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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Question Time

Nathan Rees has taken over as Premier of NSW at a very difficult time.  I have always thought that he was likely to rise to a senior position and quite possibly Premier, but not in the timeframe that happened.  Who would have predicted the fall of Iemma and Costa as well as the departure of John Watkins?  As well as having to deal with the problems and perceptions of such a long encumbancy, Nathan Rees also has to deal with the impact of the international financial meltdown.  That statement is not meant to excuse the Government for problems of their own making - it merely recognises that Rees will have a harder time correcting the mismanagement of the past Labor years.

The State Labor Government had become arrogant and seemingly out of touch with most of NSW. They had run down the state, particularly with some stupid policies of the Carr era, including Michael Egan's "brilliant" vendor tax on investment properties that meant that investors were hit at every opportunity.  This of course lead to an exodus of capital investment in housing from NSW to Victoria and Queensland in-particular - and we still haven't recovered!

It's interesting to see the members of Parliament in action and to get to know many of them personally. Generally they are like any mix of people, most of them very decent and nice people with some standouts for good and bad on both sides.  While they may well be nice people as individuals it is revealing to watch both Government and Opposition as they perform as a collective, the personality and culture of the Whole.  

I have noted quite flippantly that there seems to be a happy balance in the House, particularly demonstrated by Question Time.  The Opposition ask their questions knowing that they won't get a reasonable answer and that the opportunity will be used to attack them.  The Opposition appear to be masochists in this role balanced perfectly by the sadists and bullies of the Government.  Could this be fixed? Absolutely - start Question Time 1/2 hour earlier and use that 1/2 hour to allow for Ministerial Statements.  The rest of QT should be used only by the non-Government members with time limits (5 mins) on answers unless the Opposition agree to an extension.  We would then see QT being used to hold the Government to account and we would hopefully see more appropriate and respectful use of this time, maybe even improving the way in which parliamentarians are viewed by the public!

This of course has been going on for a long time, it's not unique to this Parliament.  The question is however is this the best way of running our democratic state or can we do much better?  As the Parliament is based on the Westminster system and makes seemingly very few concessions to modern decision making practice, I can only say yes, we could do much better.  These changes should include significant changes to not only the operation of the Parliament but also to the make up of the parliament.  

It was somewhat heartening to see earlier this year former premier Bob Carr raising this issue for debate.  He rightly pointed out that there have been significant changes in the State/Commonwealth relationship since Federation.  Some of these include shifts in responsibility away from the states in areas including health, education, industrial relations and taxation.  Bob Carr suggested reducing the number of Parliamentarians significantly and while there would be a need to address how elected representation was maintained, I think that it is something that should be explored.   The shape and function of the State is something that is achievable by the desire of the state and is much more likely to be achieved than other grander visions such as the removal of states.