- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 1 December 2005
Rural Communities Impacts Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 5 of 54
| Next Item »
Page: 20507
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 17 November 2005.
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [10.17 a.m.]: The Rural Communities Impacts Bill was introduced by the Leader of The Nationals, and if ever a bill had relevance to country New South Wales this is it. This is a bill that we must have in this place. It is not complicated, and it should be a fundamental part of every Cabinet decision. Every bill that goes through this place should have noted on the record its impact on the many rural communities within this State. The overview of the bill states:
The object of this Bill is to require Ministers to consider the likely impact of certain legislation and other government proposals on rural communities.
It is that simple. I recall that in 1994, before the election in which the Labor Party won government, Bob Carr promised that rural communities would have an impact statement on all bills that would impact upon them. Has that happened? Clearly, it has not. It is vital that consideration is given to the impact of successive pieces of legislation upon rural communities. I remind the House that the definition in this bill of "rural community" is that part of the State that is outside the metropolitan areas, including all the local government areas of Ashfield, Auburn, Bankstown, Baulkham Hills, Blacktown, Botany Bay, Burwood, Camden, Campbelltown, Canada Bay, Canterbury, Fairfield, Hawkesbury, Holroyd, Hornsby, Hunters Hill, Hurstville, Kogarah, Ku-ring-gai, Lane Cove, Leichhardt, Liverpool, Manly, Marrickville, Mosman, North Sydney, Parramatta, Penrith, Pittwater, Randwick, Rockdale, Ryde, Strathfield, Sutherland, Sydney, Warringah, Waverley, Willoughby and Woollahra. The Newcastle metropolitan area, constituted by the local government areas of Lake Macquarie and Newcastle, is included, as well as the Wollongong metropolitan area, constituted by the local government areas of Shellharbour and Wollongong.
The term "rural community" refers to any of a number of recognised rural communities in the State. I represent, and am also a member of, a rural community, as are a large number of members of the Opposition in this House. We represent large rural constituencies. My electorate—a large rural agricultural electorate—covers an area of approximately 25,000 square kilometres. Why would it be in the interests of a city-based Labor Government to consider rural communities before deciding to introduce a bill, when so many Labor members represent metropolitan electorates? It is a great shame that they do not really care about what happens outside the metropolitan area. We have a number of so-called rural Labor members of Parliament in this Chamber. I mention in particular the honourable members representing the electorates of Murray-Darling, Monaro, Tweed, Bathurst and Kiama. It is a shame that, time and again, those Labor members from rural electorates continue to cast their votes to the detriment of the rural communities they purport to represent.
One of the fundamental things that should happen in respect of every bill introduced in this Parliament is that an impact study should be undertaken to determine the bill's effect on rural communities. That should be standard procedure before a plan is put before Cabinet and a bill is introduced in this House. It is a simple procedure but it is clearly not happening. I can quote numerous examples from my own electorate of occasions when it would have been beneficial to have a rural communities impact statement completed before the introduction of legislation. This time last year we witnessed the amalgamation of a number of area health services. In my part of the State we had the Southern Area Health Service, which was up to its neck in debt. It had already dispensed with the services of its financial controller and people were being sacked, left, right and centre. All of a sudden the Minister for Health deemed it a great idea to expand that service and make its financial woes even worse.
The Government decided to amalgamate that service with the Greater Murray Area Health Service and now we have the Greater Southern Area Health Service. What a disaster that is! So many accounts remain unpaid by that area health service and people are absolutely sick and tired of this Government's intransigence when it comes to rural health matters. If a rural communities impact study had been undertaken before that amalgamation took place, we would not have the situation we have now. On 21 November Dairy Farmers refused to deliver Berri fruit juice to Goulburn Base Hospital because of the continued non-payment of outstanding bills by the area health service. The Director of Clinical Services of the Greater Southern Area Health Service has stated that the budget provided by the Government is not sufficient to meet patient demand.
