GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 3 · 2016-04-22 · CORRECTED GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING...

CORRECTED

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 3

Friday 19 October 2007

Examination of proposed expenditure for the portfolio area

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, MENTAL HEALTH

The Committee met at 5.00 p.m.

MEMBERS

The Hon. A. R. Fazio (Chair)

The Hon. R. L. Brown The Hon. M. A. Ficarra

The Hon. M. J. Pavey The Hon. M. S. Veitch

Ms S. P. Hale

The Hon. I. W. West

_______________

PRESENT The Hon. P. G. Lynch, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister

Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health) Department of Local Government G. Payne, Director General R. K. Woodward, Deputy Director General Department of Health R. Matthews, Deputy Director General K. R. Barker, Chief Financial Officer Department of Aboriginal Affairs J. Broun, Director General Aboriginal Land Rights Act Representatives: S. Wright, Registrar

_______________

CORRECTED

CORRECTIONS TO TRANSCRIPT OF COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS Corrections should be marked on a photocopy of the proof and forwarded to: Budget Estimates secretariat Room 812 Parliament House Macquarie Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

GARY PAYNE, Director General, Department of Local Government, and ROSS KEITH WOODWARD, Deputy Director General, Department of Local Government, sworn and examined:

CHAIR: I declare the proposed expenditure for the portfolios of Local Government, Aboriginal Affairs and Mental Health open for examination. Minister, do you wish to make a brief opening statement of no longer than five minutes?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I would propose to make a brief opening statement. It will be less than

five minutes in relation to local government. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee. I would like to briefly clarify the extent of my portfolio of local government. The focus of my portfolio is to provide a framework for a strong and sustainable local government sector that works together to meet community needs. The Department of Local Government provides the policy and legislative framework for the local government sector. The principal pieces of legislation administered by the Department of Local Government are the Local Government Act 1993 and the Companion Animals Act 1988. The activities of local councils are many and varied.

While I would be pleased to answer questions about my portfolio, it is important to point out

those areas of local government that do not fall within it and where questions should be referred to my colleagues. Accordingly, will the Committee please note that questions about planning should be directed to the Minister for Planning, questions about roads should be directed to the Minister for Roads and questions about the environment and water and sewerage should be referred to the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water.

CHAIR: We will now commence with 20 minutes of Opposition questioning. The Hon.

Marie Ficarra? The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Minister, you would be well aware of two Land and

Environment Court decisions that have strongly reflected on Canada Bay council. To set the scene, the council has, according to the court, sold 11 public properties to one particular developer, including a street, without public tender and entered into contracts that have been voided by the court as improperly favouring the developer. Why have you not announced an inquiry into Canada Bay council?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: One of the reasons is the fact you have just gone through. If you have

the matter proceeding through the court and being resolved by the court there is hardly a need to waste public resources by having further public inquiries into something that has already been resolved by the court. If you have further allegations to make that are more specific than that, go to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. That is where they should go. Indeed, I understand your colleague the member for Terrigal has referred matters to the Independent Commission Against Corruption relating to Canada Bay. It seems to me that if there are allegations of corruption, it is the Independent Commission Against Corruption that ought to be dealing with them. It has investigative powers that be Department of Local Government does not have. That is the appropriate place for those allegations to be tested.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Have you had any dealings with Canada Bay council on this

issue at all? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I certainly have not, and if you were at all properly briefed you would

understand that the relationship between me and the Mayor is anything but cordial. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Do you personally know Mr Antoine Bechara? Mr PAUL LYNCH: To the best of my knowledge I have never met him. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Is Mr Bechara a card-carrying member of the Labor Party? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I certainly would not know if he was. You perhaps do not understand a

lot about ALP factional politics, but head office does not tell me a lot.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1 FRIDAY 19 OCTOBER 2007

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: You definitely had no contact with Mr Antoine Bechara

yourself? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have never met anyone that I can identify as Antoine Bechara. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Did you consider a section 740 inquiry into Canada Bay

council? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I would have thought it was pretty obvious from the answer I have just

given you that the answer to that must be no. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is pretty obvious that it is a Labor Party council and you

would not want to have a section 740 inquiry into a Labor Party council? Mr PAUL LYNCH: That is an offensive and stupid comment. If you have done your

research you would understand the serve I had given the mayor of Canada Bay a couple of months ago publicly.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: The general manager and director of community

development of Port Macquarie-Hastings Council met with your director general, Gary Payne, sitting beside you, in late December 2006. At that meeting the general manager advised the director general that Port Macquarie-Hastings Council had resolved to let the contracts for the Glasshouse project. At that time the director general did not raise any issue with that resolution and made a comment that, "Even if it was $60 million council could afford it anyway." Could the director general advise why he never raised this as an issue with the council staff at the time?

Mr PAYNE: Sorry, could I just ask the date of the meeting? The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: December 2006. Mr PAYNE: I have no recollection of meeting the general manager. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: You do not have any recollection of meeting the director of

community development? Mr PAYNE: Who is the director of community development? The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Craig. Mr PAYNE: Craig who? The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Craig. Mr PAYNE: I never met him. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: You have not met him? Mr PAYNE: To the best of my knowledge I have never met him. I have never spoken to

him. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: The current Minister ordered the public inquiry into Port

Macquarie-Hastings Council. The previous Minister had clearly indicated there was no reason for a public inquiry into Port Macquarie-Hastings Council. Kerry Hickey said so in a letter last year. Since you became the Minister the only change that has occurred to the project relates to the cost and which has been largely due to the archaeological find under the grounds where the Glasshouse development is proceeding. Council has subsequently been commended by the New South Wales Heritage Office, and even provided with grants by it, towards the preservation of archaeological aspects of the project. Minister, can you please explain why you decided to go ahead with the inquiry?


Mr PAUL LYNCH: The section 430 inquiry was called on 6 November 2006 by my predecessor. It reported in May 2007. It found that council did not exercise due diligence in financial management at the arts conference and entertainment centre. There had been no scoping exercise for the entertainment centre.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: That is incorrect. Mr PAUL LYNCH: I thought the upper House behaved better than my House. The

conference facility increased the cost by a third with no identified source of funding. There was no consideration of the impact of the cost of the arts conference and entertainment centre on service delivery. There was considerable community opposition to the proposal. There had been no feasibility study for the project. There had been a dramatic increase in cost. They were the findings of the section 430 inquiry. I would have thought the question would have been how could you avoid a section 430 inquiry?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Are you aware— Mr PAUL LYNCH: I would be obliged if you would let me finish. You asked the question.

I would have thought I am entitled to finish the answer. The really interesting thing about this is the manic campaign The Nationals have been running against a public inquiry. What on earth are you frightened of? What are you trying to hide? All I decided to do was have a public inquiry. What are you frightened of? I have no evidence of this, but I have to say one has to be suspicious there is some corrupt Nationals' rort that you are terrified about being exposed.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Not at all. Mr PAUL LYNCH: You reckon? The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Keep searching and see if you can find one. Mr PAUL LYNCH: All I have done is call a public inquiry. What are you frightened of? The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: How much is the project? Mr PAUL LYNCH: What are you frightened of? The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: How much is the project? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Wouldn't— The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I am asking the questions. You are here today to answer

them. How much is the Glasshouse project? CHAIR: Order! We will get better answers if things calm down and the witness is given an

opportunity to answer. If you are not satisfied with his answer, then please feel free to ask follow-up questions.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: How much is the Glasshouse building? Mr PAUL LYNCH: The body to whom that question should be asked is the council. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: No, I am asking you. Mr PAUL LYNCH: They are the ones pursuing the proposal. That is one of the issues— The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is $26.6 million, just in case you would like to know. Mr PAUL LYNCH: That is the proposition you are putting up.


The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Why was it reported as a $60 million project when you included, with the most unbelievable accounting standards, the interest costs of the project as a cost of the total project?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I will no doubt be— The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: In what accounting procedures have you seen that done

before? The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: Point of order: The Minister should be provided the

opportunity to respond to the questions without continued interjection from the honourable member. CHAIR: As I said previously, you will get a lot more information from this session if you

ask the Minister a question, get his answer and then ask a follow-up question. Mr PAUL LYNCH: I will now go back to giving the answer to the question three questions

ago that I was cut off from giving. The issue you are raising about the cost is one of the matters before the public inquiry now. If you are keen about pursuing the issue, I suggest you make those submissions to the public inquiry.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Are you aware that the Ritz Arcade, which is part of the

project, was a fire risk and had to be taken over by council, a decision by the previous council?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: If you are actually pursuing that argument, I am not the one you should be saying it to. You should be putting that argument to the public inquiry that is being conducted now. They are matters being considered by the public inquiry.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: How much is Commissioner Frank Willan being paid on a

daily basis? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I will defer to the director general. Mr PAYNE: I think it is $900 a day. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Can you advise us of the number of inquiries that are

presently underway into local councils throughout New South Wales, the total cost of each inquiry and particular amounts of fees paid in the last 12 months to each commissioner carrying out inquiries?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: There are two inquiries into section 740, one is into Port Macquarie and

the other is into Brewarrina. As to the details and the costing, I will defer to the director general. Mr PAYNE: I cannot give you a cost because they are not completed. The Brewarrina

inquiry is being conducted by a departmental officer so it will be a salary. As I said, Commissioner Willan is paid $900 a day. At this stage we have an indicative cost of how many days he will be involved but it is not conclusive.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Who will be paying those costs? Mr PAYNE: The department. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: The cost of the inquiry will not later be billed to the

council? Mr PAYNE: No. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: So the Department of Local Government will pick up all the

costs of the inquiry? Mr PAYNE: We will cover the costs, correct.


