- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 19 October 2005
Honourable Member for Coffs Harbour
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 8 of 50
| Next Item »
Page: 18894
Motion of Censure
Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police, and Minister for Utilities) [10.55 a.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) condemns and expresses disgust at the actions of the member for Coffs Harbour in the House on Tuesday 18 October 2005 and censures the member accordingly;
(2) abhors the action of the member for Coffs Harbour in physically threatening and assaulting the Minister for Roads and, by this action, seriously reflecting upon the honour and dignity of the House; and
(3) suspends the member for Coffs Harbour from the service of the House for a period of eight sitting days.
I have to say that after 15 years of public life I am astonished to be speaking to a motion of this nature. We have often had robust exchanges at question time. Members from both sides of the House have been subject to calls to order, and occasionally members are suspended from the House. But it is with absolute astonishment that we have to deal with a situation in which a Minister in this Chamber, speaking on behalf of the Government and the people who have put him there as a Minister, is assaulted by a member of Parliament because that member did not like what he heard. This is akin to a child in a classroom not liking what a teacher has to say and walking up and punching the teacher, or grabbing the teacher by the coat or around the throat. Such action calls for a most robust response.
I have endeavoured to respond in a measured way here. I might indicate to the honourable member for Coffs Harbour that I have had all sorts of suggestions about what the response should be. I do not rate this at the most scandalous level of behaviour that a member of Parliament might have engaged in that would warrant expulsion from Parliament, but I do believe it was grievous and disgusting and outrageous and requires a robust response from the Parliament. It warrants suspension. The response could have been worse. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour, like any person in the workplace who misbehaves grievously, should now reflect that he is on notice: if he were to behave like this again the response would be stronger. He has behaved most inappropriately and the Government is giving this first warning. He will not be in this place for eight sitting days. He should go back to his home and think about his behaviour and why he behaved in such a way.
He cannot say, "I apologise but I did not like what the Minister said so I thought it was appropriate that I behave that way." He cannot apologise but then say there was a reason for it. Every member of this Parliament has things they believe in. No-one seeks election to public office unless they believe in something. No-one comes in here without advocating a cause for their community. Everyone—not just me, not just the member for Coffs Harbour—has issues that cut to the bone. Everyone has to be passionate. Otherwise you do not have the drive and energy to keep you in public life, because you do cop a few whacks here and there.
You have to have the drive and commitment to serve your community. If you do not, you would have given up a long time ago. So I understand the passion and commitment in this place. That is okay. But you cannot say to your community, "I have more right than another member of Parliament. When I advocate a cause for my community I am going to make sure that no-one else will talk over me. I am going to belt them. I am going to assault them. I am going to intimidate and harass them." That is not how this place works.
Democracy is an exchange of ideas. The pen is mightier than the sword, and the word ought to be mightier than the fist. Democracy is a conversation; it is not a brawl. Long ago we put down our swords and fists and decided that the great exchange of ideas in a modern urban society would be by way of conversation. That is the important thing here, not the issue of the day that this member seeks to project as justification for this inappropriate behaviour. As I said, every member of Parliament is passionate about their electorate. As a result of the honourable member's behaviour, I send a message on behalf of the Government to every community of every member of Parliament. Every member has the right to be here and to put his or her views robustly. That is why we have Parliament: it is a conflict of ideas but it is a conversation, not a brawl.
I hope that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour will not only apologise but admit that his actions last night were undignified and inappropriate. I hope that the honourable member will say, "Yes, I will continue to believe in the great causes that my electorate wants me to advocate in this House but I won't do it with my fists." If the honourable member for Coffs Harbour repeats his actions of last night I will give him a far more sobering message than I am delivering today. I am giving the honourable member a second chance—a chance to pull up his socks. This is a serious matter. Some have suggested that the honourable member's behaviour warranted expulsion from Parliament. I think not, given that it was his first offence. However, it was grievous and inappropriate conduct.
I am pleased that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has resigned from the Opposition front bench. I acknowledge that as a conscious act on his part and, I think, an initial sign of remorse. I think it is appropriate conduct as his continued presence on the Opposition front bench would have been a sign that the honourable member was not genuine in his apology and in his unreserved acknowledgement that he behaved inappropriately.
However, there is a question here for the Coalition and for the Leader of The Nationals regarding the honourable member's continued presence in The Nationals and as the elected representative for Coffs Harbour. That is not a question for me, as Leader of the House, or for the Government. It is a question for the honourable member's community and his party. Opposition members must ask themselves what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate behaviour by a member of Parliament in the House. We are supposed to be role models. We are supposed to tell young folk across New South Wales, "You can look up to us as your community leaders." We should know how to behave ourselves. Yes, there are robust exchanges during question time—as people may see on television—and every now and then it gets a bit raucous and loud in the Chamber, but that is okay because it is fierce debate. But we should assure our young folk and the citizens of this State that behaviour such as that of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour will not be tolerated.
