. The Port of Newcastle and

those involved in developing Newcastle's cruise industry have been working with the Oceania group for nearly

two years to encourage them to visit the Hunter. The cruise operators plan their schedules years out. It was quite

a coup to attract this ship. I am advised that the Insignia is now unlikely to consider a stopover in Newcastle for

a least another year.

There are many means of lawful protesting. An endless array of mainstream media, social media,

petitions, political activity and protests can be undertaken to convey people's beliefs, but 350.org has chosen a


strategy that hurts small businesses across the Hunter. The strategy of placing kayaks and small craft in the path

of large ships endangers activists, police, port workers, commercial fishers and maritime workers. Most of the

activists come from outside of Newcastle. As I have pointed out before, they come, they protest and disrupt the

community and then return to their inner-city, fossil-fuel dependent lives.

The 350.org campaign organiser is based in Melbourne. They do not bear the cost of the disruption. They

do not contribute to the wellbeing of Newcastle. You will not find them helping out in floods or storms. They are

not members of the State Emergency Service, service clubs or sporting organisations in the Hunter. For them the

damage to the harmony and family businesses of the Hunter are collateral damage. In their view that is an

acceptable price to pay for a few seconds on the weekend news.

One of the most perverse aspects to this protest is the damage it is doing to the Hunter as it endeavours

to diversify its economy. Developing tourism and hospitality is identified as a future growth strategy. Visitation,

food and culture have always been important to the region. Local operators, Aboriginal organisations, chambers

of commerce and all levels of government have been investing in infrastructure and a range of programs to boost

economic activity in the sector.

Competing for and expanding the cruise industry is one of the tools in the toolbox to drive tourism, but

it is a highly competitive global business. It can take years to woo an operator and book in ships. Cruising

schedules are locked in years in advance. They will go where the experience is rich, varied and safe. The Oceania

line has now determined the visit to Newcastle on 8 May is not worth the risk. These protesters are undermining

the transformation of the Hunter.

I call on Breakfree, Greenpeace, 350.org and The Greens to reconsider their tactics. They should

acknowledge that they cannot control every activist once they are on the harbour. Past protests have seen unsafe

behaviour and it is this risky activity that has caused widespread economic harm to the Hunter. It is not too late

to direct their supporters to stay off the water. There is ample room to demonstrate and make their presence felt

on the foreshores around the port. That would be legal and safe and would not go unnoticed by the media. The

response by Breakfree organiser Charlie Woods to the news of the cancellation of the visit by the Insignia is not

credible. She said on ABC Newcastle radio:

All interactions with the harbour will be conducted entirely peacefully and safely.

We have a very robust risk management plan.

There'll be people from all walks of life out on the water who've not participated in these kinds of activities before, but who will

be equipped and trained adequately.

The safety risks are negligible, to non-existent.

It's not intended at all to interfere with the operation of non-coal shipping.

We will be able to identify ships that are not coal ships and let them into the harbour.

So, it's a shame that this cruise ship has decided to take that decision.

Ms Charlie Woods may think it is a shame. The professional port workers, emergency service personnel and cruise

operators understand Ms Woods claims about risk are hollow. Unfortunately, it is Hunter businesses and families

that have paid the price for the stunt planned on Sunday.

DEATH OF MR JOHN CREIGHTON

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN (16:21): The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party unequivocally

supports the right of people to protest. Indeed, when we had the debate on the changes to the Inclosed Lands,

Crimes and Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Interference) Bill 2016 some people locked themselves

to the front gate of Parliament House. During that debate I raised the death of logging worker John Creighton at

Whian Whian as one of the reasons why the Shooters and Fishers Party, as it was known at that time, was

supporting the legislation. His death came about whilst he was acting as a lookout for the safety of protesters

illegally trespassing on a logging site and he was tragically struck by a falling tree branch.

At the time of that debate members of The Greens were calling me a "liar" and a "grub" from across the

Chamber for raising this example. I did not take points of order—I have broad shoulders. Mr Hans Lovejoy of the

Byron Shire Echo misled his readers in the 30 March edition of his paper when he said there was no correlation

between the protesters and Mr Creighton's tragic passing. Today I will correct the record with the facts.

I have the Coroner's report from the death of Mr Creighton, and I have received permission from his

widow, Barbara, to read the relevant part of it onto the record in this place. She is particularly upset at the Coroner's

handling of the matter, that the Coroner's report has not been made public, and that the protesters involved have

not had to face consequences for their actions—consequences that Barbara has had to live with. I hope to right


some of these wrongs today. The report is dated 17 February 2015 and its file number is 2013/350429. Coroner J.

A. Linden said:

I find that the deceased died at about 7:45 p.m. on 10 October 2013 at Southport as a result of a traumatic head injury sustained

when struck by a falling tree branch during the course of his employment at Whian Whian.

Having made the formal findings, I make the following comments in respect of the matter.

The necessity of the deceased being on the site at all related directly and solely to the presence of unlawful protesters. The logging

contractor was acting lawfully pursuant to licences to fell timber on the property. The protesters were conducting guerrilla tactics

part of which involved an activity described as a "black wallaby". This action placed the protesters in the vicinity of trees being

felled thereby endangering their lives.

The deceased was brought on the site as a lookout for such activity to ensure the safety of all persons.

Following the tragic accident that saw the death of Mr Creighton some unlawful protesters were heard by police and workers to

comment that it was "Karma". This is of course a cynical and disgusting excuse and/or justification for their unlawful activities

which led to his death.

At a conference with the deceased's widow and family, concern was expressed at the lack of communication between police and

the family. I recommend that within the Local Area Command, the informant be designated the responsibility of liaising with

family about the progress of Coronial matters.

I am satisfied that an inquest will not take this matter any further and pursuant to section 25 of the Coroner's Act 2009 I dispense

with holding an inquest.

The content of that report and the assertions made by people following my speech disgust me. Tragedies such as

Mr Creighton's death must be prevented. Not only was he doing the right thing but also he was selflessly looking

out for the safety of others. He was going about his daily work. He was just another worker doing the job he was

supposed to do. The Greens and their supporters should think twice before launching their next campaign of fear

and misinformation; real people are affected.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): The question is that this House do now

adjourn.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 16:26 until Tuesday 10 May 2016 at 14:30.