The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Could you take that on notice and give us an answer in writing?

Mr WOODWARD: We will not be able to provide that because we do not have the figures

at this point. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Whatever you have expended up until this point. Mr WOODWARD: I can do that. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: What is the position within the department of Marilyn

McAuliffe, who made the recommendation to you to inquire into the section 740? Mr PAYNE: I am not sure that I understand the question. The section 430 investigation that

recommended the public inquiry was conducted by three people. Two of those people we contracted from the internal audit bureau, from memory, and one was a departmental officer. That was the report that came forward that went to the Minister recommending the public inquiry. McAuliffe was not part of that three-person team.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I am just referring to Marilyn McAuliffe, who I understand,

in papers provided to my office from the Department of Local Government, made the recommendation to the Minister that there be a 740 inquiry into Port Macquarie Council?

Mr PAYNE: As I said, the actual recommendation came from the investigative team. She

may have put a covering submission on it. Marilyn McAuliffe is a finance officer but she was not part of the team.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: She is a finance officer within the department? Mr PAYNE: Yes. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Minister, you would be well aware that councils are most

concerned about the cost of local government elections since you have shifted the cost from State government onto local government—another imposition. Port Macquarie Hastings Council's bill has gone from $200,000 in 2004 to $360,000 for 2008, a rise of 80 per cent; Blacktown City Council had an increase of over a 100 per cent, so next year they will be paying over $1 million to conduct their local government elections. What action have you taken to protect local councils from this massive slug?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: There are two or three questions in that. In relation to the first one, yes,

I am aware of a degree of concern. As to the other parts of the question, you have got the wrong person in terms of asking questions of me. They are matters that have been determined by the Electoral Commissioner, who is an independent body. The ministerial responsibility for that lies with the Premier but frankly it would be difficult to pursue it with the Premier granted that the Electoral Commissioner is an independent body.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Are you concerned that local councils are finding it hard to

bear this cost? I mean, you are the Minister. Surely you cannot pass the buck on that. Are you concerned?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I am indeed the Minister but you seem to forget where you are. This is

not a committee that inquires into my concerns. This is a committee that inquires into the estimates in relation to my department. The questions you have asked do not relate to the estimates in relation to my department. If you do not understand that, I am sorry, but you really ought to understand the role that you are fulfilling here.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: So in other words, you are not concerned, you have not done

anything about it and you do not intend to do anything about it? That is the answer.


Mr PAUL LYNCH: That, of course, is a lie and a grossly unfair misrepresentation of what I have just said. If you want me to do it again, I will go through that answer again but you clearly do not understand the role that you are supposed to be fulfilling here.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: You are useless. Mr PAUL LYNCH: And frankly you muttering things like that under your breath like you

were at a Young Liberal Conference will not help. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: I am not muttering them under my breath; I am saying them

into the microphone—useless. As opposed to offensive and stupid. Minister, the recent announcement by your colleague the Minister for Planning "levies paid to local government in growth centres are to be held by the State Government" is clearly the State Government again taking section 94 contributions away from local government in these growth areas. Again I pre-empt that you are going to pass the buck once more. What action have you taken to defend local government and restore to councils their section 94 levies?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I am sorry to have to once again comment upon your intellectual

incapacity but I am not a shadow Minister for Frank Sartor. If you want to ask questions about planning matters go and ask questions of the planning Minister.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Tonight you will be passing all of the questions across to

other people. Mr PAUL LYNCH: No, I will be doing my job, unlike you. My job is to answer questions

about my department and my portfolio responsibilities. Your job is to ask me questions about those matters. So far you are not doing terribly well.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Minister, just relating to cost shifting and the Allen report,

as you would be aware, the tragic death of five people on the Pacific Highway at Somersby highlights cost shifting from State to local government. Since you became Minister this year what improvements have you made to implement the 2006 Allen report on cost shifting and what measures have you announced?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Of course, your assumption about what has happened in that tragic

accident is profoundly pre-emptive. There needs to be a coronial inquest before there are any determinative results in relation to that.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Cost shifting is an issue, is it not? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Look, this is going to work a lot better if you let me give an answer

before you interject. It really is pretty obvious. We can go on like this all night, but if you are going to keep interjecting it is going to simply waste everybody's time. In relation to the Allen report, I met with Percy Allen last week. There is a whole-of-government response being prepared in relation to the Allen proposal. It is interesting that your definition of what you think Allen might be recommending is quite different to his. He is actually talking not so much about issues of cost shifting so much as local government is not borrowing enough, which is perhaps something that has been missed by some of the people making commentaries about these things. I am not sure that I am particularly endorsing that as a way forward but that is the reality of what Allen is talking about. The whole-of-government response is being prepared and we would anticipate, I think, but that will be released reasonably soon.

Mr PAYNE: I am not sure when, but soon. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: What is soon? Are we talking about this financial year, the

next financial year, three months, four months, five months, six months? Mr PAUL LYNCH: As my deputy director general reminds me, we are in fact waiting on

responses from some other Ministers before the whole-of-government report is finalised. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: So after Christmas?


Mr PAUL LYNCH: I did not say that. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: February, March? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I said what I meant and meant what I said. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: So, soon. Mr PAUL LYNCH: That is what I said. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Minister, Wollongong council believes that cost shifting is

amounting to 10 per cent of its revenue. You are saying that you will get a response to this soon. Councils are facing enormous budget pressure on a daily basis and all you can come up with is "soon".

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Well, once again you have misrepresented what I said, but I guess that

will happen all evening. There are a number of other issues relating to that. In fact, the most severe financial pressure on local councils has been the appalling behaviour of the Federal Government. They have consistently reduced financial assistance grants. Financial assistance grants as a percentage of total Commonwealth revenue have been going southwards at a rate of knots. That is the real financial pressure that has been going on to local governments. As to cost shifting, in relation to things within my portfolio, in fact, we have been avoiding that. The most recent extra onus that was placed on councils within my portfolio was some requirements under the companion animal legislation requiring them to do some checking of various structures. We in fact allowed them to charge a fee for that so there was no cost shifting allowed. We gave them a source of revenue to be able to match the extra function we gave them.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: In relation to the Independent Commission Against

Corruption paper "Corruption Risks in the New South Wales Development Approval Process", have you developed a response to that position paper yet?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Subject to what my director general tells me, my recollection is that

that is properly more to do with the Minister for Planning. I have read the ICAC paper. Most of it in fact related to development application and developers and therefore fell within Sartor's jurisdiction.

Mr PAYNE: That is right. It is not something that we would get involved in. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: You are not responding to local government issues in

relation to development approval processes? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Development approval processes are planning matters covered by the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act—that is fairly basic—and therefore they are matters for Minister Sartor.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is a fairly basic contention within the community that

local government is constantly at threat of developers controlling the process and getting their way. And you are not making a response to that ICAC paper, as local government Minister?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: And the regulation of planning rests with the Minister for Planning! The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: And decisions are made on a daily basis within local

government. Mr PAUL LYNCH: About planning matters! Therefore the Minister with responsibility to

deal with planning issues is the planning Minister. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Perhaps this is a question that the Minister can handle and

not bypass. Minister, there is a 13-member Ministerial Advisory Council, chaired by Ernie Page, to


assist you in your portfolio. What recommendations has the Ministerial Advisory Council made since its inception under your predecessor?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: In terms of a complete list of the recommendations, I will take the

question on notice and get back to you. Most recently the council has made recommendations concerning the terms of mayors, for example. It has suggested that with regard to mayors that are elected on a term- by-term basis, that is, not popularly elected, if councils wish they might opt for election by two-year terms rather than one-year terms. That was something that came out of the Ministerial Advisory Council meeting before last. The council has made some other proposals about sick leave. Those matters are now being put out for discussion within the sector generally. There have been a host of other things, and I am happy to take that on notice and give you the details in the fullness of time.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Will these recommendations by the council be made fully

public? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I just said that— The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: I understand you are going to give them to us, but will they

be made public? Mr PAUL LYNCH: The last two I referred to, in fact, have already been put out for public

discussion. As to whether they are available publicly now, I am not sure whether we would be prepared to release them publicly. It depends on what they are. I have not looked at them. Certainly the last two I referred to have already been circulated to all councillors. I am happy to have a look at them. I have not exactly been overwhelmed by demands that the recommendations be made public.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: You would imagine that the councils involved throughout

the State would be interested to know— Mr PAUL LYNCH: Granted that the President of the Local Government and Shires

Associations are on the advisory panel, I suspect that most councils probably already know, without anything further being done.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: The councils I have spoken to do not. Mr PAUL LYNCH: Maybe they should talk to the Local Government Association a bit

more often. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Have any recommendations made by the advisory council

been acted upon, or are they just in discussion? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have just indicated that the last two that I happened to remember off

the top of my head have been put out to the sector, on the basis that we are likely to be proceeding with them on what was their view.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My crossbench colleague Ms Sylvia Hale might care to note

that the Chair has agreed that she may use any of my unused time for questioning. Minister, in a previous answer Mr Payne advised that the cost of Commissioner Willan's

inquiry under section 740 of the Local Government Act 1993 was $900 a day. I understand there are three assistant commissioners also on the inquiry. Is that correct?