In a private member's statement in this House last night I highlighted the need for this Government to provide adequate funding for rural health services in New South Wales. It is clear that the amalgamation of the two area health services, which took place 12 months ago without rural community consultation, has been to the extreme detriment of my constituents and thousands of other rural citizens in this State. I can quote examples of one disaster after another in relation to health issues. What has happened is an absolute tragedy. I have raised this matter on many occasions in this House, as have the honourable members representing the electorates of Bega, Wagga Wagga, Albury and Murrumbidgee. Each of us represents an electorate within the boundary of the Greater Southern Area Health Service.
The honourable member for Monaro, a Labor member of the New South Wales Parliament purporting to represent a rural constituency, has tried to defend the current system. Well, guess what? It just does not wash with the community. As of last week Chisholm Ross Hospital owed $4,486.53 in overdue bills dating back to 7 July, Queanbeyan Base Hospital owed $2,354.15 dating back to 27 July, and Crookwell Hospital owed $1,035.97 dating back to 24 January. A firm in my electorate is owed $500, which is more than 90 days overdue. I cannot reveal the name of the companies involved because they are concerned that they will lose further business from the area health service. But they are coming to me with their complaints, saying, "Please! These are government agencies. Why aren't they paying us? We are hardworking rural businesses. These are not large sums of money." These are not large sums of money but they are very important to the companies involved.
The example I cited of Dairy Farmers refusing to deliver Berri fruit juice to Goulburn Base Hospital—juice for patients, including pregnant mothers—because of non-payment of outstanding bills is quite simply outrageous. During question time two weeks ago I asked a question about the non-payment of visiting medical officers. The Auditor-General has been scathing in his remarks about the inability of the Greater Southern Area Health Service to pay its bills. This is not a new problem; I have raised this issue over the years. We want to see a reversal of the amalgamation of area health services. We want a return to local district hospital boards, particularly in rural areas, because the system at the moment is not working. The Government must reverse the terrible situation that exists in health services in rural New South Wales, most particularly in my electorate of Burrinjuck.
There have been delays in replacing Tumut Hospital and building the new Adelong-Batlow multipurpose service centre [MPS], which was promised before I was elected in 1999. There have been delays in opening the renal unit at Goulburn and attempts to close pathology services there. Families have to take electric fans into hospital wards because the airconditioning has broken down and the area health service cannot afford to have it fixed. Broken blood pressure monitors are not being replaced. Patients have had to take bandages home to have them washed and disinfected before they are reused. I assure honourable members that if you have pus-filled ulcers on your legs, that is the last thing you feel like doing—particularly if you have restricted mobility in the first place.
We need the Rural Communities Impact Bill. It must be passed in this House as a matter of urgency. Too much time has been wasted getting this bill before the House, and the Government simply has to support it. In particular those members of the Labor Party who represent rural electorates must support this very sensible bill—legislation that will be critical to the future of rural communities. This bill is important because of the ever-increasing decline in population in country communities. I know that every member of the Opposition representing a rural electorate has had this experience. Electorates are increasing in area, and a redistribution, which will occur before the next State election, will increase the size of the electorate of Burrinjuck to 35,000 square kilometres—an increase of about 10,000 square kilometres. That is a very large area.
So many people are being forced to move to the cities, where the services are being located, and rural communities are experiencing a lack of nursing staff and teachers. Women are no longer able to go to their local hospital to deliver their babies. That is just about criminal in my book! As someone who was born in Yass District Hospital, I would have liked my own children to be born in that hospital, but last December the Yass District Hospital maternity unit closed, as did the operating theatre at that hospital. Why? Because this Government is more set on spending money on a desalination plant that no-one wants than on supporting rural communities in this State. That is a travesty. It is a crime. Patients have to take their bandages home to disinfect them. Would that happen in a city hospital? I very much doubt it. If it happened in Sydney it would be front-page news. The Government does not care about country communities. [Extension of time agreed to.]
Recently in our local newspaper the secretary of the Goulburn branch of the Labor Party, Paul Cubitt, said, that the situation in regard to rural health, Goulburn Hospital and lack of payments going back to our rural businesses is a disgrace. It is time the community showed its disgust at this state of affairs. We need a decent public health system in our State and rural communities. The current situation is disgusting. If a rural communities impact statement had been done prior to legislation passing through this House we might have happier rural communities today. An example is getting rid of business enterprise centres, which provided a worthwhile service for businesses, particularly small business in rural communities. The Goulburn Business Enterprise Centre had to fold. It was disgraceful to see the Minister for Small Business travel around country areas and hear him tell furphy after furphy about business enterprise centres.
