F3 Freeway

I was "bumped" from being able to make a Private Member's Statement on the last day of Parliament sitting - a few of us missed out due to the quaint, if not disingenuous custom of Christmas Felicitations. This is where a few from Government and Opposition make kind comments about each other and staff of the Parliament - that part I agree with, member's staff and staff of the Parliament are generally very good.

Anyhow, below is the speech I was going to make.

The 127-kilometre long F3 Freeway is one of the most important components of the eastern seaboard road network. The Lake Macquarie electorate has the greatest share of this road, with 59 kilometres either within or forming part of its boundary. It is one of the two most important roads in the electorate - the other being main road 217, which I have raised in this House on numerous occasions and for which I still seek urgent improvements.

The F3 typically carries over 80,000 vehicles daily with this exceeding 100,000 on weekends and holidays. It provides Sydney’s main connection to Queensland and the New England area.

On 27 February last year I spoke in this house about unsatisfactory hold-ups caused by traffic incidents on the F3, probably the worst of which was a seven hour delay caused by a truck crash and resulting fire. Incidents such as these may be beyond the RTA’s control, but the response to them isn’t. At that time I mentioned the importance of diverting traffic onto at least one lane of the opposite carriageway.

It was a great relief for many Lake Macquarie Residents when the F3 Emergency Traffic Management Plan of March last year included numerous contra-flow crossovers to allow the bypassing of accident scenes. According to the RTA’s website, fifteen crossovers are now available for use and others will be introduced progressively.

The completion of roadwork to widen a 12.5 km section of the F3 between Mt Colah and Cowan to six lanes has also been well received. This section is of great importance in meeting the combined needs of the Central Coast and the Lower Hunter. As a regular user of this road, I can attest to the quality of the construction. The project was a long time in the delivery, but it appears to be an excellent piece of engineering.

The wet weather speed zone between Mooney Mooney and Mt White, however, remains a significant discrepancy between the planned and actual quality of road. I don’t question the data showing this as a problem area, but I believe that there should be an engineering solution that will deliver the standard of road originally planned. I acknowledge, however, that it would be unfair to blame the road for the actions of drivers and that the driving behaviour of many motorists leaves a great deal to be desired. I can’t speak for all roads but it is my guess that some of the silliest and most dangerous driving in the state can regularly be observed on the F3 – this is something that needs to be addressed through a greater visible presence of Highway Patrol vehicles on the road.

The recent improvements in southern sections of the F3 now bring into sharp focus the need to improve capacity and travel times to the north and northwest of the end of the F3, particularly via the proposed Hunter Expressway. Residents of Lake Macquarie have often expressed their concerns for this project and I support their views that it should be expedited. The 40 km link from Seahampton to Branxton will greatly reduce travel times from Newcastle and Lake Macquarie to the Upper Hunter and New England. A joint media release by the Federal Member for Hunter and the Minister for Roads pointed to a tender being selected this year for a first stage of the project, with the second stage to be confirmed in 2010. People throughout the region are waiting for signs of progress.

Concerns have also been raised over the capacity of Lower Hunter roads to cope with increased traffic volumes related to the Hunter Expressway and these concerns need to be addressed.

There is also another significant step that needs to be taken to improve traffic on the F3 and that is to reduce the number of commuters choosing road in preference to rail. I spoke in this House last week about the inadequacy of existing rail services, particularly journey times. If the improvements in road travel times were at all paralleled by improvements in rail journey times there would be an entirely different level of patronage of rail services. In an era where we are increasingly conscious of the finite nature of our traditional energy sources more resources need to be allocated to public transport.

The RTA is not perfect and is frequently criticised by politicians and by the public but it should be acknowledged that the vast majority of their projects are completed to a very high standard and the recent improvements to the F3 are an example of this.

Surface Coal Mining Prohibition (Lake Macquarie) Bill 2009

December 1, I met with the Minister for Planning, Kristina Keneally, one of her advisors and a senior person from the Department of Planning to discuss the Government’s position on the Bill.

It is my understanding that a Cabinet decision on whether to support such a Bill is based largely if not solely on the recommendation of the relevant Minister. The Minister indicated from the start of the meeting that she had decided not to support the Bill.

Her reasons included the view that the existing provisions for Lake Macquarie contained within SEPP (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007, are sufficient to ensure that open cut, including the recent auger mining proposal, remain a prohibition with Lake Macquarie.

The Minister referred to advice from legal counsel on which they have based this view. Even more surprisingly, she indicated to me that this advice - or part thereof - was the reason Centennial Coal withdrew its proposal for the Olstan project. This is completely at odds with the reasons stated by Centennial and raises questions as to why any decisive opinion was not released or even referred to by the Government at that time.

Local residents and myself had been waiting for the release of advice from Counsel and many were disappointed when we were told that the seeking of advice was discontinued when the project was withdrawn. Something just doesn’t add up with that view, however the Minister responded to my question by saying that she would find out why the advice wasn’t referred to. In the meantime, I have lodged an FOI application with the Department of Planning for information relating to any legal or technical advice it may have received regarding the permissibility of the project.

The Minister also said that the DoP had concerns that provisions of my Bill may have unforeseen impacts on underground mining operations by inadvertently prohibiting associated surface works such as buildings, drifts and other infrastructure. I do not believe that there is any likelihood that such an interpretation could be made of the Bill and can only see both purported reasons as an attempt to justify what seems to be a political decision to not support a Private Member’s Bill, particularly a Private Member who holds a notional Labor seat!

Advancing the Bill at this stage would see it “killed” by the Government, so I will be postponing debate on the Bill until next year and use the ensuing time to meet with local residents, particularly the executives of BAM, SCAM and NOCMFA to discuss where to from here.

The Bill is inherently sensible and supports and improves on State policy. It is about ensuring that no clever use of definitions can bring about another proposal for an open cut mine or anything that looks or smells like an open cut mine. I remain supportive of the coal mining industry in Lake Macquarie where coal is retrieved using traditional underground methods. This Bill should be passed.

The Entrance of Chris Spence

One of the almost inevitable features of a Parliamentary sitting day is that a motion to be accorded priority will be afforded the Government based on their ability to use their majority in the House. The motion is the first item following Question Time and regardless of the merit of the motion proposed by the Government or the Opposition, the Government will invariably force their motion to be the one accorded priority.

