Terenzini to call it quits

I don't know the reason behind Member for Maitland, Frank Terenzini, deciding not to contest the next state election in 2011 but it's not hard to imagine that he had "a better offer".

While maybe not well known outside of Maitland and immediate surrounds, Frank has been pretty noticeable within the Parliament.  He has been a regular contributor for the Government to a range of debates and in my view has done more than his share of "heavy lifting".

There may be some merit in the view that the polling for Labor in Maitland wasn't looking good for Frank.  Nothing personal I would guess .... just sick of Labor. If I had to guess at least one other contributing factor it would be that Frank's conscience didn't need to be compromised anymore.  It can't have been easy having to support some of the awful decisions taken by the Government over the last 3 years let alone watch first hand the brutality and ineptitude of factional brawling.  Whatever the reason for Frank's decision I'm guessing he will enjoy being back in the legal profession as a public prosecutor; dealing with thugs, rapists, murderers and the like couldn't be more difficult and disheartening as what he's had to deal with over the last 3 years amongst some of his own colleagues in the NSW Labor Party.  

Frank has been a good member and in Government or Opposition after March 2011 I think Labor will miss him.

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!