I try to explain to young folk how democracy works in a modern society such as New South Wales. I think honourable members would agree that there are rules of engagement. The parliamentary process works not just because the Government has the numbers and can crunch things through the House—although that is part of it—but because every member of Parliament co-operates to some level as an elected representative. That is how it works. This Parliament would be completely dysfunctional if a member of Parliament punched and assaulted other members every time they said something that member did not like. That is dysfunctional behaviour. Parliament cannot work like that.
[Interruption]
Those opposite may try to explain away the behaviour of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, but it appeared to me that the Minister for Roads was assaulted, intimidated and harassed. He was expected to respond somehow under duress and give an answer or state a Government position that satisfied the honourable member's desire for a physical response to a verbal altercation. That is not appropriate. I want the House to think about this matter. I strongly commend the motion to the House. I think we need—and I hope the Opposition acknowledges this need—to censure the honourable member for Coffs Harbour not as a member of the Coalition but as a member of Parliament who behaved in an extremely inappropriate and intolerable manner. He must be censured and suspended from the service of the House.
Eight sitting days is the maximum period for which a member of Parliament may be suspended under the standing orders. I was inclined to extend it but, as I said earlier, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is on notice. I would like to hear what he has to say. However, before he addresses the House and explains himself, I emphasise that this motion is about his lack of dignity in the Chamber and his lack of respect for Parliament. This is about the honourable member for Coffs Harbour believing he can come into the House and use his fists rather than his words. I do not want the honourable member to say, "Sorry, Mr Speaker, I shouldn't have done that but I was driven to it because of an issue that I believe in." That is not an apology. It would mean that the next time the honourable member is concerned about an issue he could come into the Chamber and assault a member of Parliament who says something he does not like. I want to hear the honourable member for Coffs Harbour say simply, "Mr Speaker, I did wrong; I shouldn't have done it and I apologise."
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [11.05 a.m.]: At the outset I thank my colleagues on this side of the House for their support this morning. Secondly, I want the House to understand that I will not oppose the motion. My behaviour last night was unacceptable in this Parliament or anywhere else in New South Wales. I apologise to each and every member in the House, to my colleagues, to my electorate and to my family. I have apologised, both personally and in the media, to the Minister for Roads, and he has accepted my apology. I have offered my resignation from the Coalition front bench to the Leader of The Nationals and the Leader of the Opposition, even though this matter was not portfolio related.
This issue is about people dying on the Pacific Highway. This issue should affect every member in the Chamber because I feel sure that every one of them has had a constituent either killed or maimed on the Pacific Highway. This is about a Minister of the Crown misleading this House and the people of the Coffs Harbour electorate and of New South Wales as a whole in relation to this matter. Last night the Minister for Roads said that I was swanning around in Sydney when he was in my electorate. It needs to be put on the record of this place that the Minister did not advise me either by telephone or by letter that he would be attending my electorate. In fact, I wrote to the Minister on 10 August inviting him to visit my electorate to see the Pacific Highway at Bonville and to inspect the Coffs Harbour bypass. I am yet to receive a response from the Minister to that letter.
I wrote to other Ministers in this place congratulating them on their appointment and offering them the same opportunity on issues pertaining to the Coffs Harbour electorate. Those Ministers, including the Premier, had the courtesy to respond. I wrote again to the Minister for Roads on 23 August, enclosing correspondence with the previous Minister, the Hon. Michael Costa, in which I asked him to address the issue of the 13 deaths and 49 injuries that had occurred at the Bonville deviation at Pine Creek since 2003—the date when that section of road was supposed to be completed. Amounts ranging from $85 million to $127 million have been allocated to the road in annual budgets but only $12.9 million worth of planning has been spent on it. I think the House and the people of New South Wales need an explanation from the Government, the Minister and the previous Minister as to where that money has gone.
The Minister released the tender documents only after yet another death on that section of road. A 21-year-old girl, whose family I have known personally for more than 15 years, was killed on that road. Imagine, Minister, being the father of that girl and cradling her body on the side of the road after she was killed in an accident that could have been avoided if the road had been fixed. That is what happened to that father. I have asked the Minister to attend to the division of that carriageway. He has not done it. He has not even had the courtesy to respond to the letter that I hand delivered to his office on 23 August. He did not respond either to my telephone calls to his office.
The Minister came into the House last night and accused me of swanning around in Sydney when in fact I was attending a friend's funeral. That friend was the father of the honourable member for Burrinjuck—a man whom I have known for 15 years or more who was a great adviser not only to farmers but to many members in this place. If I had received notification of the Minister's intention to visit my electorate on that day I would have been there. I ask the Minister to explain why he could not stay an extra day and attend the Pacific Highway summit on the Friday—the day of the funeral—in Port Macquarie. The Minister could come to my electorate to play politics over that section of road but he could not get his driver to take him another 140 kilometres to see it at first hand and to attend a summit that had been called by local councils up and down the North Coast.