TAFE services have been cut back and relocated to more centralised areas. Goulburn TAFE offered a wonderful motor mechanics course, but the Government chose to move it from Goulburn to Wollongong. Do parents really want their 17- or 18-year-olds, who may be on P-plates, driving to TAFE in Wollongong to do the motor mechanics course when so many fatalities occur on our roads? I am sure the Minister for Roads, who is at the table, is interested in what I am saying. We already have too many P-platers driving dangerously on country roads. The further students have to travel to complete their education the more risk there is of their being killed on the roads. Unfortunately, students from the electorate of Burrinjuck have died unnecessarily while travelling to Canberra, Wagga Wagga, Wollongong or one of the larger centres to attend TAFE courses that were once provided in towns in my electorate.
Before changes are made to other significant legislation affecting education, health and agriculture, we must ensure that rural impact statements are carried out. Are rural impact statements really done before changes are made to legislation affecting agriculture? I very much doubt it. The Minister for Agriculture was unaware of, and uncaring about, the impact of his disastrous policies on ovine Johne's disease. Was a rural impact statement done prior to the passing of legislation on forestry privatisation?
Time after time the Government is guilty of failing to consult rural communities before it passes arcane legislation that will impact dramatically on local communities. I have presented petitions with thousands of signatures in this place complaining about the cutbacks to CountryLink rail services in my electorate. The Goulburn to Moss Vale rail service was cancelled and replaced by a bus service. Thousands of people from many different parts of my electorate—Crookwell, Bigga, Tuena, Binda, Yass, Murrumbateman and Tarago—used that service. Many of those who used the Goulburn to Moss Vale rail service are elderly and infirm and have restricted mobility. The train was convenient for those in wheelchairs or who use walking canes. It is much more difficult for them to board a bus, and much less comfortable to sit in a bus.
We deserve a good and efficient public transport network. Goulburn, which is the end of the CityRail line, has a number of major institutions, such as the Police College, the Department of Corrective Services, the Goulburn correctional facility and the Supermax. Families of those in institutions in Goulburn require a reliable public transport network. But time after time the Government has cut back services. Country rail services are an absolute classic. Yet the Minister for Transport has defended his rail cutbacks in this place. It is bad in the north of the State as well. Country rail services have been cut back right across the State. As a country member of Parliament I have seen the dramatic outrage of people at the cutbacks in rural services and grain rail branch lines. People at the Murrumbateman Field Day signed petition after petition complaining about the way the Government treats rural communities in relation to disability services, country rail services, TAFE services, other country education facilities, and rural and mental health services.
We all know what a terrible impact the drought has had on so many of our farmers, and we know the very real risk of suicide that is facing many country men and women, particularly in my electorate. Over the past several months I have lived with that first hand. The disastrous impact of this Government's legislation on rural communities has put us in a parlous position. We need more rural services, we need more rural health services, we need more TAFE education services, we need more trains, and we need a much better upgrade of our roads if we are to stop the continual erosion of the population base from our rural electorates into urban areas. That is why the legislation is so important. [Time expired.]
Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [10.37 a.m.]: The Rural Communities Impacts Bill is commonsense legislation. At every level of government we want to understand the impact upon our communities of legislation we pass, and we want to ensure that it is logical, smart and appropriate. I therefore support the bill. The Government says it conducts impact statements. I can just imagine the process. They sit in the Cabinet room with their one-page questionnaire with little boxes that they tick. The questionnaire says, "Have you considered this?" They tick it to say, "Yes, we have done that." I think another line says, "Have you done a rural impact statement?" They tick it and they say, "Yes, that's good." Done!