Mr PAYNE: That is incorrect. The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Are any other commissioners on the inquiry? Mr PAYNE: No.


The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Has the inquiry been extended from three weeks to six weeks?

Mr PAYNE: I have never heard of three weeks before—and you would never do an inquiry

in three weeks; that would be ridiculous. The timetable for the inquiry to report will probably be early in 2008.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Minister, I have a number of questions in relation to the

conduct of this inquiry. I believe that on 15 October, in the 6.30 a.m. local news on the ABC mid-North Coast radio, there was a voice-cut of Commissioner Frank Willan commenting on the big response in submissions, where he suggested that it might have been better "if they had held a plebiscite"—which, I am informed, is one of the catch-cries of a small number of people opposing the Glasshouse. I understand that the commissioner also implied that he would not be influenced by the ratio of supportive submissions to the ratio of opposing submissions.

I note, if this information is correct, that there has been a record number of submissions,

more than 800, running about three to one in favour of the Glasshouse. If Commissioner Willan's public comments are as reported, these comments could be considered to be both subjective and, more importantly, pre-emptive—from a commissioner who is supposed to be impartial—and would surely raise the question whether Commissioner Willan should be disqualified from conducting this inquiry. Do you have a view on that?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have heard nothing that would suggest he ought to be disqualified

from conducting the inquiry. I clearly want to have somewhat better evidence as to what he did or did not say. I have no doubt that he will conduct the inquiry properly, fairly and impartially.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Further to that, I have been informed that in a preliminary

sitting to discuss the way the inquiry would be conducted Commissioner Willan made another subjective comment, which was that the submissions from those opposing the Glasshouse were more "articulate" than those supporting the Glasshouse. Irrespective of the veracity of that claim, if those comments are correct, I would be interested to hear your view on how Commissioner Willan could have made that judgment, or would have expressed that judgment, given that he is required to appear to be totally unbiased in his considerations.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I would want a little better evidence as to what he actually said. So far

what I have heard is hearsay. You can see that it is just hearsay, so you would be a little reluctant— The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: No. They are transcripts from radio. Mr PAUL LYNCH: It is bad enough that you interjected when you were asking questions;

now you are interjecting when someone else is asking questions. As I said, I would want somewhat better evidence than I have so far as to exactly what he said. I would have thought, though, that it is a pretty basic principle in regard to anyone conducting an inquiry that they are allowed to form a view about the evidence before them. And that does not by any means say that they are prejudiced. In fact, in a sense that is their job: they are meant to assess what comes before them and make a decision about it. Maybe that is what happened. It happens during court cases every day of the week in front of judges, who are never accused of being biased.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: The difference perhaps, Minister, is that formulating a view

as you hear evidence is one thing, but expressing that view publicly may tend to influence further evidence. If this third-hand information is correct, and if there are transcripts of radio statements or minutes of meetings, et cetera, that show that Commissioner Willan has made these sorts of comments, would you not agree that perhaps he should be dissuaded from making further comment until such time as the inquiry is concluded, or certainly until all the evidence is taken?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I think you are quite wrong about that. If you are conducting an inquiry

properly, one of the things you have to do is give people a fair chance to respond to issues that arise. If you are the inquirer, and you form a view that a particular thing is the case, you are duty-bound, if you are conducting a fair and proper inquiry, to put that on the record so that people who are adversely affected by that view have a chance to respond. That is, in fact, a basic principle of natural justice and


procedural fairness. So, if he is doing what you are saying, it is probably absolutely incumbent upon him to do precisely that.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: So that is normal practice, in your view? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have sat through 15 years of court cases. I have to say, if a judge has

formed a view on the bench and is not letting the counsel know, then he is not doing his job. Ms SYLVIA HALE: Returning to the corruption lists in New South Wales development

approval processes, there are a number of recommendations. I am looking at chapter 11 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption report, which specifically concerns the Department of Local Government. I would like to know your feelings about those matters. For example, on page 71 of the report, in speaking about the summary of submissions received in relation to donations, it says, "Some suggested a dollar limit above which this requirement should apply [that is, to declare donations]. The Department of Local Government felt, however, that the amount donated is not a definitive test of whether a conflict of interest exists." Could you tell me what the definitive test is, if it is not the quantum of money you receive as a donation?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I will defer in a moment to the Director General, in the sense that it is

probably his submission. The significance of an amount of money is not necessarily based on the quantum; it is perhaps based on the proportion of someone's total wealth, how attractive it might be. To one person $500 might be an awful lot of money, whereas to someone else it might not be a lot of money at all. I suspect that is the point you are trying to get at.

Mr PAYNE: That is precisely the point we were making. It is very difficult to put a dollar

amount on anything, particularly pecuniary interests. What impacts on one person will have a different impact on another. It is something significant to the recipient.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: So that would be an argument for setting the bar fairly low, would it

not? So you would capture those people to whom $500 seemed to be a significant amount, and they would have that form of perception, and that could influence the outcome?

Mr PAYNE: I think the key to it is the word "significant". It has to be a reasonable and

significant amount. It is a very subjective test. Ms SYLVIA HALE: But without having an objective test, such as a definite amount of

money, then significance is in the eye of the beholder and we find with the model code of conduct how unsatisfactory that it is.

Mr PAYNE: I disagree with that, but anyway. Ms SYLVIA HALE: You are opposed to the stipulation of a specific amount above which

you would have to declare a donation? Mr PAYNE: Yes. Ms SYLVIA HALE: Minister, you would prescribe to that view as well? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I think it is fair to say, without wanting to disagree too much with my

Director General, you can have arguments both ways on that. As members of Parliament we have an obligation to declare gifts above $500. There may well be a whole lot of people in this building to whom a gift considerably in excess of $500 is not terribly important. I am not one of those but there are some other people in this building that are quite rich and to whom $500 would not mean a thing. But on the other hand there is a limit. I think there is an argument both ways. As was pointed out fairly forcefully earlier, there has not been a formal Government response to it so I suspect that will be one of the things that will be talked about within various departments before a formal response is made.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: It is interesting that you mentioned the position of members of

Parliament because the same paragraph goes on to say:


Several submissions noted the disparity between the reporting requirements of the model code and those applying to members of the New South Wales Parliament.

There was general support for the same standards to be applied at all levels of government. Would you endorse that view as well?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have some sympathy for it without unequivocally endorsing it. I think part of the problem with a lot of this discussion is none of it is an exact science. If there were an absolutely silver bullet solution to these issues people would have done it a long time ago. I think there are legitimate points of discussion and points of difference about those sorts of issues.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: But you would agree that discussion can only continue for so long and

when you have what is clearly, I think, overt public discontent at the influence that donations are perceived to exercise, both at local government and State Parliamentary levels, it is time to do something about it?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I think the problem about "doing something about it" is the problem

that has been highlighted by a number of people, in particular by the Premier. You cannot actually do it unless you do it nationally. I think as a matter of law—that is a separate point to that, but if you are talking about doing something about it you actually need a national scheme.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: It is quite interesting talking about a national level when we look, for

example, to donations made in the lead up to the local government elections. The Western Australian Local Government Election Regulation 1997—a decade old—requires candidates to disclose to the chief executive officer of the relevant council area all gifts received within the period starting six months before the election and ending three days afterwards, in the case of unsuccessful candidates, or on the start date for financial interest returns for successful candidates. Clearly in Western Australia they have not waited the 10 years to act: they acted. In fact one of the recommendations of the Independent Commission Against Corruption report is that we introduce a similar requirement.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I think you will find the recent events in Western Australia would

confirm pretty conclusively that the regulations over there are not all that effective. Ms SYLVIA HALE: That may be because of lack of resources to enforce the regulations.

That is a different thing to not having any regulations at all? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I am not persuaded that the Western Australian system is all that

effective. Ms SYLVIA HALE: Why do you think that it is not effective? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I am not sure that I have spent a lot of time looking at the Western

Australian model. I have found I have quite a lot to do as a Minister in this State. Certainly, however, my perception is that whatever is happening in Western Australia has not been all that effective.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Would you care to comment on the following remark from the report: The current system makes it compulsory to report long after the election so the public cannot know in advance who gave donations. If a successful candidate makes a decision after the election but not all returns are in and published there is no scope for scrutiny of the councillor's obligation, if any, to declare a conflict of interest and to take the appropriate action.