It is therefore disappointing that these motions are almost always either a motion of self-congratulation or an attack on the Opposition. This has been a long-standing process and is unlikely to change. It is often very difficult for an Independent to take aside on what is clearly a party political stoush.

Last week and again today the Government has chosen to use the priority motion to attack the Liberal endorsed candidate for The Entrance, Chris Spence. Chris Spence was a high-ranking member of One Nation, serving with Pauline Hanson and David Oldfield some 10 years ago.

As a political target for the NSW ALP he certainly would appear to make a good one. The nature of the policies that he would have supported at that stage would be repugnant to most people, policies that I personally find to have been completely unacceptable.

That said I do not know the person and I have no idea whether he has changed his views since then. I do know that there are examples of people from all walks of life that have made major changes to their lives and thinking as they grow and mature. Atheists have found God, religious have lost their faith, conservatives have joined the left, socialists have been drawn to the right, and bigots and racists have changed their views and sought to atone for their previous actions – while not common, it is not rare.

I voted against the Government’s motion calling for amongst other things for the Liberal Party to disendorse Mr Spence. I believe that apart from whatever Mr Spence’s views might be today, the decision is for the Liberal Party and if they have got it wrong the electorate will deal with their candidate appropriately. In a sense, if Mr Spence is as objectionable as the Government suggests then his candidacy should be to their benefit, as I do not believe that the people of The Entrance would wish to be represented by someone espousing right wing and extreme views.

I should mention that while I voted against this Government motion I also voted against the Opposition amendment, which was couched in similar partisan terms against the Government. Those who enjoy the cut and thrust of debate within the “bear pit” may enjoy this style of debate. I believe that it does a disservice to the standing of the Parliament in the eyes of the public and only serves to reinforce negative views of politicians within NSW. If nothing else this debate consumed a lot of Parliamentary time; and an almost identical motion was moved and debated just last week!

Leave of Absence

I need to apologise for my so far unexplained absence - its nearly ten weeks since I have updated the Blog! Ten weeks where I just haven't been able to bring myself to make comment on the woeful state of political leadership in NSW. My sincere apologies to Sally, not so much because she likes to read what I write, but more because she sees my Blog as a tangible sign that I have at least done something!

NSW has not risen to any great heights of governance or political maturity in the meantime. Highlights include the overturning in the Land and Environment Court of the approval given by former Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, for the controversial Catherine Hill Bay development. The development proposed by the Rose Group was found to have been tainted (my words) by a memorandum of understanding signed by the Minister and the developer regarding land transfers to the public once approved. This is one of those times I get to say "told you so" as I specifically made that point to Frank soon after his approval. I told him that I believed he had compromised the perception of objectivity in assessing the proposal. I must admit that I saw it as a point of complaint but not one that would gain enough traction to succeed in court.

The judgement leaves some outstanding questions, though. The Government often gives some indication of "you do that, we'll do this." Councils do it as well and I have often been with staff where we have negotiated a range of outcomes attached to a future approval. Specifically, this is done under Voluntary Planning Agreements where a fair balance between development and other outcomes is negotiated. The judgement needs further explanation to clarify where this type of approach can rightly be applied as opposed to where it would fetter an objective assessment.

Did anything else happen in the meantime? ..... other than the murder of Michael McGurk, the re-emergence of Graham Richardson from the shadows, an introduction to the Medich brothers, an Upper House Inquiry into Planning issues surrounding lobbyists; and of course, the downfall of the Minister for Health John Della Bosca, and serious questions about ALP connections with Hightrade, Tony Stewart gained a victory of sorts when Premier Rees agreed that not all relevant information was considered when Chris Ronalds SC inquired into his behaviour; for this, Stewart dropped further legal action against the State - to mention just a few.

In the meantime the Shooters Party continue to unashamedly hold the Government to ransom in the Upper House until the Government supports their Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill allowing amongst other things, hunting in National Parks.

Amongst a myriad of other things, I have been working on a Private Members Bill (Surface Coal Mining Prohibition (Lake Macquarie) Bill 2009) that would unequivocally rule out the possibility of open-cut or “open-cut-ish” mining operations in Lake Macquarie. The text of the Bill is available on my website and I will write more on it soon. At this stage however, I am hoping to do the First Reading of the Bill on Friday 13th November and in the meantime will be asking the Government to support the Bill rather than kill or modify it.I am meeting with staff from Minister Keneally's office tomorrow and hope to get an indication of their view.

Tony Stewart Part II

Tony Stewart is finally having his day in Court over his sacking as a NSW Government Minister.  Representing the Government, Brett Walker SC has argued to the NSW Court of Appeal that the judiciary should have nothing to do with the decision. 

Walker argues that the Ministerial appointment was an at-pleasure appointment and that Stewart could have been sacked without the report of Chris Ronalds SC.  Mr Walker is absolutely correct that Nathan Rees did not need the report to get rid of Tony Stewart as a Minister – the grievance is that he used the report! 

Rees could have chosen to get rid of him because he didn’t like his style, his dress sense, or his haircut….. anything at all; but using the questionable findings of a ‘kangaroo court’ that would leave a black mark against his name is shameful. 

It is hard to know if the woeful judgment exhibited on many issues since becoming Premier can all be attributed to the Premier's natural and inherent genius - if so, then we're in big trouble.  I suspect that while the Premier must take ultimate responsibility for the decisions, he has no doubt been provided with atrocious advice from his Labor appointed advisors.

I don't believe that there is an argument that Stewart should be reinstated as a Minister.  That would be untenable and undermine the right of the Premier to select his Ministerial team.  The Premier however should acknowledge that the Ronalds investigation was flawed, should not have been used as the basis of Stewart's sacking ...... and he should offer Tony Stewart and his family an apology.

Della Bosca! - to the Back of the Line Please!

The news that John Della Bosca might be making a move for the Premiership has surprised me, and I would be surprised if the plan is advanced as media speculation suggests. Della’s aspirations for the top job have been part of routine speculation for some time and if he was in the Legislative Assembly when Morris Iemma resigned I have no doubt that he would be Premier now. 

As it is, he’s in the Upper House (Legislative Council) and would need to find a Lower House seat to contest and win before he could become Premier.  Regardless of speculation as to whether the Premier can be from the LC, the reality is that it would be almost impossible for that to be the case.  That’s the first hurdle. 