That probably is the level of research that goes into rural impact statements, which are the result of a hollow promise made by Bob Carr some time ago and which we remember well. Many honourable members have referred to it. The legislation is well drafted and it is good legislation. It is important that it is good legislation, but it is equally important that it is acted on appropriately at every level of government. Good decision making requires good research, and in that respect the Government has failed. No impact statement was done prior to the dairy industry deregulation and no impact statement was done prior to the establishment of the Scientific Committee on Environmental Issues, which is not accountable through the parliamentary process. Indeed, there have been no impact statements from the Government with respect to so many pieces of legislation; so many that it is not funny.
The same could be said of the Federal Parliament. Have we seen a rural communities impact statement with regard to Telstra? Such an impact statement was promised—in fact, I think the former Leader of The Nationals promised it—but one was not done. The legislation was passed—I might say, with the support of the New South Wales Coalition—and the first announcement the Government made was that 8,000 to 10,000 Telstra jobs would go, including jobs in regional areas.
I would have thought that if we were fair dinkum about the impact of legislation, both the Government and the Opposition would acknowledge the need to get on with the job of adopting the policy, rather than simply condemning the Government of the day. It is important that the principle of considering the impact of legislation on rural communities be supported. We could say the same for industrial relations. A lot of positions are being driven by blind ideology; they are not being driven by measuring the impact of legislation, which this bill purports to do. That is why I support it.
A number of Government and Opposition speakers have outlined why a rural communities impact statement is or is not a good idea. For the life of me I cannot understand why any government, community leader, or person with a role of responsibility, would not want to measure the impact of legislation before making a decision on it. That can only lead to well-informed and better decision-making, better policy and better legislation. It is logical to support good research, good consultation and good outcomes rather than, as we have seen with the Government this week, rushing through legislation without providing the opportunity to consult appropriate communities and consider the impact of the legislation on them. This Government's actions are matched by the actions of the Commonwealth Government, which is also rushing through legislation that will have a serious impact on people, and there is no way that impact has been measured.
I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Burrinjuck, particularly in relation to health. If we are to be fair about this, it is important that we look at the history of some of these issues. I recall introducing in this place the Local Government (Review of Legislative Proposals) Bill 2002, and I note that the honourable member for Strathfield, a former mayor, is in the Chamber. I introduced that legislation because local government was saying to me very clearly, "Let us look at the cost shifting measures from the New South Wales Government onto local government." Councils were saying to me, "Richard, let us look at the impact of legislative proposals that are imposed on local government without appropriate revenue streams. We rate cap them, we put extra burdens on them, and then we say: Let's not measure the impact."
To my surprise, when I introduced the Local Government (Review of Legislative Proposals) Bill 2002, Opposition members were the first to oppose it. The Hon. Duncan Gay, the then shadow Minister, said in a letter to me, which I am very happy to provide to members, "We don't need this legislation. We don't need to measure these sorts of impacts because that's the role of the Legislative Council." I am pleased to see this sort of legislation, but the State and Federal governments must adopt fair dinkum approaches to measuring its impact. The important pieces of legislation we are debating at the moment have an enormous impact on country communities.
The honourable member for Burrinjuck also referred to cuts to rail services. I wish to reinforce her sentiments regarding the Government's underinvestment in, and lack of attention to, regional and rural rail services. The record of the Government and the Opposition on rail services cuts are very similar. In fact, the Greiner Government removed the northern rail service from Armidale to Tenterfield. It was only returned to Armidale; Glen Innes and Tenterfield never saw it again. I have condemned cuts to rail services at the front line of my community in a very strong protest against the attempts of the former Minister for Transport, Michael Costa, to remove rail services from the northern part of the State.
The Coalition's record is no different, particularly in respect of cuts to rail services, as well as the industrial relations, Telstra, and voluntary student unionism legislation that is now being debated in the Federal Parliament. Has anyone done an impact statement on what would happen to facilities and services at regional universities and campuses if the proposed voluntary student unionism legislation is passed? I urge the New South Wales Leader of The Nationals to get on the phone to his Federal colleagues and convert them to some of the beliefs he suggests he has about the Rural Communities Impacts Bill, because the legislation will have a very serious impact on regional and rural communities and jobs. As we have seen with Telstra, the response is always, "No, no, it is a scare campaign. No rural jobs will be lost." Of course, the reality has proved to be different.