Would you agree that the Independent Commission Against Corruption has a point?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Loathe as I am to disagree with the Independent Commission Against Corruption, I am not sure I agree with that because it seems to me that even if the declaration is made later the apparent conflict of interest would still be there. Even if it is six months later when you announced what you received, you will still have had it six months earlier and you are still liable to the same public and potential legal consequences as if the declaration was made at the time.


Ms SYLVIA HALE: Yes, but there is a declaration. The money may not come to the individual councillor but it may go to a group with which he is associated. That could be held to be a non-pecuniary conflict of interest and under the model code of conduct there is no requirement for a councillor to declare a conflict of interest if he does not perceive it to be a conflict of interest.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: That is a separate issue though, is it not? I mean that is not the timing

gap. Ms SYLVIA HALE: Well you were saying— Mr PAUL LYNCH: I was talking about the timing gap. I was responding to that point. Ms SYLVIA HALE: My point here is that unless there is timely exposure of donations it

becomes extraordinarily difficult for people to even determine whether the areas conflict of interest, whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary. Unless that timely disclosure is made people do not have the basis to investigate and even the councillor can say, "Well I did not perceive a conflict of interest" so they can be exonerated from any need to declare that conflict as well.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I think there are two separate issues there. One is the timing issue. I am

not persuaded that is all that important because, as I have said, even if the declaration is made six months later the apparent conflict will still be obvious. It is a separate issue as to which body you are making the donation to. Are you making it to a councillor or are you making to a political party? That I am afraid goes centrally to the whole issue of the need for a national scheme. Whilst you do not have a national scheme you can hide donations by bodies outside the states, Federal bodies and so forth.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: So you think it is impossible to act unilaterally on this issue in this

State? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I think it is very difficult to do anything that makes a difference unless

you have a national scheme. Ms SYLVIA HALE: You do not think it is even worth trying? Mr PAUL LYNCH: No, I did not say that. Ms SYLVIA HALE: Well what do you think we should try to do? The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Nothing much. Mr PAUL LYNCH: As to that interjection over there it is your Federal government that has

refused to be involved in this. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: That is a cope out. Mr PAUL LYNCH: The Premier has written to your Federal leader— CHAIR: I would remind members that they should not interject in other people's time for

questions. Mr PAUL LYNCH: I am not convinced there is nothing that can be done. I am sceptical

that anything particularly effective can be done unless there is a national scheme. In terms of a more considered position I am happy to take it on notice and get back to you with more sensible comments about what may or may not be done.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I turn now to the loopholes that are available in the model code of

conduct. The provisions of the model code of conduct are required to be adopted by every council but councillors then have the discretion to add in additional clauses, to tighten up or example. Yet those clauses have no legal weight, is that correct? A councillor cannot be held to account for failing to abide by the provisions of the code of conduct as adopted by the council?


Mr PAYNE: If the council adopts that code, any additional provisions have to be stronger than the model. They cannot water it down. If the council adopts that code, that is then their code. As a department we would measure conduct against the code that they adopted. I should also mention that the code is under review at the moment.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I take you to the case of Cessnock City Council where eight of the

councillors—councillors Clarence, Maybury, Bedford, Pynsent, Scott, Bessoff, Parsons and Smith—failed to declare conflicts of non-pecuniary interest. The Cessnock council code expressly states that the failure to resolve actual or perceived conflicts is unacceptable in local government. It states that it is essential the council properly address conflict of interest issues that may arise, it has to understand the practical implications, it has to accept that failure to resolve an actual reasonably perceived conflict of interest is unacceptable in local government, and it has to take timely and appropriate action to avoid it.

In the case of Cessnock City Council, the local government election return, on behalf of those

eight councillors, shows an amount of $25,000 has been donated by the State Election Committee of the Australian Labor Party. Another one shows a third party return from Karen Jurd. Her return identifies the names and addresses of people whose contribution made up the $25,000. One of those is Richard Ash, who is described as the Westpac Institutional Joint Bank Head of Property. Westpac is an equity partner in the Hunter Economic Zone Pty Limited development. Another person named is Max Mawhinney. He is described on the Valad ASX statement regarding their investment in HEZ as being an executive director at Valad.

Both of these individuals have confirmed to the Sydney Morning Herald their donations. It is

clear there has been a significant donation of $25,000 made to influence, I would suggest, or at least have a very significant impact on a decision to alter the local environmental plan provisions. When those decisions were made at the council—the decision to alter the plan and subsequently to reject a rescission motion—none of those councillors declared that they had a non-pecuniary conflict of interest because of the interest of HEZ in the outcome of the decision and the influence by HEZ on their election campaign.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: And your question? Ms SYLVIA HALE: My question is I put to you that these councillors have failed to abide

by the specific provisions of the Cessnock City Council code of conduct. Yet the general manager of Cessnock council is refusing to act on this because the general manager says that those councillors have not perceived that they have a conflict of interest and because they have not perceived they have a conflict of interest they are under no obligation to declare one.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I will take that on notice. The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: We will now go to Government questions. The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: Since becoming Minister, what progress have you made

on resource sharing between councils? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Thank you for that important question. I am pleased to have the

opportunity to respond to it. I am very supportive of resource sharing between councils. The New South Wales Government continues to actively pursue initiatives to encourage councils to consider entering into strategic alliances or other forms of collaborative arrangements where they can achieve better service outcomes and more efficient service delivery for their communities. I should indicate that my own particular interest in that area stems from the time when I was chair of WSROC, longer ago than I care to concede. That was certainly an experience for me that demonstrated in a practical sense the utility that would come out of resource sharing. There are now 21 alliances complementing the work of the regional organisations of councils [ROCs] and other forms of collaboration around the State. As well as helping councils to achieve a range of financial savings, councils involved in alliances have advised they are able to improve their service standards and complete projects that would otherwise not have been achievable.


Following the success of the first strategic alliance conference held in May 2006, the second conference was held on 27 August 2007, jointly hosted by the department, the LGSA and the LGMA New South Wales branch. Over 200 delegates, including representatives from 95 councils, 14 ROCs, State agencies and the private sector attended the conference. At that conference I launched a paper developed by the Department Of Local Government entitled " Collaboration and Partnership between Councils Guidance Paper". This guidance paper aims to assist councils to develop stronger strategic partnerships, to use resources wisely and to better meet the needs of their communities. The guidance paper has been informed by the experience of the local government sector in developing such partnerships. At the conference delegates considered presentations on engaging key players in the development of effective partnerships, measuring benefits and examples of collaborative practice and capacity within the sector. Delegates then considered strategies to overcome hurdles to council collaboration and identify tools and resources required to further develop effective collaboration in the local government sector. The department is using the information gathered from the conference to assist in determining how it can facilitate greater resource sharing and evaluate its effectiveness.

A strategic alliance network has also been established. This was formed following the first

strategic alliance conference in May 2007. The network consists of 50 councils that are committed to developing and sharing initiatives in council collaboration. The network is supported by an executive committee, chaired by the department and consisting of representatives from the LGSA, LGMA, Cabonne Shire Council, Coffs Harbour City Council, Fairfield City Council, Hunters Hill Council, Lithgow City Council, Wellington Council, Wollondilly Shire Council, Holroyd City Council and Rouse Water County Council. Following the 2007 conference, the membership of the network has been refreshed. The work of the network in 2007-08 includes the development of a website to share collaborative initiatives and skills within the sector. Other initiatives being considered include regionally based workshops, specific project support and critical issue seminars. I am pleased to be able to report that there are approximately 125 councils engaged in formal resource sharing or imposing new collaborative arrangements.

All councils in New South Wales are involved in at least one type of collaborative

arrangement, that is, county council, regional organisation of councils, strategic alliance or some other type of arrangement. Among proposed new partnerships are the Central Tablelands strategic alliance. This partnership between Lithgow, Oberon and Midwestern councils aims to maximise the use of resources available through joint purchasing and leasing, common IT systems, common employment arrangements and sharing of staff and skills exchange. The alliance has also undertaken joint regional planning in areas such as land use planning, tourism and economic development. The Goulburn, Mulwaree, Palerang and Upper Lachlan councils strategic alliance aims to reduce duplication in services. The Bathurst, Dubbo and Orange strategic alliance aims to address a range of issues, including joint internal audit services and joint environmental planning.

City-rural relationships are also becoming an increasingly common form of partnership

between councils. Examples of such partnerships are between Baulkham Hills and Cootamundra councils, Coonamble and Campbelltown councils, Cowra and Kogarah councils and Liverpool Plains and Blacktown councils. Councils also continue to share resources and work collaboratively on a range of specific projects. These include the Georges River Combined Councils Committee [GRCCC]—Wollondilly, Campbelltown, Liverpool, Fairfield, Bankstown, Kogarah, Rockdale, Hurstville and Sutherland councils.