The behaviour of this Government on this section of road has been deplorable to say the least. We have had delay after delay. The bypass for this section of road was planned under the previous Coalition Government. When this Government came to office it delayed capital works funding for two years. It was then delayed because of native animals and was again put in the budget papers. The report that was delivered in August was finally signed by the then Minister for Planning in December last year. I arranged a meeting on 6 April with the mayors of Bellingen and Coffs Harbour about this section of road. We asked for divided carriageways and for the speed limit to be reduced, which I had also asked for two years ago. I am not a member of the Government. I asked for an 80 kilometres an hour speed limit, but that request was not acceded to. The speed limit is 90 kilometres an hour. It is interesting to note that since the death of that young lady the speed limit has been reduced to 80 kilometres an hour in the Pine Creek area and 60 kilometres an hour in Bonville.
I asked the Minister to look at the issue in a bipartisan manner. I explained that this was not a media issue. I took the policy advisor to the then Minister for Roads, now the Minister for Police, and the manager of the Pacific Highway and showed them that section of road. I explained how it could be widened slightly and how a barrier could be put up to stop head-on collisions, to stop people from being killed and maimed. What was done? Nothing. The then Minister for Roads lost his portfolio. The next Minister for Roads, Mr Costa, did not want to know about it. He used the excuse that the Federal Government was looking at a motorway for the North Coast. If a motorway is finally decided upon with Federal Government funding it will include this section of road so there is no excuse not to expend the money that has been allocated. The people of this State and the people of my electorate need an explanation as to why it has not been spent.
I find it somewhat bizarre that the concrete barriers I have asked to be placed in the middle of this section of road cannot be supplied. However, the Government can channel people down William Street into a cross-city tunnel to pay a toll to a private operator. That tunnel raises money for the Government, as do speed cameras. However, concrete barriers at Pine Creek would save lives. It has been estimated that the cost of deaths from road accidents is somewhere in the vicinity of $5 million to $6 million. Since 2003 13 lives have been lost. At least 51 lives have been lost between Macksville and Grafton. I am at a stage where I can no longer accept the misleading statements by the Minister, and previous Ministers, with regard to this matter.
Last night when the Minister made that accusation I snapped, and I apologise. Some members made accusations in the media—I know the members who made them—that I had been drinking. That is a lie. I am a very emotive person, as many people in this House realise. I have seen parents and I have heard stories. For example, I refer to Terry Wilson cradling his daughter's body at the scene of an accident. When the Minister said I was swanning around in Sydney when I had no knowledge that he was going to be in my electorate I snapped. My behaviour was totally unacceptable. It is behaviour that I have not been known for, except maybe in my younger days when I was 18 or 19 and there might have been the odd scuffle with mates or on a football field. However, I cannot resile from that and I accept the censure of the House.
I do not ask honourable members to divide on this motion. If the House divides I will vote with the Government because my behaviour was unacceptable. However, I ask the Minister to stop playing politics, to come to Coffs Harbour, to speak to some of the victims—for example, Mr Minto who had his face torn off and has had several operations as a result of an accident on this section of the road; his marriage has now failed—and to speak to people who over many years have lost loved ones on that section of road. He should see whether he can justify his misleading statements to this House last night and recently and in the media when he has refused to debate this issue. Last night the Leader of the House moved a motion to have the honourable member for Manly, the honourable member for Wakehurst and the honourable member for Port Macquarie speak to the matter of public importance on the Pacific Highway. The Government did not give the Opposition a chance to respond. It was laughable.
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield—Minister for Roads) [11.15 a.m.]: I am conscious of the many tragic deaths on the Pacific Highway. One death on our roads is one death too many. My heart goes out to the families and friends who have suffered such a terrible loss. This Government has shown leadership and has been committed to the upgrade of the Pacific Highway. Its record is straightforward. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour lost control yesterday because he is petrified of the people in his electorate finding out that he did not have the courage to stand up to Canberra when it came to negotiations on AusLink.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will be heard in silence.
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: He does not want the people of the North Coast to hear about how he remained silent when he had a chance to fight for a better deal on the Pacific Highway. Within a couple of weeks of being appointed Minister for Roads I met with the mayor, Councillor Keith Rhoades, who presented me with a package of safety measures that I asked the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] to quickly assess. Within 1½ weeks I was in Coffs Harbour to implement those safety measures. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour suggested a certain remedy that I had assessed. I rely on the road safety experts who work in the RTA as to what package to implement. I do not think the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is a safety expert. I know I am not. The Government relies on expert advice it receives from the RTA. Within four to five weeks of being appointed the Minister for Roads I not only went to Coffs Harbour but I announced the package of safety measures to provide relief and safety to the people of Bonville on the Pacific Highway.