Secondly, he would need to be very sure that he had the numbers to displace Nathan Rees before having a go because adding to his risk, he would have to resign from the Legislative Council so as to contest an election for the Legislative Assembly.  Under that scenario he could end up with nothing – the ultimate political fizzer! 

Thirdly, Della Bosca is regarded as a smart politician and from what I have seen of him I would agree.  He knows that the ALP factions are more divided now than for a long time.  Not only would he have to be able to unite warring parties to get support; he would need to convince the electorate that he is worthy of support, particularly with the damage the Iguanagate Affair did to him.  Della is a good politician and given time he could probably convince the electorate about himself – I have my doubts though that they would easily embrace John and Belinda. 

I might be wrong but I can’t see this happening yet even though there seem few options acceptable to the Party.  Frank Sartor can never be written off either.  He certainly has his enemies and detractors but Sartor also has a track record of achievement and quite a few friends (political friends – not necessarily friends in the sense most people use the word) across the factions.  Those loyalties will no doubt further test Della's ability to get sufficient support. The only thing certain is that if Nathan Rees is to improve his popularity in the polls it will need to be on the back of Rudd and the Federal stimulus funding.  If that doesn’t work then we’ll see the outcome suggested by some from the Right – there will never be another Premier from the Left!  For some, the experiment will have failed, for others, the Plan will have worked!

Rees Investing in the Hunter

It was very heartening to see the six page glossy "Community Cabinet Report - Investing in the Hunter" delivered throughout the electorate of Lake Macquarie this week.  

While there are lots of worthwhile projects being promised for the Region, the Business as Usual spin of this Premier is heartening, especially when we would have all been worried by his claims of a fresh approach as Premier, promising to do away with spin.

As the State desperately tries to attach itself to the massive Commonwealth Economic Stimulus package Nathan Rees seems to have deferred his commitment to all things "fair dinkum".  The opportunity to role out blatant Party Political advertising under the guise of information was obviously just too much of a temptation.

I can only guess what the cost of these brochures were but I imagine $30,000 per electorate would not be far off the mark.  Not a bad supplement to the Electoral Mailout Allowance for the local Labor members for Swansea, Charlestown, Newcastle, Wallsend and Maitland, the only local members who featured!  Of course, it would be even better if all of this printing was done locally - and as there is no indication on the brochure, I imagine they can claim that it was.  

Not to say that the Government hasn't been fair though.  They did after all deliver two boxes of these brochures to my State office.  And just to be fair, if anyone wants one, I would be glad to get a brochure to them - after all, if the Premier has been tempted back into using public funds for partisan, party political purposes, it would be a shame to further waste the hundreds of thousands of dollars they are spending on brochures, TV, internet, and other areas telling us how good they are.

Olstan Auger Mine abandoned!

The proposed Olstan Auger Mining Project near Blackalls Park in Lake Macquarie has been officially confirmed as dead. In a Media Release this afternoon, Centennial Coal has confirmed that they will be withdrawing the application for the development which would have produced a relatively minor 1.5 million tonnes of coal over the 3 year life of the project.

Having had discussions with the General Manager earlier today, I was pleased that the confirmation of that understanding was forthcoming.  Centennial have based their decision on the commercial viability of the project which all agreed was marginal from the start.  The environmental requirements and the additional standards which Centennial wished to apply so as to address community concern have shown that the project was not worth pursuing.

This is great news for all those people in the local area who were very concerned for the health and amenity of their area, as well as for the natural environment which would have been significantly impacted by what I believe would have constituted a hybrid open-cut/auger mine. 

We must now make sure that the definition of an open-cut mine, banned in Lake Macquarie, incorporates mining techniques such as was proposed.

Text of the Media Release below:

Friday July 17, 2009

PROPOSED OLSTAN PROJECT

Centennial Coal has announced its decision to withdraw the project application for the proposed

Olstan Auger project following its review of the latest technical studies.

“Centennial and its consultants have been conducting technical studies to ensure that the

project would comply with both the statutory environmental standards and our own company

standards”, said Katie Brassil, Centennial Coal’s Group Manager External Affairs.

“As studies have progressed there have been a number of concessions to the mine design in

order to address potentially unacceptable impacts on the environment and community. These

changes have increased both capital and operating costs and the project is no longer viable”, Ms

Brassil continued.

In April this year, Centennial lodged a Project Application including a Preliminary Environmental

Assessment (PEA) with the Department of Planning for the proposed Olstan Auger Project.

Olstan was to be a small-scale auger-mining project recovering less than 1.5mtpa of remnant

coal over 3 years.

Centennial has consistently highlighted that the onus is on the company, as project proponent,

to demonstrate, using scientifically based evidence and fact, both the benefits and impacts a

proposal may have for the local community.

Therefore, Centennial has been progressively working on the range of technical studies required

to compile the final comprehensive Environmental Assessment for the project. The assessment

process also requires concurrent community consultation while finalising the technical studies to

ensure informed and balanced decision making on the project.

“Centennial has followed the government’s rules and processes, and while the proposed project

has garnered opposition, Centennial has remained focussed on the planning and assessment

process and the facts, and this is the basis for our decision to withdraw the project application”,

Ms Brassil explained.

Olstan was intended to supply coal to fill current contracts with the local power stations.

Therefore, other options will now be investigated to address any potential shortfall. These

options may include increasing production at an existing operation or sourcing coal from another

location.

Centennial’s long-term future in the Lake Macquarie area remains with our existing operations

and the Awaba East and Mandalong South underground projects.

Solar Feed-In Tariff for NSW

The announcement today by the Minister for Environment and Climate Change that NSW will introduce a feed-in tariff for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems up to 10 kilowatt is great news for the PV industry and particularly good news for residents and small business operators who have already, or are wanting to, invest in this form of renewable energy. The policy will take effect in January 2010.

While many people and groups have been calling for a gross feed-in tariff, this net feed-in tariff is certainly better than none, and returning a rate of 60 cents per kilowatt hour is very generous. A net feed-in tariff means that the installation will earn money for energy surplus to the household or business need, and sent to the grid. A gross feed-in tariff would have seen all power generated, including that used within the home or business, paid a tariff.