This joint venture with New South Wales Maritime is monitoring the health of the river and

river pollution and regulating boat users. Central West Salinity and Water Quality Alliance includes Bathurst, Bogan, Cabonne, Coonamble, Dubbo, Gilgandra, Narromine, Orange, Warren, Warrumbungles, Wellington councils and Central West Catchment Authority. Coffs Coast Waste Services includes Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca councils. Ashfield, Canada Bay and Strathfield councils have a maintenance service level agreement and Wingecarribee and Shellharbour councils have a joint payroll service. The department is continuing to work with the LGSA, the LGMA and the strategic alliance network in developing ways to share information to promote further council collaboration and build skills within the local government sector.

It is also worth making the point that one of the interesting aspects about resource sharing is

that they get some of the advantages of amalgamations without sometimes the political angst the goes along with that. Amalgamations on a consensual basis are clearly something you would want to


support. I have always been a bit of a sceptic about forced amalgamations and certainly this is one way of achieving the financial benefits that you might otherwise get through amalgamations.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: What has been proposed to address the issue of asset management in councils?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Every business and person in New South Wales relies on infrastructure

such as roads and water supply to perform their functions, to do the things they want to do. The maintenance of the State's infrastructure is one of the key priorities of the New South Wales State Plan and a New Direction for New South Wales that was released last year. Local government in New South Wales is responsible for assets worth approximately $50 billion. Infrastructure assets include roads, water and sewerage assets, drains, bridges, footpaths and public buildings. A strong and sustainable local government system requires a robust planning process to ensure that those assets are maintained and renewed in the most appropriate way on behalf of local communities.

As custodian, local government is responsible to effectively account for and manage these

assets and to have regard to the long-term and cumulative effects of its decisions. This is a core function of councils and is reflected in the charter in section 8 of the Local Government Act. Given the value and importance of infrastructure assets, it is essential that they are well managed to ensure their future sustainability. Failure to adequately manage infrastructure assets is a key risk that could prevent local councils from achieving their strategic goals.

An existing and urgent concern has been that many councils have not established asset

management systems and practices that will allow them to identify and respond to this challenge. In recognition of the importance of asset management, in 2006 the department established the New South Wales Infrastructure Task Force. Key groups represented on the task force include the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales; the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia; Local Government Managers Australia, New South Wales Division; the Local Government Audit Association; the Roads and Traffic Authority; and the Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability, now the Department of Water and Energy.

Working with the task force, the department developed a series of recommendations designed

to assist local councils with sustainable asset management. The recommendations were contained in a paper entitled "Asset Management: Planning for New South Wales Local Government", released by the Department of Local Government for discussion on 16 May 2007. The paper is the third in a series of papers released by the department since late 2006, designed to promote a new direction for local government focused on developing a strong sustainable local government sector. The paper explores the development of a new asset management framework for councils in New South Wales. It promotes the planning process intended to assist local government with the sustainable management of community assets.

Some of the recommendations contained in the paper designed to promote asset management

by local councils included strategic long-term assessment management and financial plans as essential components of integrated planning and reporting framework across New South Wales local government. Legislative amendments requiring long-term strategic asset management planning should also be introduced into the Local Government Act. Councils adopting asset management planning systems and practices are consistent with the national local government financial sustainability frameworks and, where applicable and practical, the international infrastructure management manual.

I am advised that the Department received 55 submissions in response to the paper. The

submissions overwhelmingly supported the intent of the paper and its recommendations. The department is currently reviewing the detailed comments provided in the submissions and a report is being prepared for my consideration, including recommendations for moving the initiative forward.

The Hon. IAN WEST: What, if anything, is being done to address the issue of safety of

children around dogs? Mr PAUL LYNCH: That is an important issue that often gets missed in the discussion about

local government and, in a sense, it is the real way of dealing with the ongoing danger of dog attacks. I am quite happy to be able to talk about that today; it is a very significant issue that has received a bit


of attention in recent times. The New South Wales Government is committed to addressing this issue through community education. It has developed the Safe Pets Out There Program [SPOT] in response to the issue.

The SPOT Program was developed by a co-operative partnership between the Department of

Local Government and key companion animal organisations: the Australian Companion Animals Council, the Australian Veterinary Association, the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League, and Delta Society Australia. Since February 2007 the SPOT Program has recruited more than 200 volunteers and taught almost 24,000 children from kindergarten to year 2. Over the next three years the program aims to reach more than 250,000 students in every New South Wales School.

SPOT is teaching children about animal welfare, safety around dogs and responsible pet

ownership. The SPOT website contains information and resources for teachers, parents and children and online bookings. In a sense, it is about trying to stop the problems before they occur. The SPOT Program is targeted specifically at junior primary school children in classes K to 2—five to seven-year-olds—and covers four components: pets in the community through the Animal Welfare League New South Wales; safe behaviour around dogs, Delta Dog Safe; basic care of pets, health and welfare, particularly with the intervention of the Veterinary Association; and kindness and cruelty, the RSPCA New South Wales' Kids Caring for Creatures Creates a Kinder World.

The program is being funded over a three-year period in the first instance; $600,000 has been

allocated from the companion animals fund to fund the SPOT Program. I saw the SPOT Program in action earlier this year at Menai Public School; I was quite impressed by both the enthusiasm and the competence of those running the lessons. It was clearly an age-appropriate content for early primary students, and the kids were responding very, very well. Children were taught valuable lessons on handling and approaching animals in a safe environment. There are things you need to do about dangerous animals and so on and so forth, but it is a much more effective long-term strategy to try and educate children about how to deal with dogs, and that is what this program is aiming to do.

The Hon. IAN WEST: What progress has been made since the release of the 2006 paper on

integrated planning and reporting? Mr PAUL LYNCH: The paper on integrated planning and reporting was developed as part

of a review of the Department of Local Government's undertaking with a view to strengthening councils' strategic focus and cutting red tape in planning and reporting processes. The paper contains a series of proposed reforms and was issued in late 2006 to all councils, relevant government agencies and industry groups. The aim was to gauge the opinion of the proposals amongst those groups. In addition to the release of the paper, the department conducted an extensive consultation program with the sector; that included running a number of workshops across New South Wales.

The first round of consultation for the integrated planning and reporting project, managing

asset management proposals, was completed in July 2007. Based on the results of that consultation, it would appear that the sector is willing to support the option three model proposed in the Planning Sustainable Future Options paper and to accept the recommendations of the Asset Management Position paper. These proposals have now been integrated to form one comprehensive planning and reporting framework. The sector has indicated widespread support for the proposal to streamline the existing planning and reporting framework and to introduce a mandatory long-term strategic plan and asset management strategy for councils.

The project aims to improve the capacity of councils to engage their communities in planning

for the future and to strengthen the links between local, regional and State service providers. This will result in more efficient use of council resources and improve long-term management of community assets. These areas were identified as key concerns in the inquiry into the financial sustainability of local government conducted for the Local Government and Shires Associations by Professor Percy Allen. They have also been highlighted through the department's Promoting Better Practice reviews of local councils. I am advised that the department is currently developing a detailed proposal in consultation with State agencies and the local government sector with a view to implementation after the local government elections in September 2008. That also includes a second round of targeted consultation.


CHAIR: We will now go for 10 minutes of Opposition questioning. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Have you actually read the Allen report? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Yes, I have. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Then you will be able to tell me what State functions you

have passed on to local government? Can you tell the Committee the functions? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I will take that on notice. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Just in case you are looking for it I will give you a clue. Mr PAUL LYNCH: I am not looking at all; I said I would take it on notice. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Have you implemented any of the recommendations of the

Allen report? You have had over a year—a year and a half. Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have already dealt with the Government response to the Allen report.

I gave answers about that some time ago. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Why does the State Government not disclose data of the

total State grants to local government in your budget papers? Almost every other State and country does, why not your department?

Mr PAYNE: The figures are available, but they are not in the budget papers. It is basically a

Commonwealth grant. The figure is available in the annual report. It is publicly available and always has been.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Can you provide that information on notice? Mr PAYNE: The total grant available to local councils? The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Yes. Mr PAYNE: Yes, of course. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Since 2003, specifically how many and which state roads

have been handed over to local councils that councils are now required to maintain? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I suggest you ask the relevant Minister. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Is that something your department is incapable of

answering? Mr PAUL LYNCH: No, we are here to answer questions about this department's work and

my ministerial responsibilities. You have so little knowledge of what we do that you seem to spend most of your time asking questions well outside this jurisdiction.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Can you cope with this one? Mr PAUL LYNCH: It depends on whether you can get it right! The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: How much money was provided to local councils to

maintain these roads? Can you answer that one? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I know that this is a really hard concept for you to get your head

around, but I am not Eric Roozendaal, for which the Chair is absolutely delighted.


The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Let us see if you can answer this question. The president of the Local Government Association says that one-third of councils are on the verge of bankruptcy. What measures have you started to implement or considered since you became Minister to increase the funding base for local government?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Of course, the fallacy of the question assumes that the premise is

correct and I do not accept that it is. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: So you disagree with the president of the Local Government

Association? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have indeed been known to disagree with the president of the Local

Government Association. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: On what basis do you understand the financial viability of

each of the councils? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I disagree with her assessment. If you want more detail than that, I am

happy to hand over to the director general, who has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the finances of councils.