The facts are simple: under the AusLink agreement Pacific Highway funding is short-changed to the tune of $480 million each year. I reluctantly signed the agreement on 29 September, just hours before the Federal Government's deadline. If I did not sign the agreement before 1 October this State would have lost its road funding to other States. Clearly, that was an untenable position. Under AusLink the Federal Government regards the Pacific Highway as part of its new national network, but it is not funding it in the same way as other highways in the same network, a point I have made repeatedly. It is obvious that has upset the honourable member for Coffs Harbour because he knows that his electorate is not being serviced by the Federal Government in the AusLink negotiations.
Other highways in the network will receive 80 per cent funding from the Federal Government under AusLink, yet it will contribute only 20 per cent of what is needed every year to complete the dual carriageway program for the Pacific Highway by 2016. In the period leading up to the Federal Government's deadline I fought through the media, in meetings with my Federal counterparts and in this Parliament to get a better deal for New South Wales. I tried to debate the AusLink agreement in this House before it was signed, but the Opposition voted against it. The Opposition could have had a chance to make a worthwhile contribution to the debate, which is why I gave it an opportunity to debate this matter last night. It is only now that the deal has been done, put away and cannot be further negotiated that we hear from the Opposition.
This Government is faced with a $480 million deficit every year, a $480 million black hole for the Pacific Highway, courtesy of the Federal Government. The RTA estimates that the cost of the program will be $8 billion in 2005 dollars. Even if the Federal Government continues its proposed funding for the next 10 years, its contribution of $1.6 billion would cover only 20 per cent of the $8 billion required. If the Federal Government were serious about the Pacific Highway it would have applied its AusLink funding formula to the 667 kilometres of road that needs to be completed in New South Wales. This means the Federal Government should be providing $640 million a year instead of its current commitment. I have repeated these facts time and again. Without the Federal Government helping, as it has on many other roads, we will not achieve what is necessary on the Pacific Highway. As a member of Parliament and a Minister it is my role to call on the Federal Government to express support and compassion for the people of the North Coast. I was doing that last night in a normal parliamentary debate.
Let us look at the record. The New South Wales Government's leadership in relation to the Pacific Highway has saved an enormous number of lives. Under the current 10-year agreement, the New South Wales Government has put in $160 million a year; the Federal Government has put in only $60 million. In the past 10 years, $2.2 billion has been spent, the overwhelming majority of it coming from this State Government. This is a national network road. The Federal Government has nominated it as a road for which it will take financial responsibility. However, the Federal Government grossly mistreated the Pacific Highway because it did not receive the same funding formula as every other part of the national network. The Federal Government neglected the Pacific Highway. I have made that point repeatedly in this place. Members opposite remained silent during that campaign. Their loyalty was to their political party and not the people they represent.
I make no apology for making those representations. It is a fact that the Federal Government did not listen; it is a fact that there was silence from the other side of the Chamber during the debate on the AusLink negotiations. I got no help from the Opposition in trying to secure more Federal dollars for the Pacific Highway. The reality is that over the past 10 years this State Government has provided leadership in relation to the Pacific Highway by putting in $160 million compared to the Federal Government's $60 million. In real dollar terms that means almost three-quarters of the money spent on the Pacific Highway has come from this Government. Since 1996 a total of 44 projects have opened to traffic, with motorists benefiting from 222 kilometres of four-lane dual carriageway. That is the record of this Government; that is the contribution we have made.
The lives that have been saved as a consequence of this Government's commitment are on the record. A further eight projects are now under construction or have been approved awaiting the start of construction. A further 20 upgrading projects are in the planning phase. By the end of this financial year, approximately 44 per cent of the highway from Hexham to the Queensland border, a distance of 677 kilometres, will either be completed dual carriageway or under construction. The New South Wales Government is implementing a $35 million two-year program to introduce interim safety measures at specific crash locations on sections of the highway that have not yet been reconstructed under the upgrade program. These measures include profile line marking, wire rope barriers, shoulder widening and intersection improvements.
Since the start of the 10-year Pacific Highway upgrade program, the average crash rate on the upgraded sections of the highway has been almost halved, from close to 30 crashes per 100 million vehicle kilometres travelled to 15 crashes per 100 million vehicle kilometres travelled. The crash rate has halved in the areas where the State Government has invested the money and shown leadership over the past 10 years. If we had had the extra $480 million a year from the Federal Government that I have been calling for, we would have been able to reproduce that great record along the whole of the Pacific Highway. Instead, there are people in Canberra—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to order.
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: There are people in Canberra who are completely insensitive. They are sitting on a budget surplus of $13.6 billion, $4.4 billion more than they expected to receive, but gave absolutely nothing by way of relief to people living on the North Coast. That is the reason the honourable member for Coffs Harbour behaved in the way he did. The Federal Government did not listen to the people of the North Coast.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will come to order.
Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI: That is the reason he behaved that way and he knows that. This Government is proud of its record on the Pacific Highway. We would love to invest more. We are doing the planning work but we need help from the Federal Government. The Federal Government helped with the M7 and we were able to make progress on that road. Why did the Federal Government treat the Pacific Highway like a poor cousin? Why did it give less money to the Pacific Highway, which is part of the national network, than it has to other parts of the national network? That is the question I have asked. I have not received an answer. We need an answer from the Federal Government and from members opposite.
Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse—Leader of the Opposition) [11.25 a.m.]: Andrew Fraser, as the member for Coffs Harbour, has demonstrated over 15 years in this House that he is one of the most energetic, most determined and most principled members of this Parliament. I include both Houses of Parliament in that statement. For that reason we were all shocked last night. I think anybody who either saw the incident last night or has since seen it on tape would share our concern. We are all in heated agreement about that behaviour. It was unprecedented, at least in the past 50 years, and it was unacceptable to every member of this House, including the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. That is why immediately it happened he came back into the House and apologised to Minister Joe Tripodi and to the House.
[Interruption]
I suggest to members opposite that as we listened silently to their speakers, they should do the same. A little decorum from the Government would go a long way. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour has taken every opportunity to apologise again in talking to the media in the past few hours. His apology is sincere. He not only apologised to the Minister and the House, but he also resigned his position on the front bench. He acknowledged that his behaviour was unacceptable. He not only apologised and resigned from the front bench, but he also accepted this suspension. It was clear from last night that he would be suspended from the service of the House, and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour accepted that as an appropriate punishment. That is why in his speech this morning he clearly said that if anyone was going to play politics on this issue he would be voting with the Government for the suspension. It was the right thing to do. It sets an example for us all. Until last night, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour was an inspiration to us all, with his energy, determination and principles. This morning he is an example to us all of what one should do when one does the wrong thing. That is in stark contrast to many Government members.
Ms Marianne Saliba: You are a grub.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Illawarra will come to order.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: I just said that a little decorum from the Government would go a long way. I suggest the honourable member for Illawarra listen.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will address the Chair.
Mr PETER DEBNAM: The point we need to make this morning is that this is not only a lesson for members of this Parliament; it is a lesson for members in every parliament. It is unacceptable behaviour, it needs to be generally agreed, and the punishment needs to be accepted. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour has accepted the punishment. Government members should understand what this is all about and learn from it. They can learn a few lessons this morning. We have heard a speech from the Leader of the House and a speech from the Minister for Roads, and they have played politics. It is no wonder the honourable member for Blacktown was calling on the Leader of the House to sit down. It was appropriate.
The honourable member for Blacktown is a man who does the right thing in this Parliament. He is a Government member though, and that is unusual. I suggest Government members listen to what has happened this morning, listen to what the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has done and listen to what one of your own has said to one of your Ministers—"Stop playing politics and sit down." As I said a few months ago when we had the tragedy with John Brogden, it really is a time for reflection on what we are doing, both in this House and outside. It is a time for the media to reflect, and at that time it was generally agreed that a little introspection would go a long way. We are again at that point. It is time to question what each of us is doing in service to the community.
The man who stood up this morning and took his punishment has been working for his community for 15 years on a matter that is very important not only to his electorate but also to every person in New South Wales who travels on the Pacific Highway, and to every Australian and international visitor. Indeed, a few of them have died on it. He has made his point continually. In a media release issued on 28 June 2005 headed "Labor's Inaction On Bonville Deviation A Disgrace" the Leader of The Nationals and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour raised this specific issue. The media release refers to the black spot that claimed the lives of four people the day before, the section of road to which the honourable member for Coffs Harbour referred last night and about which he was so upset. The media release makes the point that the Government's 1998-99 budget papers listed the completion date for the Bonville deviation as 2003. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour made that point last night and again this morning. Indeed, it is a point he has made every few weeks for the past two years. The media release states:
The RTA website originally stated the Bonville Deviation project was fully funded by the NSW Government, however, on July 13, 2004 it was changed to read that only planning for the project is funded by the Carr Labor Government.
Let us consider what has happened on the Pacific Highway this year. There have been 23 deaths. In August, there were eight deaths on the Pacific Highway. The NRMA says that, on average, there are 1,000 crashes, 680 injuries and 43 deaths per year on the Pacific Highway. In 1998 Labor made its first commitment for a dual carriageway on the Bonville-Pine Creek deviation, to which the honourable member for Coffs Harbour referred. The 1998-99 budget papers set the completion date as 2003, but the 2000-01 budget papers said the completion date would be 2005. The section of road is referred to as dead man's corner. Since 2002 11 people have been killed on that stretch of road. The RTA has played politics and changed its web site, but I will talk about the RTA on another day. The intersection of South Seas Drive and the New England Highway has similar problems.