The Minister and Government has rejected that proposition for a number of reasons including the view that the net system will encourage greater energy efficiency from the premise, and that the feed-in tariff must be paid for by all power users by way of a small increase across the user base. That is true, though it is unclear to me just what the variation in cost might be. The Minister's statement also identified that many people would be financially unable to invest in PV systems and that the net feed-in tariff was more equitable for those people.

As well as the 60 cents per kilowatt tariff, which is some four times the retail energy rate, household or small businesses will still gain the benefit of power they generate and use, thus not having to purchase power at 15 cents per kilowatt.

Even though a typical installation will take an estimated 12 years to pay off, this new policy on a Feed-In Tariff is great news which will drive investment in PV systems creating jobs and further encouraging investment in improving the technology. Minister Tebutt and the Government need to be congratulated on this one!

Favours for Old Ute - Fair Shake of the Sauce Bottle!

With calls for Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan to resign over the "Ute Affair" you would hope that there was something truly significant to the issue - not so that we can see a Prime Minister or senior Minister brought down; but so as the Opposition can remain credible.  

To most Australians this would seem like a huge waste of time.  The ute in itself seems to me to be a modest contribution to a local member and I imagine that someone has been trolling and cross checking every declaration the Kevin Rudd has made.

The issue to be fair isn't now about the ute as such; it is about whether or not Kevin Rudd mislead Parliament in denying assisting his friend and car dealer, John Grant, in seeking assistance through the Federal OzCar Scheme.  I imagine that it would be very easy for Kevin Rudd to ask questions or make comments that could be used against him by political enemies. He would speak with so many people on so many issues unless he knowingly set out to do something wrong I doubt that he would even remember such detail.

Perhaps my views on this one are a bit soft - but really, does Malcolm Turnbull really think that anyone other than "rabid right" anti Ruddites would want to bring down a Government over an issue such as this?

Police to get more Tasers

The announcement that NSW Police will be getting an additional 1962 Tasers for front-line officers will clearly be controversial.  The news that $10M for this will be announced in the State Budget on Tuesday (funny how so many leaks get out - surely the Government wouldn't be manipulating the media?) will be welcomed by police and condemned by civil libertarians.  I agree that there needs to be caution about such changes but I also think that we need to keep a balance in the debate.  

Tasers at face-value provide an option for police where given limited options in a life threatening situation, might be placed in the unenviable position of needing to use their firearm. A Taser can defuse a situation just by its being drawn, and if fired, is highly likely to produce a non-lethal end to the situation.

The risk is, and the one that civil libertarians fear, is that some police may be inclined to deploy a Taser in situations that could have been handled with less force.  While this is a risk and one that will no doubt occur, I believe that we should defer to the good sense of most officers faced with this decision. It is all very well for sideline commentators to argue what is best but those commentators are not the ones who are too frequently exposed to risk of grievous harm including death whilst carrying out their responsibility to protect the community at large.

Police armed with Tasers will need to exercise appropriate restraint and exercise maturity in making a decision to use a weapon which while described as being non-lethal, can still cause serious injury including death.  Eight hours training and an 80 percent pass on a written test doesn't sound to be adequate training for such a weapon and I would predict that there will be changes to that in future.  Lets hope that the police don't follow the NSW Government and lose the ability to negotiate first.  But on balance, Tasers are a valid option for the men and women of the NSW Police who are frequently required to place themselves in positions of danger that most of us would not choose to do.

Sartor for Premier?

Interesting speculation again that Frank Sartor may be mounting a challenge to Nathan Rees as Premier though I'm not sure why Frank would want the job.  If he became Premier he would still have the palpable legacy of bitter factional divisions and lots of "pay backs" yet to come.  

While I think Frank would be a capable Premier, the reality is that he would need to do a lot to convince the public of that - it is unfortunate, and unfair in my opinion, but a reality, that the name Frank Sartor has been mired in the concern about how the NSW ALP has been doing business for some years. Nether the less, if it happens, and I believe it to be well founded speculation, Frank might just bring the blood letting and purge that even many rank and file Labor members are praying for.  

Part 3A Tested in Land & Environment Court by EDO

The way in which Part 3A of the EP&A Act was used to approve controversial residential developments in the Hunter, is being tested by The Environmental Defenders Office. Developments at Catherine Hill Bay (Lake Macquarie LGA) and nearby Gwandalan (Wyong LGA) , as well as the large Huntlee development straddling parts of Singleton and Cessnock LGAs near Branxton.

Reports are that there is merit in the argument against the development approval process and that they may be deemed illegal.  I understand that the basis for this is that agreements had been made between the Minister and the Developers as to certain outcomes prior to consideration of planning merit.

I have previously discussed this matter with Frank Sartor and indicated that I believed he had made the wrong call to sign an MOU at Catherine Hill Bay to give a certain number of lots (around 600) in exchange for land dedication to the State, prior to a proper assessment.  Surely the desire to have the land dedication fettered the ability to objectively consider other issues. This seems to be the argument being put forward by the EDO.  Let me say I can understand at face value why the former Planning Minister would have thought the outcome desirable.  In land area terms there is a substantially larger portion being transferred to the public at no cost than is going to be developed.  That however is not a consideration in planning merit terms.

O'Farrell on Stateline - Planning and Donations

On ABCs Stateline tonight we saw one of the better performances of Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell. As O'Farrell clearly articulated the Oppositions plans regarding planning regulation and election funding, he managed to blunt the usual effective cynicism of Quentin Dempster.

O'Farrell dealt appropriately with issues regarding the outrageous changes to planning that have been perpetrated on the people of NSW by Labor.  I am paraphrasing but I took his meaning to be that planning consent powers will be returned to elected local councils for most things.  Part 3A of the EP&A Act will be repealed.  The effect of Joint Regional Planning Panels soon to commence and the loss of local decision making will I believe come back to bite this Government.

In the same vein, O'Farrell is suggesting reducing the influence of big money on the election process by capping election campaign costs.  This is sensible and something that I have supported when I previously made my own submission to the Upper House Inquiry into this matter.  The system that Labor capriciously implemented following the Wollongong Council scandal is a mess, a mess that is hard to comply with, hard to police, and seemingly causing confusion even within the Election Funding Authority.  Let's make it simple - it will be better for all.