Mr PAYNE: I do not agree with the premise either. The department monitors those councils

that are experiencing financial difficulties. Often they are short term. It is true that some councils do not have the capacity to do everything they want to do; government departments are similar. I would not think anywhere near one-third of councils are in financial difficulties, nor do not think any councils are near bankruptcy. For a start, they are rating authorities.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I refer to a point I made earlier, which you obviously did not listen to.

The real financial pressure on local councils has come from the Federal Government. It has been slashing financial assistance grants for the past 10 years. The proportion of income tax revenue that goes to councils has been decreasing dramatically under this Federal Government. There is absolutely no engagement between the current Federal Government and local government—no engagement about urban policy, no engagement in towns and cities. There are many things about which I am critical of the Federal Government, but its abject failure with local government is pretty much top of the list. The funding has been decreasing and the Federal Government has been utterly contemptuous of local government. It has no engagement at all. I find it the height of hypocrisy to have conservatives in this place whingeing about resources for local councils when it is their fault.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I refer to the ministerial advisory council chaired by Ernie

Page, the former member for Coogee. Have any advisory council recommendations been made public?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I thought we did all this. As I indicated earlier, a number of them have.

I do not have the entire list of all of the recommendations that have ever been made during the history of the council.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It has not been operating long. Mr PAUL LYNCH: It certainly operated for a considerable period prior to me becoming

Minister. I mentioned two proposals earlier and they have been distributed to all councils, and that is about as public as you can possibly get. I suspect, without having an exhaustive list in front of me, that there is no particular reason to keep any of them hidden. I think it is fair to say that we assume they are well discussed within the sector even if we do not put out a circular about them.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: What is the chair's remuneration? Mr PAYNE: I cannot give an exact dollar amount. It is the standard sitting fee for boards

and commissions in the State. It is roughly $380 a day or $190 for a half day. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: How many other members of the council are there?


Mr PAYNE: There are 11 or 12. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Do they get the same amount? Mr PAYNE: No, he is the only one who gets paid. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I refer to an earlier question. Mr Payne, I understand that

you met with Bernard Smith, the general manager of Port Macquarie council, in January 2006 and Craig Milbourne—

Mr PAYNE: I do not recall Craig Milbourne. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: But you remember meeting— Mr PAYNE: I have spoken to Bernard Smith a number of times. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I understand he came here and met with you. Mr PAYNE: I cannot recall, but I do not dispute that. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is understood that at that meeting you said that the council

could clearly afford the project. Mr PAYNE: That is not the issue. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I am asking whether that is correct. Mr PAYNE: I do not recall that at all. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: You do not recall. Mr PAYNE: But that is not the issue and it has never been the issue. The issue is the

process, not whether he can afford it. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I think we are all interested in the process. Minister, I am

concerned that you have been given incorrect information about a scoping study. You said that no scoping study was undertaken. In fact, council conducted extensive research about the glasshouse, including several tours to investigate other facilities. Research was also undertaken into the existing local infrastructure and reference was made to relevant national and international benchmarks before the initial brief was developed. It was further defined after public consultation. I think this represents an extensive process of scoping and analysis that involved the community. You do not think a study was done. Is there a difference of opinion here? Who is wrong and who is right?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I dare say the public inquiry might actually determine that— The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: So you could be wrong. Mr PAUL LYNCH: Apart from the fact that yet again you interrupted me, the suggestion

that I considered I was wrong is wrong and stupid and an indication of your intellectual incapacity. The issue that you are raising should be dealt with at the public inquiry. If you think your argument is so strong, put it to the public inquiry. What are you frightened of?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: The community is concerned about the cost of the public

inquiry and the need for it when so many times the Department of Local Government has got it wrong. The community is concerned about the process of establishing this inquiry. Yes, the community will put these issues to the inquiry.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: That would be very useful and I reject utterly your claims about the

Department of Local Government.


The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: The New South Wales Local Government, Clerical,

Administrative, Energy, Airlines and Utilities Union wrote to Port Macquarie council in July this year and made a very clear suggestion that the union would need to make a decision about its involvement or otherwise in any public inquiry on behalf of its members depending on Port Macquarie council's agreeing to staff wage increases. Are you aware of that correspondence?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: It does not spring immediately to mind. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: The letter states that if the council agrees to six conditions

the union will make a submission to the inquiry. Does it worry you that a union would be doing that to a council?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I dare say there is a range of things that councils do to unions and vice

versa. It is not relevant to the calling of the inquiry. If you are perturbed about it, perhaps you can submit it to the inquiry as well.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Mr Payne, I refer to the Port Macquarie inquiry again. You

answered a question about the cost of the commissioner. Do you have a budget estimate or a rough idea of what the whole inquiry will cost?

Mr PAYNE: The budget has been set and it is of the order of $230,000 or $240,000.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I note the Minister's earlier answer that the length of the

inquiry is a bit of elastic. That $230,000 relates to an estimated time of completion? Mr PAYNE: Yes, in about February. A significant part of the budget is transcription

services, which is essential but costly. The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Minister, the Companion Animals Act: I was really pleased

to hear that the department had funded the SPOT initiative to the tune of $600,000. That is great. You led a great list of people who were involved in it. Was Dogs New South Wales one of them? It used to be called the Canine Council.

Mr PAYNE: Yes, I know the guy. Keith Irwin, he was involved. The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Coming to the Companion Animals Act and the

amendments that were passed to the Act in the last government—which was your predecessor, I understand that—I was highly critical of the way the amendments were put together but I understand the nature of the circumstances in which it was done—a young fellow had been mauled to death at Warren. Had I got some support from others when the bill came to our House I would have tried to have some of the changes to the Act amended. I am particularly concerned about the very loose definition in the Act of dangerous dogs, and it including in it hunting dogs. That is the first thing. The second thing is the requirements for keeping dangerous dogs. The specifications for the enclosures and those sorts of things, are they a matter for the local council or is there a standard that the department has given?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: There is a standard. Perhaps the director general can tell you. Mr PAYNE: A standard is set. I cannot tell you what it is here but a standard is set and it has

to be complied with. It is an Australian standard. The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: It is an Australian standard? Mr PAYNE: As far as I am aware. The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: It is four-millimetre weldmesh steel on the enclosures. The

reason I ask that is that my general practitioner, who is a 60-year-old single lady, has a dog, and it just managed to be labelled a Staffordshire bull terrier. It was silly enough to chase a cat and catch it. It has now been labelled a dangerous dog and she has a bill of about $6,000 to build one of those


enclosures. That standard is about the standard that zoological societies use for the caging of 600-pound gorillas. Obviously, if it is a national standard it is not your bailiwick.

Mr PAYNE: All these provisions were developed in close consultation with the relevant

interest groups, who have the expertise rather than us. The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Like Dogs New South Wales? Mr PAYNE: There is a lot of politics in the dog industry, as you know, and Keith does not

always see eye to eye with the other side. But we had extensive discussions with Keith Irwin and the others.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: In relation to the Act, is there in the cycle of reviews of the

Acts any plan afoot for a normal review of the Companion Animals Act at the moment? Mr PAUL LYNCH: In a sense these things are always under constant review. I do not know

that there is any planned review that I am aware of, unless the director general has something. Mr PAYNE: Your answer is right; it is under constant review. As a department we have

daily contact with councils and others about a range of issues. I would be fairly confident we will be constantly developing amendments to this piece of legislation.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Is there a mechanism by which the department gets feedback

from the local councils as to the costs or effects or otherwise of changes to the Act like the one I am talking about now, that all hunting dogs shall be declared dangerous dogs?

Mr PAYNE: Yes. We have a pretty complete network with people like the rangers

association. We talk to them regularly and they give us feedback on whether the conditions are realistic or not. Where they feel they are deficient we can strengthen them and vice versa. So there is a constant rather than a formal network.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: At the time the legislation went through I think there was

some press around from either the council or the rangers themselves about the enormous cost that would be laid on to councils to increase surveillance to comply with the Act.

Mr PAYNE: Can I say in response to that, we have returned multimillions to councils from

registration fees, which is far in excess of what they used to collect under the old regime. I think you paid $12 for a dog, or something like that, and $4 if you are a pensioner. It is now over $100. We have returned in the order of $20 million or $30 million, I suppose, over a period of time.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I am asking these questions on the basis that I have had

representations from constituents. Mr PAUL LYNCH: It is also worth making the point that councils are able to charge a fee

for inspecting those facilities, so it is not as though you are giving them an extra role to do without giving them some resources to help them.

Mr PAYNE: One of the issues before, but we have fixed it now, was that the money that was

returned to councils was not always going back into companion animal management. Now it is. The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Just so you understand, my questions are not frivolous.

There is a great deal of difference in the description of hunting dogs. Cocker spaniels are hunting dogs as are those things as big as half-sized horses that pig-doggers use. Perhaps there needs to be a look at the definitions in that.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I take your point about this not being frivolous. It is something that is

important to a whole lot of people. I understand that.