Senator Joyce looks like a clown at the moment. He said he would cross the floor on the Telstra legislation because of its impact on rural communities. However, he then voted in support of it. Then when the Federal Government said it would sack 8,000 to 10,000 people, many of them in country areas, Senator Joyce said, "Nobody told me." Every survey I have seen indicates that 80 per cent of the electors in country New South Wales were sending the message to The Nationals Senator Joyce that that would be the impact of the Telstra legislation. But what happened? He simply claimed ignorance after it was introduced.
We will see the same thing happen with the industrial relations legislation. My message to the Leader of The Nationals is this: If you want to measure impact, measure the impact of the industrial relations legislation on rural communities and jobs and then form a view about whether it is good policy. I support the bill, but let us not make it a hypocritical attempt to score political points. Let us support rural communities impact statements at the State, Federal and local government levels to ensure better decision making.
Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [10.46 a.m.]: I intend to support the Rural Communities Impacts Bill because during the brief time I have been a member of this Parliament I have witnessed far too many decisions taken by the New South Wales Government that clearly do not take into account their effect on rural and regional communities. I acknowledge the detail and thought that has gone into the drafting of this important bill It is a step in the right direction as it will require the preparation of rural communities impact statements and it will specify the circumstances under which they are required, which is very important.
Given that a large number of decisions made by the Government in the last few years have had a detrimental effect on rural communities, there is a need to include in all proposed legislation, statutory rules, and environmental planning instruments or decisions a requirement that a rural communities impact statement be prepared. The bill will help to protect communities from the impact of decisions made regarding issues such as the poker machine tax, which is causing so much concern in the club industry, threatening jobs, and undermining the good work that New South Wales clubs do in helping sporting, social and community activities in regional and rural towns.
In the electorate of Tamworth the Government has been approached for financial assistance for good charitable causes but it has refused such assistance. The Government does not recognise the importance of such causes in country communities. However, the local clubs have dug deep for the community and provided much-needed assistance. This sort of charitable activity is under threat because of the Government's poker machine tax grab. Amalgamations can also have a serious impact on country communities. There have been local government amalgamations and health service amalgamations, and both have had a significant detrimental effect on jobs and undermined the confidence of people in rural communities.
We have watched the Government completely ignore communities and stakeholders who co-operatively developed the BRUS option as the best way forward for industry, communities, and conservation in the Brigalow. In my electorate we have experienced the detrimental impact of WorkCover regulations on businesses in country areas, and watched many good country businesses pack up and relocate across the border to Queensland. Government decisions that have had a detrimental impact on rural communities include decisions in relation to water-sharing plans, the separation of land and water values, native vegetation legislation, Crown roads, vendor duty and property taxes. The abandonment of the Timber Bridge Program is having a significant detrimental impact in country areas. Currently Tamworth council has some 18 bridges in dire need of replacement but it does not have the money to carry out the work. The list of decisions that have impacted upon country communities goes on and on.
However, the bill focuses on a number of very important areas. First, there will be a requirement to provide a detailed description of any costs that are likely to be placed on businesses in rural communities, in order to comply with the relevant legislation or decision. Second, the likely impact of those costs on development and employment in rural communities must be properly identified and quantified. That is extremely important. Third, modelling must be undertaken of the likely impact on rural communities that would occur or remain five years after the legislation or decision is made.
That forces people and governments to look at the long-term impact of these decision-making processes. Fourth, the likely impact of the legislation on the social structure and wellbeing of rural communities must be examined. Fifth, the impact on transport services, health services, education facilities, government advisory services, infrastructure, policing and other key areas has to be identified. Finally, it requires the scrutiny of the impact on the environment whilst also considering the need to balance economic and social factors with environmental sustainability.
Because of that detail I believe this is a very well considered piece of legislation. All of these factors, when identified and taken into account, will lead to better decision making by government because they look beyond the aim of the bill and at the impacts that often seem to be misunderstood or not adequately considered. Given the large distances between country communities and the relatively small population base in country areas, many decisions impact on rural communities much more significantly than they do in the city. For example, the loss of a teacher would have little impact in Sydney, but the loss of a teacher in a small community can be devastating and can bring into question the viability of a school and, in the longer term, the viability of a community itself.