I'm not sure what the property industry will make of all this - the risk of losing their newly won power over development consent in NSW & the loss of or at least a reduction in being able to buy influence, particularly with Labor?

To be fair, when it comes to large election campaign donations, there are no clean skins, or very few, particularly amongst the traditional parties - but NSW Labor seemed to take it to a whole new and obscene level; they perfected the system.  So, if there is a stench surrounding the new planning laws, where should we look? - it's hard to get away from the powerful perception that at least a few, and some of the most influential in the Labor Party, knew exactly what they were doing.

Hunter Jobs Summit & Community Forum

I attended the State Government's Job Summit at Warners Bay this afternoon.  I attended as Mayor as I had not been invited (or acknowledged) as State Member.  Let me say first off that I think it is great that the Premier came to our area to learn about and speak about opportunities for job creation in our area.  Jobs are critically important.  A high level of work participation and incomes are vital to social justice and equity, and community well-being.  Without community well-being and reasonable wealth we cannot address pressing issues including the protection of our environment.

The Premier invited comments and questions from the floor, so I was a little surprised that he tried to cut me off in giving a preamble to my question.  I was asking if his government would support the Council in seeking Commonwealth infrastructure funding for the proposed Lake Macquarie Transport Interchange and Pennant Street Bridge at Glendale.  This project is estimated to cost $70M - $80M with a multiplier effect that would bring its value to well over $300M!  The Pennant St Bridge would allow access for some 16000 workers in the Cardiff Industrial Area, just across the rail line, to access public transport.  The bridge would also rectify problems within the road network of the industrial site, generating even more investment from business.

This project is the proverbial "no-brainer".  It has huge economic benefits in direct and ongoing jobs, builds capacity in the area that will be needed as our regional population grows, and most importantly, it will make public transport a viable and attractive option for thousands.

Unfortunately, the Premier was not generous in his response.  For some reason he wanted to point out that everyone wants something and that there is only so much money to go around. True - and the answer may have been reasonable if the Summit wasn't about creating jobs!  This would be one of the best short, medium, and long-term investments for jobs in the region.  His response was even stranger as I hadn't asked the Premier for money, rather, I asked his support to seek Commonwealth money!  A strange and disappointing response.

I wasn't at the following community forum but I understand that the Premier was given "a serve" by former Milton Orkopoulos staffer, Gillian Sneddon.  Without Gillian's courage, the activities of Orkopoulos would never have come to light.  She believes that others in the ALP knew what was happening and did nothing.  She believes that Nathan Rees knew, particularly as he had been an advisor to Milton for a year before the issue blew up - something Mr Rees denies.

Perhaps if the Premier met with Gillian, or at least gave her the chance to speak at the forum, he might be able to start the healing process.  Regardless of the payments Gillian received as entitlements after not being re-employed as an Electorate Officer, this woman has been put through hell.  Her physical and mental health has suffered, she has been unable to work and her finances are depleted.  She is worried about her future - all for having done the right thing - and if she is correct, all for doing what others should have done themselves.

Joint Regional Planning Panels

Councils throughout the state have been asked to nominate Councillors to serve on Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs) which are to be operational in July this year.  The Panels will determine Development Applications (DAs) valued over $10M, all eco-tourism developments over $5M and Council applications over $5M or where the Council has a perceived conflict of interest.  In its last term, Lake Macquarie dealt with around thirty within those categories.  The vast majority were approved and some were approved with modification to address community or council concern. 

The panels will have 5 members, 3 appointed by the Minister, and 2 nominated by the relevant Council and appointed by the Minister. Almost universally, Councils across NSW have opposed this process which is widely seen as having been a victory for the development industry  - a victory which is unlikely to satisfy them until all consent powers are removed from Councils.

While there will be Councillors willing to serve on these panels, they will be in an invidious position.  The Council nominee will not be representing the Council, that is explicit under the regulations establishing the Panels. It is very conceivable that they will frequently be at odds with the view of local residents, council officers or their fellow councillors who may from time to time make a submission on a DA.  The current system will frequently see a Council decision that goes against the views of at least some members of the community and occasionally against staff recommendations.  At least in that instance, the decision is shared by a majority of Councillors who would not have lightly taken that position, particularly when they are so close to and directly accountable to their electorate.

Will the JRPPs work?  I'm sure they will speed up decisions in some Councils, but not necessarily with better outcomes.  Are they democratic and accountable? Absolutely not!  We have moved a very long way to the right in our political and bureaucratic processes in recent times, and all through changes championed by the development industry and embraced by the NSW Labor Party.  Removing decision making by the inappropriate use of Part 3A, SEPP 71 (Coastal Development) and now JRPPs have all been unnecessary to get better outcomes for the development industry and the community.  I have no doubt that the State Government could have developed and negotiated much better outcomes that would have seen them as supporting local decision making.  Unfortunately, there remains an adversarial relationship between the state and local government in too many areas.

A meeting of the  Board of Hunter Councils, representing 11 Local Government Areas, last week recommended constituent Councils decline to nominate representatives until amongst other things, the Government addresses very real concerns about JRPPs raised in a submission by the Local Government and Shires Assoc. to the Department of Planning.

Tony Stewart - Member for Bankstown/former Minister

Nathan Rees opened up a "can of worms" when he dismissed then Minister for Small Business, Tony Stewart from the portfolio, following an investigation into alleged misconduct at a charity event.  The Premier didn't act without advice though, he commissioned the services of Chris Ronalds SC to investigate allegations by Stewart's staffer, Tina Sanger, that he had abused her and placed his hand on her leg, apparently to stop her rising from her seat.

Even though Chris Ronalds did not interview all who may have observed the incident, she found that she was more inclined to believe Ms Sanger's version of the events.  On that basis, the Premier removed Tony Stewart from Cabinet.  Two things happened to Stewart from this - he lost a prestigious position and very likely any chance to further advance in politics; but more importantly I am sure, he had his reputation damaged, perhaps irreparably.

Assuming that Stewart carried out the actions he was accused of, that may be fair.  Unfortunately, the process that Rees used was clearly a quasi judicial process more akin to a "kangaroo court" than a proper inquiry.  Tony Stewart was in my opinion denied natural justice and procedural fairness.  Whether or not that is the legal case will be decided by the Supreme Court unless the Premier takes other action acceptable to Stewart to head off a Court ruling.