Ms SYLVIA HALE: In relation to the councillors who were adversely named in the reports by Maurice Daly and by Robert Ulford into Tweed Shire Council, will there be any impediment to those councillors standing for re-election at the local government elections next year?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: There is no provision in the Act or any legislation to prevent them

running. The practical problem is this, and it is one people have raised with me. The problem is that section 740 inquiries are not set up to determine individual blame or guilt. They are meant to be a collective assessment of what has happened at a council. If you move to a model where you want to punish individual councillors, you have to make those determinations very clear and explicit in the section 740-inquiry report. That will then mean, if you have 12 councillors, there will be 12 councillors separately represented at the table in front of the inquirer. You will have skyrocketing legal expenses and the process will just go on forever. That is the practical problem of moving to a system where you make individual determinations. I do not pretend it is ideal, but that is the problem.

[Short adjournment]

CHAIR: We will turn now to the Mental Health portfolio.

RICHARD MATTHEWS, Deputy Director General, Department of Health, affirmed and examined, and KENNETH REGINALD BARKER, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Health, sworn and examined:

CHAIR: Minister, do you wish to make a brief opening statement? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have an opening statement that will take about five minutes. In 2007-

08 the Government provided record funding for mental health services across New South Wales. Mental health funding this year tops $1 billion for the first time. As part of its five-year package—A New Direction for Mental Health—the Government has further increased its investment in mental health services in New South Wales by providing $1.05 billion in this financial year. This represents an increase of $105 million on last year's budget, an increase of approximately 11 per cent. This year's mental health budget represents an almost threefold increase since 1994-1995 when the mental health budget was $335 million.

Funding for mental health is growing. It now accounts for approximately 8.4 per cent of the

total New South Wales health budget compared to just 6.7 per cent in 1994-95. Funding in 2007-08 will initiate new programs to help pregnant women as well of mothers and their infants. It will also provide funds for new and enhanced services to help treat people with eating disorders. Funding in 2007-08 will enhance mental health services for children, adolescents and young people.

It is worth noting that the Government has provided the following: $3.5 million over four

years to help improve maternal and infant mental health through the new Safe Start Program; $4.1 million over four years for eating disorders; and $15.8 million over four years for new and enhanced child and adolescent outpatient services across New South Wales. An additional $5.4 million has been provided in 2007-08 to enhance and develop youth mental health services. In 2007-08 the Government will continue its investment in improving mental health services. This will see the completion, opening or full operation of a number services and programs.

A snapshot of some is as follows: $9.6 million to continue the programs that are delivering

Psychiatric Emergency Care Centres at a number of hospitals and supporting emergency mental health in rural areas; $5 million in recurrent mental health funding will be provided to the Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service; the North Coast Area Health Service will receive $3 million for additional beds in the new expanded Richmond unit at Lismore Hospital; $1.44 million dollars will be provided to the South Eastern Sydney Illawarra Area Health Service to enhance community mental health services; and capital funds will be directed to the completion of 75 new beds to be opened across New South Wales.


I should also mention the launch earlier this year of the New South Wales Aboriginal mental health and wellbeing policy 2006-10. Over the next five years funding of over $21 million will be spent by the New South Wales Government on mental health and social and emotional wellbeing programs for Aboriginal people, their families and carers. This new policy forms a significant milestone in the New South Wales Government's commitment to improving the mental health and wellbeing of Aboriginal people. It sets out a framework to guide New South Wales Health and Area Health Services in the provision of culturally sensitive and appropriate mental health and social and emotional wellbeing services to Aboriginal people.

I also refer to the release yesterday of the third report, the 2007 report from the New South

Wales Mental Health Sentinel Events Review Committee. Also tabled with the report was an interim Government response to each of the committee's recommendations. The interim response sets out the steps that will be taken over the coming months to prepare the Government's final and detailed response to that Report's recommendation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank that Committee for its continuing role in examining the New South Wales mental health system and recommending solutions where systemic issues are discovered.

In this third report the committee reviewed nine homicides involving patients of public

mental health services in 2005-06 and 113 suicide deaths of patients with a diagnosed depressive disorder in the care of community mental health services over the period 2003-05. The committee report noted that mental health services in general do a very effective job in managing people with severe mental illness, preventing many incidents of minor and major self-harm and violence towards others. The committee also acknowledged that suicide death is a rare outcome for people in the care of New South Wales mental health services who have been assessed and treated for depression.

This Government has made significant advances in improving the clinical safety of people

with mental health problems across New South Wales. The first Committee Report was released in 2004. New South Wales is leading the way in improving patient safety and care through the development and implementation of statewide clinical governance policies, procedures and structures at Area Health Service and Departmental levels. It is noted that the latest available data shows that the general rate of suicide in New South Wales is eight deaths per 100,000 persons, the lowest since 1991 and the lowest rate in the country. The Government will continue to implement the recommendations of the Sentinel Events Review Committee to improve the care of all people in New South Wales with mental health problems and disorders. Madam Chair, I think that concludes my comments.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Minister, given that the Government took eight months to respond to the second Sentinel Events Review Committee report, how long will it take your department to respond to the third report?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: We have just released the interim report yesterday. I think we are

anticipating getting a final response probably at the beginning of next year. I am happy to stand corrected on that by the deputy director general.

Dr MATTHEWS: We will undertake to do that, Minister. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Minister, it was tabled yesterday, as I understand. Mr PAUL LYNCH: That is right. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: The date on the report was May 2007, is that right? Mr PAUL LYNCH: That is right. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: You have had the report since May? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Yes, and we had to prepare an interim response. These are serious

issues that require a serious response. That is what has happened. We have given the interim response that was tabled yesterday with the third committee report.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: But you will not have recommendations until next year?


Mr PAUL LYNCH: We have adopted a number of the recommendations already. More

work needs to be done because it is only an interim response, so it is not quite true to say that we have not responded.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Can you give an assurance that all the recommendations in

the report will be implemented? Mr PAUL LYNCH: In the first two committee reports I think there is only one

recommendation we have not adopted. In this interim report we have adopted a number of recommendations already. The ones we have not adopted we certainly have not rejected; we have referred them off for further consideration. Obviously, we cannot give an undertaking that they will be adopted until that process is complete. But the figures so far suggest that we are more likely than not to adopt the recommendations. I have made the point that I think it is a very good committee that has done very good and useful work.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: In the response that will be forthcoming, will the

recommendations that are outstanding be reported on with a timeframe for implementation? Mr PAUL LYNCH: That would certainly be the intention. That is certainly what has

happened in relation to the two previous reports. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: The third Sentinel report, which was released yesterday,

states that the capacity of many mental health services to put in place adequate mitigation strategies in response to the identified level of risk within the current operating budget was questionable. Has the Government ensured that the 2007-08 budget will provide services with a capacity to implement the risk mitigation strategies?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: We have allocated significant funding to Justice Health for the

development of a risk assessment training program that focuses on the risk of harm to others. The deputy director general could probably give you a bit more information about that.

Dr MATTHEWS: Until June this year I was Chief Executive of Justice Health, so this was

really one of my programs. Justice Health provides services in the correctional centres and juvenile detention centres and has responsibility for the statewide forensic service. So Justice Health has the largest body of forensic psychiatric expertise, and we have developed an education program for all the other area health services, where in the first tranche 100 clinicians from across the State will receive specialised training in what is called actuarial risk assessment, particularly focusing on risk to others. This is a very highly specialised skill, and we will be using the expertise of the forensic psychiatrists in Justice Health to spread that across the State.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: The committee found that that pressure on acute bed places

was a factor in three homicide cases, in which the patients were discharged earlier than would have been clinically appropriate. What measures are being taken in the budget to ease the bed crisis?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Since the period that was studied in the report, which is 2005 and 2006,

we have substantially increased mental health beds. We now have an annual budget of more than $1 billion. In 2002-03 there were 2,004 mental health beds. By 30 June 2007 that figure had risen by 312 beds, to 2,316 beds, an increase of approximately 15 per cent over that four-year period. In 2006 an announcement was made of $939 million, which would provide another 300 beds over five years.

Dr MATTHEWS: I think it is important to say that as well as that investment in beds we are

making an investment in the community. Without the community investment we are making, the need for beds is almost infinite. The Housing and Accommodation Support Initiative—which supports people with serious mental illness in accommodation at home, in partnership with non-government organisations—has significantly reduced the number of acute bed days for that group, further expanding the community services, and the vocational education and training program. A much greater level of support post-discharge reduces the demand for acute beds. Acute beds are expensive; they are not the ideal way to treat people with mental illness. In the community where people live is the ideal place to treat them, and that is where we are increasingly putting our focus. But we


recognise, particularly with the increased use of stimulant drugs—which is something that is difficult for us to control—that when those drugs are used the exacerbations of serious mental illness are more frequent, more severe and more treatment-resistant.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: It is simply critical that we do the community stuff. If we just do the

beds, and people come out, and you do not do the community stuff as well, people will just bounce back. That is a really bad result for them, and it is no good for any one else either.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: The committee noted that patient referral for mental health

service-backed care by a general practitioner or another provider must involve communication with the provider. The report found that in five cases of people who had been discharged by mental health services to be treated by their general practitioners, there was no communication between mental health services and the general practitioners. Those five people subsequently committed suicide. Why has the system been failing?