On 21 March a 19-year-old woman who worked at the Porpoise Pool died on the Pacific Highway. On 22 April a 17-year-old boy died on the Pacific Highway. On 27 June four visitors from the United States of America died on the Pacific Highway. On 12 July a 17-year-old boy from Toormina died on the Pacific Highway. On 22 August a 21-year-old woman who worked at the Department of Housing in Coffs Harbour died on the Pacific Highway. On 27 August a Macksville man died on the Pacific Highway. On 26 August a Bellingen woman died on the Pacific Highway. On 29 August a Valla Beach woman and a Grafton man died on the Pacific Highway. On 2 September a 25-year-old Sydney woman died on the Pacific Highway. On 6 September a 75-year-old businessmen from Grafton died at Woolgoolga. On 9 September a 48-year-old male resident from Belmont was hit by a vehicle on the Pacific Highway and died.
The Government has not learned the lesson. I will not rant and rave, but I will plead with the Government to understand why the honourable member for Coffs Harbour was so angry last night and why that led to his unacceptable behaviour, about which we are all agreed. But the Government must also understand why the community is so angry with it. The community is not only angry about roads. Do we need to talk about rail safety, crumbling infrastructure or pushing motorists into a tunnel? This is an unusual event. Government members who are sitting in the Chamber should take 58 seconds to listen and think. They should understand why the community is so angry. They should understand why there was a 13 per cent swing against them in Macquarie Fields and why the community is taking every single opportunity to say, "It is 10 long years and you've got it wrong. You've got it wrong not only on the Pacific Highway, but you've got it wrong on every other issue." The Minister for Roads got it wrong last night when he baited the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. The Minister for Roads tried to bait a man who has been working solidly, relentlessly and unceasingly for his electorate and the people of New South Wales for 15 years—unlike the Minister.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT (Marrickville—Minister for Education and Training) [11.35 a.m.]: Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will come to order.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: I speak in favour of the censure motion. No-one in this House has any doubt that there are strong feelings across the Chamber about road deaths and the Pacific Highway. But we need to be very clear: This is not a debate about the Pacific Highway. This is a debate about standards of behaviour in this House. This is a debate about what we, as parliamentarians, believe is appropriate behaviour; it is about the leaderships and standards we demonstrate to the community. It is those issues to which I intend to address my comments. We all acknowledge that what occurred in this Chamber last night was unacceptable. It was contrary to what we hold important in the parliamentary process: the ability to be able to speak without fear or favour on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of our beliefs.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will come to order.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: I would have thought that if the Opposition were to take any debate in this Chamber seriously it would be this debate, because they believe that bullying and intimidatory behaviour is not acceptable.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: In the time that I have been a member of the New South Wales Parliament in both this House and the other place I have never seen behaviour such as I saw last night. The public looks to us for leadership. It expects us to set standards of community behaviour. It expects us to exhibit integrity, responsibility and decency.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford to order.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: Most important, the community expects honourable members to be able to debate issues without resorting to physical intimidation. Sadly, these qualities were lacking last night. It has been said already, but we all feel passionate about issues that affect our electorates. We all feel passionate about matters that affect our constituents and we debate those matters robustly, as we should. The public expects no less. But there is a great difference between debating matters in a robust way, and resorting to physical intimidation and violence. The way to win arguments in this place is through well-chosen words and reasoned arguments. It is brains, not brawn. The underrepresentation of women in politics and the Parliament is a known fact. For example, in this Chamber only 25 per cent of the members are women. Until women are present in this and other parliamentary Chambers in numbers equal to their proportion in the community we cannot claim to be truly representative. Many issues affect representation of women in this Parliament. Many issues impact on a woman's decision to stand for Parliament and to take a place in this Chamber.
Mr George Souris: So this is now women's issues?
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: It is a women's issue. I can tell the honourable member for Upper Hunter that as a woman—
Mr George Souris: So it's not about the Pacific Highway?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Upper Hunter will come to order.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: No, it is not about the Pacific Highway; it is about standards of behaviour. I can tell the honourable member that as a woman I have counselled many women about why it is important—
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Upper Hunter to order. Members have listened courteously and without interjection to other speakers in the debate. I would have thought that the subject matter of the debate would be sufficient indication to members that they should observe the procedures of the House. The Minister will be heard in silence.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: I have counselled many women about why it is important to have more women involved in politics and to have more women represented in parliamentary Chambers.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Upper Hunter to order for the second time.
Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: As I said, there are many issues that impact on women running for Parliament. But we know that one of the issues that comes up time and again for women is the aggressive and confronting behaviour that they see demonstrated often in parliamentary Chambers. The behaviour that we saw last night will do nothing to encourage more women to become involved in politics and to become members of Parliament. That is a great shame. The leaders of the Liberal Party and The Nationals have indicated that they will support this censure motion, as they should. The public expects us to take action against behaviour that would not be accepted at a workplace or a schoolyard, and it is not accepted here.
Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [11.40 a.m.]: I endorse the motion.
Mr Ian Armstrong: You are on the wrong side.
Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT: I will take that as an apology.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lachlan to order.
Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT: I endorse the motion, and I also give the honourable member for Coffs Harbour my sympathy on one point. As a member representing a North Coast electorate, I share the frustration and anger over the non-completion of the dual carriageway works on the Pacific Highway. I am sure that feeling is shared by all members of Parliament representing North Coast electorates. I also place on the record what I hope is the sympathy of all members of this place for the honourable member for Burrinjuck and her family, who have been dragged into this debate at a political level. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the honourable member for Burrinjuck both have my sympathy. However, in no way whatsoever is that sympathy or those two issues justification for endorsing the behaviour that we saw in this place last night.
As someone who was in this Chamber and who was about to speak in the debate, I found what I saw to be shocking, surprising, disgusting and embarrassing—not only for me and for the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and for North Coast members of Parliament but also, I would hope, for every single person in this Chamber and in this Parliament. That is the issue we are discussing this morning and that is the issue I would hope both sides of the Chamber will focus on. However, more shocking than what I saw last night is the defence I am hearing from the Coalition about what happened last night. I have heard the defence that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is an honourable man and is an example to us all, that this is a one-off incident, and that we in some way should be wrapping him in cotton wool and protecting him. In the light of what I saw last night I find that outrageous.
I would have thought that the leadership of both the Liberal Party and The Nationals would have given long and hard consideration over the past 24 hours to how to deal with this incident rather than dig in, following their 9.30 party room meeting this morning, and try to defend the incident in some way. I am not only shocked by the incident, but I am appalled by the defence. In relation to the Pacific Highway, I make the point that as a North Coast member of Parliament I have a hell of a lot of fatalities in my area that are frustrating and that anger me. I am sure that every single North Coast member of this Chamber feels the same way. But by running the defence this morning that for some reason that frustration and anger is a trigger for a member who represents an electorate traversed by the Pacific Highway to thump the Minister is offensive to me because it implies that, for me to represent my electorate, I should be thumping the Minister.
The defence that is being run this morning is outrageous and it sets a standard of performance that means every single North Coast member of Parliament should be thumping the Minister. Is that the Coalition's defence? That is part of the defence of the actions that we saw last night. I would hope that censure will be widely supported not only by this place but also by the other place. I put my hand up to say I believe the Government has taken a lenient option by moving this motion. For a start, I am surprised that the Minister has not pressed assault charges; has thrown the honourable member for Coffs Harbour a lifeline. I am surprised that Hansard has lightly recorded the incident that took place last night when it states that the member for Coffs Harbour was escorted out by the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms. I would have hoped that the record would have shown exactly what happened in this place last night: an unprecedented incident in Australian politics.
While this motion has been moved in this place this morning, I would hope that, given the numbers in the other place, the eight days suspension will be considered in the light of more substantial options so that we draw a clear line in the sand in this Parliament. Because this is an unprecedented incident, we in this Parliament, regardless of political persuasions—and I appreciate that it is hard to let go of them—are setting a standard for the future. If we set a standard that allows other members of Parliament who are on the brink of despair over a particular issue to consider the option of thumping someone, that is a sad day for democracy in Australia and it will send us down the path of anarchy. We will all be worse off for that.
Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [11.45 a.m.]: The motion is before the House today for three reasons: first, the Labor Government's disgraceful inaction on the Pacific Highway, particularly at Bonville; second, the passion and commitment of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour for fixing the roads and saving lives; and, third, the deliberate goading and dishonest tactics used by the Minister for Roads to evoke a reaction from the honourable member for Coffs Harbour.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will be heard in silence.
Mr ANDREW STONER: For many years the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has sought to hold the Government to its 1998 promise to complete the Bonville deviation by 2003. Despite the strongest representations to a succession of Ministers for roads—Scully, Costa and Tripodi—there has been no action on the Bonville deviation, as promised. As the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has pointed out, the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] web site was changed on 13 July 2004 and I have the before-and-after statements. The "before" information states "… fully funded by the New South Wales Government", but by the afternoon of 13 July 2004 it had been changed to "Planning for this project is funded by the New South Wales Government". The Government has been disingenuous and has allowed inaction to continue while people are dying at one of the State's worst black spots.
Since 2002, 13 people have died on that exact section of road because of the Government's failure to upgrade it. That is an absolute scandal, but instead of seriously addressing the problem and the continuing deaths on the Pacific Highway, the Minister for Roads last night wanted to play politics. The fact is that over the past two sitting weeks the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has submitted a matter of public importance in relation to this matter, but the debate has been avoided by the Government. Belatedly, the Government brought the matter on for debate through notification by Minister Tripodi with the sole aim of scoring political points. The Minister then set about deliberately niggling and stating untruths to unsettle the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. As the honourable member for Coffs Harbour pointed out, among the Minister's untruths was the suggestion that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour was not in his electorate but was instead swanning around in Sydney when the Minister visited the Coffs Harbour electorate.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Illawarra to order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The truth of the matter is that the Minister did not follow protocol when visiting Coffs Harbour. He did not advise the member. He arranged a meeting in secret with the mayor, whom the Australian Labor Party is sponsoring as the so-called Independent candidate at the next State election. On that day the honourable member for Coffs Harbour was attending the funeral in Yass of a close friend who had tragically committed suicide as a result of the devastating drought. The Minister for Roads implied that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour did not care about the Pacific Highway, but nothing could be further from the truth. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour has funded from his own pocket a sign warning motorists of this death stretch of road. He has personally experienced the horrendous outcomes of fatalities on that stretch of road.