I know Tony Stewart to say hello to only.  I have no idea of what he is like as a person but have never seen or heard anything to question his character.  If the Premier had other reasons for wanting to remove Stewart as a Minister then he should have just done so.  Ministers can be promoted or demoted and while there may be a political need to find some justification for it, that would surely be better than to use a process that has destroyed a mans reputation and hurt not just him, but also his family.  In trying to show that he is firmly in control, Nathan Rees once again showed that he is still very much serving an apprenticeship.  Tony Stewart has every right to be angry.  

the Drunken Slur

We all want a safer community. We want to be able to go out with our partners, friends and families without being affronted by the drunken and sometimes intimidating antics of others. But really, does Nathan Rees truly believe that police need new powers to curb anti-social behaviour, or is it not patently obvious that this is the next move in his strategy to show the Government as tough on crime?

I am unconvinced that the police cannot take action now, if they feel inclined. My guess is that they will do what they have always done, assuming they are available at the time, they will make a judgement call as to whether the behaviour warrants action and whether or not they are inclined to use their precious time for that incident.

If slurring and antisocial behaviour is to be targetted, there will be many in the politics who should be worried. One good thing about the "get tough" on law and order that we are currently going through is that it fits nicely with other policies on recycling in NSW.

Stoner on Torbay - Some Nationals just don't get it

An article in todays Sydney Morning Herald regarding the intention of at least some of the Coalition to remove an Independent Speaker if they win Government in 2011 says more about those people than it does about the job that Richard Torbay has done as Speaker during this term of Government. The article by Lisa Carty confirms the contempt that Nationals leader, Andrew Stoner, has for Mr Torbay and for the role, to which he has brought a level of fairness that has not been seen before.

Andrew Stoner's concern is no doubt more about the popularity of Richard Torbay in the seat of Northern Tablelands, a seat the Nationals believe should be held by them.  Richard Torbay, by all accounts, has improved the behaviour in the Parliament and does give fairness to both sides. 

There have been times when I feel he allows the Government too much leeway, particularly when they use Question Time to blatantly ignore the question and instead attack the Opposition. While this might seem a reasonable thing to do in a political arena, I don't believe that it improves the quality of debate or improves the standing of politicians in the eyes of the community.  That said, Torbay is no doubt acutely aware of walking a fine line in improving on past partisan performances and yet maintaining Government support for independence in a Speaker. 

Andrew Stoner's own parliamentary performance is best characterised by his arrogance.  His manner of speech, body language and actions in the Chamber, including his affected jumping to his feet, then pouring a glass of water which he then makes a show of drinking theatrically, are embarrassing. His stated intentions regarding the Speakers position will not help Independents consider favourably supporting the Coalition if the election results in a hung parliament.

While the Government shows a clear arrogance in the way they act, it is an almost inevitable outcome of a long encumbancy and a confidence from the fact that they do have some good performers.  The arrogance of Andrew Stoner is more concerning in that the Opposition, apart from a few, has not demonstrated a capacity to be a competent alternative government.  This nonsense undermines Barry O'Farrell at a time when the Coalition should be developing policy and showing that they have the vision, heart, and capacity to lead NSW out of the mess created by Labor.  As far as "mill stones" go, Andrew Stoner could be a pretty big one around O'Farrell's neck.

Sydney to Surfers for Youth Off the Street

Yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting up with just a few of the 160 people who are riding in the 2009 Macsim Sydney to Surfers Bike Ride to raise funds for Father Chris Riley's Youth Off The Streets.  The 7 day ride will no doubt be challenging and I can't imagine being fit enough to do it myself.  I understand that last years event raised over $250,000 and the riders are very hopeful for a great response again this year.  Corporate sponsors are important to the fundraising, but as one of the leading riders, Glen Druery, told me, it is well supported by small donors with all those five, ten, or twenty dollars adding up.  I was very pleased to be able to donate $250.00 to the charity when we met in Morisset at the end of Day 1 of their nearly 1000 km journey.

Electricity Infrastructure upgrades

There's no doubt that making the right political decision for the long term can often be tough. Premier Rees and Ian MacDonald, as Energy Minister, have another hard sell to do, arguing the case for a greatly needed upgrade to our power infrastructure with NSW residents having to pay more for electricity to cover the cost.

During the great Power Sell-Off debate, I had contact with industry sources who raised just this issue, that the infrastructure, particularly in high density and long developed areas such as the Sydney CBD, had been badly run down.  It was assumed that this would constitute part of the "poles and wires", the transmission network, that the Premier of the day and Michael Costa were arguing would be be kept in public hands.  The hidden liability was never discussed.

Well, the fact is that the infrastructure does need upgrading.  But doesn't that beg the question as to how this came about particularly as the Labor Government used, and still does, our energy utilities as General Revenue cash-cows for so long?

Common sense says that dividends should only be payed after running costs and depreciation have been paid for.  If this had been done it would seem unlikely that we could now be in this position.  Some of this cost might be for new and unforeseen needs - most of it is to fix the years of neglect of Labor.  The unfortunate fact is that Labor aren't that good at business; the other side of the coin of course is that the Liberals when in power have been too good at business!  In the end I have no doubt that we will have to pay more for our power, and perhaps that will help us reduce our usage - that doesn't change the fact that utility income should have been paying for, or saving for this, for many years.

Toronto Heritage Afloat

Heritage Afloat 2009 was held on the Toronto Foreshore over the Easter Long Weekend. This is a fantastic event that showcases beautifully restored and replica heritage designed boats. As well as the water craft, there are beautifully restored cars and motorcycles on display along with a whole range of other activities.  Often plagued with weather problems, the conditions this time could not have been better.  No rain, overcast skies and gentle winds, made both days very pleasant for the thousands who came.

It was a shame that Minister for the Hunter and Minister for Tourism, Jodi McKay, could not open the event.  She had been booked for months but things happen, particularly when you are as busy as Jodi.  It was a shame her office presumed to make alternative arrangements for someone else to open when that call was clearly up to the organisers.  Labor just can't help themselves, it's a mindset!  Anyhow, the political speech written for Jodi was still delivered and with only a little embarrassment caused, the opening went well - apart from my own faux pas when I said how wonderful it was to be here at Speers Point!  I couldn't believe I said it!