I support the bill as it is a very positive step for country people and I cannot see why any government interested in country communities would not want to know about the impact that legislation has on those communities.
Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [10.51 a.m.], in reply: The aim of this bill is to force the Labor Government to honour a promise made in 1995 by former Premier Bob Carr—a promise that was never honoured. The bill would afford a measure of protection from the most Sydney-centric government in the history of New South Wales. Unbelievably, not only is this sensible piece of legislation opposed by the Labor Government, but the chief opponents of it have been members of the so-called Country Labor faction: I refer specifically to the honourable members representing the electorates of Tweed and Monaro. They are the last people who should oppose sensible protection for rural communities.
Under this Government the electorate of Tweed has been affected by the closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah rail line; a savage increase in taxation on clubs, which has robbed the community of charitable donations as well as jobs in the club industry; problems continuing to be ignored at Banora Point High School; serious roads and traffic issues involving Sextons Hill and the Tugun bypass, which have not been properly addressed by this Government and are limiting the development of parts of the Tweed as well as causing road safety concerns; and a vendor tax, which was introduced without any consultation and which seriously damaged the property industry along the border with jobs in the real estate, housing and construction industries moving over the border into Queensland. So one would think the honourable member for Tweed would be the last person to oppose a bill that would offer his electorate a measure of protection against those sorts of disastrous policies from this Labor Government.
The honourable member for Monaro was the other member of the Government who spoke against the bill. Given the Labor Government's track record in his electorate 1 would have thought he would be the first to support the bill. There have been broken promises on the ring road around Queanbeyan; delays in the redevelopment of the Queanbeyan hospital; the axing of funding to the Cooma Business Enterprise Centre; plans to lock people out of the Kosciuszko National Park; plans to sell off the Snowy Hydro Scheme, which were revealed in this House yesterday; and a doubling of Kosciuszko National Park entrance fees without any consultation whatsoever with the business community that is affected by these changes. It is no wonder Steve Whan is looking wan when his government has that sort of track record and he is forced by his party to speak in opposition to a bill that would have prevented a lot of this from occurring.
Interestingly, no-one from the dominant Sydney Labor faction of this Government—which is about 90 per cent of the Government—even bothered to speak on the bill, confirming their complete disinterest in country New South Wales. This so-called Country Labor faction, along with its city Labor colleagues, has opposed a bill that would have ensured that proper impact statements would be prepared and considered by any State government—Coalition or Labor—before the Government introduced policies that impact on country towns and villages and the families that live in them. According to the honourable member for Tweed, the Government's opposition to this bill is due to the demonstrably spurious assertion that impact statements are already being done. If that were true, where are the rural community impact statements for the shameful lockup of the Pilliga Forest, which will cost hundreds of jobs in the north-west in towns like Baradine, Gwabegar, Gulargambone, Bingara, Gunnedah and Dubbo?
[Interruption]
The honourable member for Tamworth interjects. There is no certainty of resources that has been offered to the mill in Gunnedah, so ultimately, because of that lack of certainty, it is going to cost jobs. There can be no investment without certainty, and they still do not have that. Up until now these towns have enjoyed the presence of a well-managed and sustainable timber industry, but it has been savagely impacted upon by the Labor Government. If rural community impact statements were being done, where was such a statement for the buying up and shutting down of Yanga station, which had provided sustainable timber and livestock jobs to families in towns such as Balranald and Hay? Where was the rural community impact statement for the abolition of area health services in Tamworth, Broken Hill and Port Macquarie and the subsequent creation of huge health areas, which have effectively disfranchised local communities from the management of their public hospitals?
Where was the rural community impact statement for the closure of Murrumbidgee Agricultural College at Yanco, and a number of agricultural research stations including Shannonvale on the Northern Tablelands? Where was the rural community impact statement for the closure of grain rail lines between Rankin Springs and Barmedman, Burchett to West Wyalong, Willbriggie to Yanco and Gwabegar to Binnaway, which will force 70,000 more trucks each year onto already crumbling country roads? Where was the rural community impact statement on Labor's forced amalgamation of country councils such as Nundle, Evans, Manilla and Maclean, which, again, disfranchised communities from their local government representation? Where was the rural community impact statement for Labor's hastily announced marine park decision, which will restrict fishing and recreational activity in the ocean and along the coastline on the north and south coasts and which will devastate fishing and tourism related businesses?