Having said that, I do not in any way condone the behaviour of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour last night. We all agree that it was absolutely out of order and the Coalition will not oppose the motion. Many truths regarding this incident have already been stated. A close examination of the tape will show that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour went around the table to confront the Minister who then turned and ran. He went around to talk to the Minister, and he ran. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour then grabbed him around the coat, or the shirt front, and tried to get him to come back into the Chamber stating, "Get back in here". Members opposite should have a close look at the tape. He said, "Get back in here".
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call Government members to order. I call the honourable member for Monaro to order. The Leader of The Nationals will be heard in silence.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The Minister immediately lied and stated that he had been grabbed around the throat. Nothing was further from the truth; he was never grabbed by the neck or the throat. That is a lie by the Minister for Roads and also by the honourable member for Port Macquarie, and they should both make a public retraction.
Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: The video shows it. I was standing here and I saw him grab him by the throat.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for East Hills will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for East Hills to order.
Mr ANDREW STONER: These comments are in no way an excuse for the member's behaviour last night, but are made to give some context to those events. The member has done the honourable thing. [Time expired.]
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [11.50 a.m.], in response: I have put my case to the House this morning. I have apologised. I again apologise. I have noted the behaviour of those opposite. I move:
That the question be now put.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bearing in mind the motion moved by the Leader of the House, I cannot accept the motion moved by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. Does the honourable member wish to continue speaking?
Mr ANDREW FRASER: As I said, I have apologised. I continue to apologise. I accept the punishment of the House.
Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police, and Minister for Utilities) [11.52 a.m.], in reply: I am disappointed by the view taken by the two leaders. I acknowledge the apology of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, but I am disappointed, because he said, as I thought he would, "I'm sorry, but this is the reason I did it." Unless I missed it I did not hear the Leader of The Nationals say anything, or say very much at all, about the inappropriateness of the behaviour.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has the call.
Mr CARL SCULLY: I am concerned about the position taken by the Leader of The Nationals and by the Leader of the Opposition. I am not suggesting that the Leader of The Nationals believes other than that violence in the community is inappropriate. I think he genuinely believes that, as we do. However, having taken a strong stance, as we would expect him to, and as we would, that violence in the community is inappropriate, it is a bit rich to claim that it is a defence to say, "I was provoked, the victim is the cause." He cannot do that. The Leader of The Nationals cannot go out into the community to put the position to the community that domestic violence is inappropriate—and I know he joins the Government and every single member of Parliament in that—and then claim that provocation is a defence to an assault.
Provocation is no defence to an assault in the courts, and it is no defence in the court of public opinion. A member cannot come into the House and say, "Joe Tripodi provoked me into doing it." That is no defence; it is inappropriate. That is the whole defence of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. The Leader of the Opposition is now accountable for what he said in the House today. He should have simply said, "This was undignified and inappropriate. I endorse his apology. I respect the fact that he has left the front bench and we support the motion", and sat down. Instead, we heard a series of issues that were debated last night and, therefore, the Minister has to be held to account for provoking the assault. We will not cop that.
It was all very well for Mike Gallacher to claim yesterday that the use of the F word in front of police in George Street on a Saturday night is inappropriate. I would like to hear what he thinks about what this character did last night to a member of Parliament. The first question on where the Leader of the Opposition stands on this. Does he believe that a victim of violence is the cause of the violence? Does that explain away the violence? We cannot go out and say to men and women of this State, "Violence in the home, the pubs and on the streets is no good, but in Parliament it is okay."
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will be heard in silence.
Mr CARL SCULLY: Second, what do the Leader of The Nationals and the Leader of the Opposition say is the future of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour? Will he continue as a member of The Nationals, a member of the Coalition? Will he continue going into the party room? Will he be endorsed as a candidate at the next election? It is not good enough for them to say that the provocation occurred, the violence is excused and he is sorry, but, by the way, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour will stay as a member of The Nationals and will be a candidate at the next election. They have to set some standards. All these characters have been found wanting. They think supporting the motion is enough.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to order.
Mr CARL SCULLY: From their actions today it is obvious that although they support the motion their hearts are not in it. They might support it on the voices but they do not believe in it. If they believe in it, their words were shallow. No member opposite said anything to give the Government confidence that they believe what the honourable member for Coffs Harbour did was inappropriate.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call Government members to order.
Motion agreed to.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:41:43 : Update this page