A highlight is definitely the Quick & Dirty Boat Building which gives all contestants the same materials and 2 hours to construct a boat that will later compete in a race on the lake.  There always interesting designs and techniques, but everyone has a great time.  I have competed twice myself but not for some years.  I should say that my results have been pretty dismal!

The guys who won the race with their canoe are apparently boat builders by trade.  They were pretty relaxed in their project and had plenty of time to finish the decorating.

The Toronto Chamber of Commerce and their band of volunteers deserve to be congratulated. This was a great event!

The TCC website is www.toronto.com.au or visit the Heritage Afloat website for more information.

Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Bill 2009

The Bikie Bill 

This legislation raises serious questions about what drives the decision making of the Rees government.  It is my observation that more than ever before, this Government is hyper-sensitive to media criticism, particularly from the Telegraph.

Premier Rees seems overly intent on being seen to act tough and decisively ..... to have a "red hot go".  There will always be times when there is no option other than to act immediately, this legislation was not one of those times.  Just days before the bill was introduced with the direction that it would be finalised that day (Thursday April 31), Nathan Rees had indicated that there was a need to make sure we got this right, and that it was more likely to be brought to Parliament in months.  Did things really change that quickly or was this some "brilliant" strategy devised by his raft of advisers?  As Baldrick would have said...... "Premier, I have a cunning plan".

I supported the legislation, even with my reservations.  It was interesting to read subsequent media comments regarding concerns from the police that this legislation was rushed through leading to a conflict with Federal legislation which limits the NSW Police from being able to use listening devices.  Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread.  Perhaps the Premier's advisers should counsel drawing a deep breath before making decisions.

My contribution to the debate can be read on Hansard - www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20090402008

gregpiper1.com

Bio-fuels

The week in Parliament wasn't remarkable for a lifting of the standards of performance. Question Time remains unmoved by calls for improved behaviour, particularly with regard to the way in which questions are answered by Ministers.

One debate I wished to join was on Bio-fuels; increasing the mandated levels of ethanol and bio-diesel in use. Unfortunately the debate was adjourned to Friday. As I believe my attendance at a Union meeting at Mannering Park regarding proposed power sector privatisation is more important, I missed the opportunity to contribute to the bio-fuels debate.

What I would have said is:

The benefits of and arguments for bio-fuel as either ethanol or bio-diesel seem to have compelling logic. We all know that E10 has provided a consistently lower cost option for motorists to fill their cars for some time. This was no doubt mostly appreciated by motorists during the period of rapid price escalation of petrol through 2007 and 2008.

While price differential and pricing point is not quite so significant at this point in time, petrol prices having reduced significantly, this will inevitably change in the foreseeable future; and, E10 is still saving motorists money.

The environmental benefits of bio-fuels have been at the forefront of the enthusiasm to increase the use of bio-diesel, and ethanol, inparticular, for many years. I can clearly recall the increased enthusiasm for ethanol coming out of the environmental movement in the 1970’s and 80’s. It was seen as a green alternative fuel that would reduce demand on finite and diminsihing fossil fuel reserves.

And so it is in many aspects. As well as reducing the demand for fossil fuel, the burning of bio-fuels produces less carbon output than fossil fuels and also less particulate matter, a major cause of health impacts particularly on our more densely populated communities.

The Member for Riverstone, in introducing the Bill on behalf of the Minister, made reference to the distinction between first-generation bio-fuels and second-generation bio-fuels, the latter of which seem at least 5 to 10 years away from being commercially viable. This Bill mandates a bio-fuel increase where for at least the short to medium term will see the feedstock being from feedstock that has other potential uses, or at least, fit the definition of first-generation bio-fuel feedstock.

Second generation include a much wider range of feedstock for ethanol production, including, manure, food waste, wood, straw, sewage, algae and other waste or by-product from food production with no current economic use.

As well as the distinction between 1st and 2nd generation feedstock, the point has been strongly made by other members that feedstock for this bio-fuel increase, even though it is first-generation bio-fuel, will be from sources that have no impact on food product or agricultuaral land that would be otherwise used for food production.

That is pleasing to know and I am sure that no member here would want to be part of supporting an industry that would have huge impacts in the areas of social justice or ecological destruction. Under the scenarios used to justify this Bill, all seems good. Without impacting on food production we can advance bio-fuel using first-gen feedstock as we move to even more sustainable second-generation bio-fuels.

Of course this doesn’t allay the fears of many including a number of academics who have watched the development of the bio-fuel industry. We are creating an industry by the use of legislated targets. It would be amazing if this industry does not reach a point where it wishes to expand beyond the mandated levels – this will no doubt change everything and create demand for feedstocks that ae currently being ruled out.

I note the Member for Kiama stating that 40% of the fuel for vehicles in Brazil is now from ethanol. The fact that vehicles can effectively be run on 40% ethanol is noted, but so should the worldwide concern over the loss of food productive land and the threat to one of the most incredible and important ecosystems on the planet, the Amazon rainforest. No one can seriously wave the flag for the industry in Brazil without recognising the massive ongoing environmental destruction occurring there.

Mandating a figure for bio-fuels intentionally creates an artificial environment for this industry. This could be supported if the concerns around bio-fuels were clearly addressed, particularly by only mandating increased bio-fuel production with second or third-generation bio-fuels.
It is inconceivable that once the mandated target is achieved, this new industry will not wish to expand, and if that means placing pressure on food production or ecological valuable land, this will be hard to resist by the government of the day.

I acknowledge that within the legislation there are provisions to suspend the mandate if available supplies of bio-fuels or feedstocks are inadequate or uneconomic. The way in which the Expert Panel referred to would consider this or apply the Sustainability Standard referred to, is unknown, and as far as I know the details surrounding the Sustainability Standard are unknown.

These matters should be much better understood prior to increasing these mandated bio-fuel levels. As with any technology, there needs to be a period of growth and development so as to be able to improve the technology. Perhaps until we know more about the impacts of bio-fuel production, the approach should be that the prescribed levels are maximum levels of bio-fuel rather than minimum.

In an article in TIME magazine of 27 March 2008, Michael Grunwald, stated “biofuels have become the vanguard of the green-tech revolution, the trendy way for politicians and corporations to show they’re serious about finding alternative sources of energy and in the process slowing global warming.”