Where was the rural community impact statement for the Native Vegetation Act and Threatened Species Act, which affect the viability of farmers as well as the value of their land? This is inflexible, Greens-inspired, city-developed legislation, which is costing country communities and clearly has been introduced without any consideration of its impact on farmers and the communities that depend on primary production income. If rural community impact statements are being done, the Labor Government is clearly ignoring them because its agenda of centralisation and kowtowing to the demands of radical Greens in exchange for preferences has continued unabated. If in fact there is any form of rural community impact statement, Country Labor members are meekly rolling over to appease their Sydney Labor mates, and in doing so they are selling out their communities.
I should add that the Independent party consisting of members representing the electorates of Tamworth, Dubbo, Northern Tablelands and Port Macquarie—whom the so-called Country Labor convener in this place regards as Country Labor members—have also been totally ineffective in stopping the rot, even in their own electorates. They bleat, they attack The Nationals-Liberal Coalition, occasionally they attack their friends in the Labor Party, but they will never be in government to fix these problems, and they have been ineffective in stopping the Labor Government's ideological agenda.
The other spurious reasons given by the honourable member for Tweed in opposing the bill is that it would require rural community impact statements to be prepared in the city. This is plainly false. The Nationals and Liberal Coalition will decentralise government departments and agencies in country areas. The staff in those agencies will prepare and co-ordinate the preparation of those rural community impact statements, which will then be put together by the Cabinet Office for consideration by State Cabinet. This bill is sensible and enshrines a promise already made, but not carried out, by the former Premier of this State. It will ensure a measure of protection for the rural communities of New South Wales from the ideological excesses of a centralist, socialist Labor Government. But instead of bipartisan support from the country-based members in this place, we have seen sheer bloody-minded opposition on party lines from the Labor Government based solely on spurious reasons.
The Labor Party, including so-called Country Labor members, will now use its numbers to vote down a bill that represents a cry for help from country families who just want a fair go. This is a day of shame in this Parliament, and the so-called Country Labor members who are heroes back in their hometowns but wimps here in Sydney are the most shameful of all. Let me name them: the member for Tweed, the member for Bathurst, the member for Monaro, the member for Murray-Darling, the member for Port Stephens, the member for Maitland and the member for Kiama. Let their actions today in selling out their country communities simply to ensure the continuation of their parliamentary careers in the Labor Party be recorded in the annals of shame in the governance of New South Wales.
Mr Joseph Tripodi: You are an idiot.
Mr ANDREW STONER: I acknowledge the interjection from the Minister for Roads. That is typical of his contribution in this place.
Mr Joseph Tripodi: You are wasting time. Get on with it.
Mr ANDREW STONER: He says I am wasting time talking about country communities who want a fair go from his Government. He is a disgrace. He would not want to show his face in country New South Wales or they will do what they want to do to him.
Mr Joseph Tripodi: Mr One Per Cent. You had better have a sign on you when you get there.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Roads and the Leader of The Nationals will address the Chair.
Mr ANDREW STONER: I thank honourable members representing the electorates of Lismore, Bega, Murrumbidgee, Clarence, Wagga Wagga, Albury, Ballina, Orange, Burrinjuck, Northern Tablelands and Tamworth for supporting the bill and I commend it to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.Ayes, 33
Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Mr Barr
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mr Fraser
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hartcher
Ms Hodgkinson | Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson
Mr Kerr
Mr Merton
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts
Ms Seaton
Mrs Skinner | Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Noes, 46
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Chaytor
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Mr Daley
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus | Ms Gadiel
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson
Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hunter
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Lynch
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Ms Moore
Mr Morris
Mr Newell | Ms Nori
Mr Orkopoulos
Mr Pearce
Mrs Perry
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Ms Tebbutt
Mr Tripodi
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Pairs
Mr Debnam | Mr McBride |
| Mr Piccoli | Mr Price |
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:33:27 : Update this page