As the Member for Sydney stated in her contribution, we are part of a global economy, and what we do here cannot be seen in isolation to other parts of the world. In many areas around the world, bio-fuels are clearly causing greater problems through their production, than easing problems associated with global warming.
The Member for Riverstone in his introductory speech quoted Rudolf Diesel when he said “The engine can be fed with vegetable oils and would help considerably in the development of agriculture in the countries that use it.” Mr Speaker, I suggest Rudolf Diesel could never have imagined the world population growth, demand for resources and the environmental impacts that we would be dealing with in 2009.
From the aforementioned Time article by Michael Grunwald, “The biofuels boom, in short, is one that could haunt the planet for generations – and it’s only getting started.”

Fixed Term Government - O'Farrell's option

Barry O'Farrell is proposing changes that would allow for an incompetent or corrupt Government to be forced to an election before the end of the fixed 4 year term.  He is proposing that if they win the election in 2012 the Liberal/National government will begin investigating options that will be put to a referendum at the following election in 2016.

I do support fixed 4 year terms as I believe that it gives some surety to the government to get on with the job and be able to accomplish an agenda within that term.  Being fixed, it also removes as much as possible, the temptation to manipulate the election cycle by short term announcements to direct favourable sentiment their way, prior to calling a snap election.  The recent WA experience tells us this does not always work, but that example was one of the crudest attempts we have seen - the public saw through it and Alan Carpenter paid the price.

The people should have a fall back position to remove a government, but it should not be easily done.  The process would have to be able to safeguard against the ability of short term, special interest groups, to generate enough political heat to trigger an election.  That would make government untenable and cause a blowout in the cost of democracy.  The system should be fair to the people and fair to the government.  As it stands now, it favours the government.

Given a reasonable proposition, I would be supporting Barry O'Farrell on this one.

State Planning for and on behalf of the NSW Development Industry

There is significant concern regarding the use of Planning Law to remove the rights of local communities to determine how their community will develop.
Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is well known for its use, or abuse, to remove from Councils, developments that are considered State Significant. There have been calls for Part 3A to be removed. Clearly there are times when the use of Part 3A is appropriate and it would be counter productive for it to be repealed. Part 3A should either be used sparingly or modified to more clearly define what is State Significant.

The current Government has shown contempt for local planning and decision making. Instead of working with Councils to reach agreement on streamlining the planning process, it has capitulated to the demands of the development industry and chosen their policies against the advice and concerns of Councils and communities. And this is a LABOR government!

One mechanism the government uses to invoke its call up powers, is SEPP No. 71, Coastal Protection.

SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection (policy aims listed below) applies to coastal land, including the lake foreshore, within 1 kilometre of the Mean High Water Mark. An area such as Lake Macquarie, with a poulation already approaching 2000,000, quite naturally, has significant demand for development in reasonable proximity to its foreshore. SEPP 71 has as its overwhelming principles and goals, the protection of the coast against inappropriate development. While at face value this is laudable, the reality is that this SEPP removes, in a most patriarchal way, the responsibility and opportunity for local elected representatives and their community to shape the future of their area.

There are examples in Lake Macquarie of what would otherwise be minor developments, easily within the resources and expertise of Council to determine and which have been removed by this SEPP. Other controversial developments such as Trinity Point at Morisset Park would have been well within the capacity of Lake Macquarie City Council to assess and determine. Indeed, it is very likely that the proposed development would have been much more in line within community thinking if the proposal was not trapped by SEPP 71 and the option to use part 3A was not available to the developer.

SEPP 71 should only do what was envisaged, i.e. ensure protection of our coast against inappropriate development. This can be best done by altering SEPP 71 to provide for the State Department of Planning to be required to consider making a submission on any such Development Application to the Consent Authority (the Council) and also by providing the ultimate power of veto to protect against inappropriate development. It should be used to stop bad development, not to take consideration of development away from the local community.

Part 3A should only be used for developments that fit strenuous tests of appropriateness. Examples of what might be appropriate include rail and regional/state/national road infrastructure, gas and water pipelines, and major regionally significant infrastructure such as the Tillegra Dam.

Local communities should make the decisions as to what their communities will look like in the future. Elected Councillors are members of that community and directly answerable to the community. The largely succesful developer led charge to remove Councils from decision making must be reversed.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 71—Coastal Protection.

(1) This Policy aims:
(a) to protect and manage the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of the New South Wales coast, and
(b) to protect and improve existing public access to and along coastal foreshores to the extent that this is compatible with the natural attributes of the coastal foreshore, and
(c) to ensure that new opportunities for public access to and along coastal foreshores are identified and realised to the extent that this is compatible with the natural attributes of the coastal foreshore, and
(d) to protect and preserve Aboriginal cultural heritage, and Aboriginal places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge, and
(e) to ensure that the visual amenity of the coast is protected, and
(f) to protect and preserve beach environments and beach amenity, and
(g) to protect and preserve native coastal vegetation, and
(h) to protect and preserve the marine environment of New South Wales, and
(i) to protect and preserve rock platforms, and
(j) to manage the coastal zone in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development (within the meaning of section 6 (2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991), and
(k) to ensure that the type, bulk, scale and size of development is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area, and
(l) to encourage a strategic approach to coastal management.

O'Farrell out / Premier gives more of same

So last week the Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell, was ejected from the Legislative Assembly for 24 hours for failing to comply with the direction of the Speaker, Richard Torbay.

Barry had asked a question which on face value was very important. It related to why the Government had removed the power of the Ombudsman to investigate matters relating to failures of the states' child protection system. As Mr O'Farrell later said, if you are going to be thrown out, then there could be no more important issue to be thrown out over.

Did Barry intend to be thrown out? Was it pre-planned? A stunt? Maybe. One thing for certain, Torbay was left with no other option with such a flagrant challenge to and disregard for the authority of the Speaker.

But let's not exonerate entirely the Premier. Premier Rees had the opportunity to deal with the question in a direct and appropriate manner - he chose to ignore the basis of the question and reply in the typical manner of an attack against the Opposition on their previous policies and lack of support for DOCs. This may be true, but it would be nice to see at least now and then, the Government, be magnanimous in it's use of power, by directly and professionally answering a question. This question would have been a good chance - and a more balanced response from Nathan Rees would have done him credit. He missed the chance.