Dr MATTHEWS: I think it is a little unfair to say that the system is failing. There are about

22,000 admissions per year. We endeavour to communicate to the case manager in the community and to the general practitioner. It is not always possible. A significant number of people with severe mental illness do not access general practitioners, or if they do they access them in a peripatetic sort of way. So there is a group of patients who are difficult to follow up; they move about. I am not making excuses. We acknowledge that discharge planning and follow-up is something that we ought to get right in 100 per cent of cases, and we are doing our best to do that.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I might also make the point that I think it is a little unfair to describe

that necessarily as a failure, and I do not think that is the way the report approaches it. In particular, may I draw your attention to page 13 of the report, which states:

There is a common perception that a suicide death, or any homicide by a person in contact with the public mental health services, represents a failure on the part of the mental health services. This is not always so.

Page 15 of the report states:

Predicting accurately a person's potential to harm themselves or others is a complex process, and caution needs to be exercised in criticising a mental health service or clinician engaged in the care of a person who subsequently dies by suicide or commits homicide. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: In those five cases, is it that there was an attempt for mental

health services to communicate a report to their individual general practitioners? Was that attempted? Did it fail?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I am not sure we know that. The way the report is prepared, it is done

by the committee as an independent committee, as it ought to be. They do an assessment of the files. We do not know which files they are talking about because they have not identified them in the report, so we cannot go to another set of papers and say, "This is what has happened." That is because this is not about an individual assessment of a particular case; it is about a systemic view of particular issues, and that is absolutely as it ought to be. I am not being critical of the committee for that, but that is the way they have done it. That makes it very hard to answer a specific question like that.

Dr MATTHEWS: In each case of a suicide of someone who has recently been in contact,

we do a severity assessment code. The majority would be what are called SAC 1’s, which means that there has to be a root cause analysis conducted. For each of these sorts of cases, we look at the root causes, we look for system problems, and we attempt to address those system problems as best we can. What we cannot do, as the Minister said with the report, is go back to the five cases you are talking about, because it is done in a de-identified way; we do not know which particular five cases they are.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: But you would be endeavouring to make sure that a report is

communicated to the general practitioner? Dr MATTHEWS: Yes, absolutely. I can say that almost certainly in those five cases there

would have been an SAC 1 rating and a root cause analysis, but I cannot link the two because they would be identified.


The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is clear from the report: Around half of the files where a person was identified as a parent, child safety was not document. Standardised measures of depression severity were used in only one fifth of the files.

There seems to be a real communication breakdown within the services offering assistance to people with mental health. How we are going to prioritise fixing the standard of communication?

Dr MATTHEWS: The first thing is, and I think the report acknowledges, this is a rare event and I would need to defend my services here little bit. I do not think that we can generalise that there are significant communication problems where they have been shown in what is a rare event. That is not to say that we should not get it right all the time. As I said before, we should. Through the reportable incidents and the route-cause analyses, each one is examined and there are recommendations. There is an attempt to improve the services.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Can I say that the other complication with the report is that it is based

on a review of files. That is what they have to do, and there is no other practical way of doing it, but it may be that all the things that are supposed to have happened have happened but they just have not been recorded. That is a problem in itself—that it has not been recorded. It is a little unclear as to whether it is a failure of things having been done or the things being recorded.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: In terms of the sentinel committee—this is their third

report—how do you see the future of the committee playing out? What is there next job? Mr PAUL LYNCH: They are currently appointed until 2008. They clearly have an ongoing

role. In my view they have done very good and useful work. Whether it is precisely the same way that they continue to do what they are doing I am not sure—

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: As a committee or what are you thinking you might do,

Minister? Mr PAUL LYNCH: It is all very inchoate at the moment. The committee could continue

simply as it is. It might be asked to be involved with some of the other clinical bodies that are around. As the Deputy Director General reminds me, the Clinical Excellence Commission for example. I have not got a formal determination about that. This committee has done a really good job and you do not want to do anything to them that would detract from them being able to continue to make the positive addition that they have.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: The new 12-bed such psychiatric intensive care unit at

Hornsby Hospital completed for the March election. It was never opened. When will the facility announced in 2004 be finally opened?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The Hornsby mental health intensive care unit will open once we have

enough nurses to ensure it can offer safe quality care. It will not open until it is safe to open. I am advised that the unit was handed over to the Mental Health Service on 8 August. Despite an active recruiting campaign the middle of 2006 the national and, indeed international, shortage of experienced mental health nurses has meant there is still a shortfall of nursing staff for this specialist acute unit. The other issue is there have been a number of other units opening in that area in the last two years. They include the new psychiatric care centre at Wyong and at Hornsby and the Wyong mental health unit. That has placed an added stress on finding staff for that area. Does the Deputy Director General want to add anything?

Dr MATTHEWS: Yes. We are facing a very significant workforce problem. In the case of

nurses in this State, until about 1989 they were trained in hospitals and that gave the State some control over numbers. Correctly in my view, at that time they changed to a university degree course. What that meant, of course, was that the numbers entering became within the remit of the Australian government. The numbers of entries declined steadily throughout the 1990s and hit an absolute nadir in 2001. They have started to climb again since then but that was the low point. First-year entrants in 2001 are 2004 graduates who are this year's third-year out registered nurses.


We are at a point where there are simply not enough registered nurses to go around in mental health and in other services. We recruit overseas and we extensively increase the numbers of enrolled nurses that we train. We have offered well over 400 mental health nursing scholarships to convert enrolled nurses to registered, in order to entice nurses back into the workforce who have left to have children, travel or whatever. In that particular area health service, as the Minister said, we managed to recruit enough nurses to staff the 50-bed new acute unit at Wyong, the psychiatric emergency centre at Wyong and the psychiatric emergency centre at Hornsby. We will get the nurses to staff this unit but it is simply the fact that there are not enough to go around.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Any chance to recruit from overseas? Dr MATTHEWS: Well, we do that. Overseas recruitment tends to be a zero-sum game. The

British, the Swedes come here and the Australians go there. You recruit British, Irish and Swedish nurses and they are wonderful but come July they go to Queensland. So you get a sudden flying of the swallows to Capistrano and you suddenly find yourself in winter with a different sort of problem. Yes, we do. We are now trying to target an older group who might want to immigrate here as opposed to holiday here but it is a little bit of a zero-sum game.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Can I just add, of the nine that have been recruited from Hornsby so far

at least two of them, I think, have been recruited from overseas. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: The total cost of the unit? Dr MATTHEWS: Capital wise —I would have to refer that. Ms BAKER: Operating or capital? The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Well, both actually. Ms BAKER: The operating budget was $5 million. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: And the recent upgrades and corrections of faults? Would

you be able to provide that? I do not expect that tonight but could you provide it to us? Ms BAKER: We can certainly provide you with the full capital cost of those, yes. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Given that the facility was not opened, what financial impact

has occurred in relation to patients having to be admitted to the Lindsay Madew Unit? Dr MATTHEWS: The Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit is for North Sydney-Central Coast

residents, so it is additional. In a sense it is business as usual for North Sydney-Central Coast, for the Hornsby unit, the North Shore unit, the Gosford and Wyong units, which are all networked and link across the area. When this unit does open it will provide an additional higher-level resource for patients of the very highest acuity. Because it is additional it has not put an extra impost but it has not added the help we want to add.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Minister, I refer to the case of Robert Hesp, who was

refused admission by the Tweed Heads hospital mental health clinic and by the Richmond Clinic after being referred by Magistrate Jeff Linden. On 17 September 2007 the State's head psychiatrist said during an interview on the ABC television program 7.30 Report that a couple of weeks in jail can be very therapeutic for people suffering schizophrenia because of the regular routine with discipline. Do you find those comments appropriate?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I must say I did not see the program so I am not in a position to

comment upon what he said. As I understand it, the issue up there is really a difference of opinion about diagnosis. That is the reality of what is happening up there. I am told there was never an absence of beds. If it had been appropriate for the person to have been admitted there was a bed there for him. The Deputy Director General might want to add some more to that?


Dr MATTHEWS: On this particular occasion that patient was assessed in that unit. He was examined by a psychiatrist, who felt that he did not meet the criteria for enforced treatment in the unit. He was therefore refused bail. Whilst on remand a report that was produced for the court by another consultant psychiatrist who worked for Justice Health raised the issue of an enforced admission. He went back to the court, the magistrate referred him again to the unit, and again the psychiatrist at the unit felt that he did not meet the criteria under the Act. As the Minister said, this is a difference of clinical opinion.

I have been talking to my psychiatrists and telling them that they need to reach a consensus

and provide that consensus opinion to the court because two arms of the health system providing contrary advice is not a good thing. They need to reach a clinical agreement and provide consistent advice. But in this case there was a vacant bed at that unit. It was not a matter of resources. In relation to Dr Basson's comments, he was interviewed about two weeks before that report went to air. It was edited and he was quoted somewhat out of context, which is not unusual. I think that a full viewing of what he actually said might put those remarks into context.

CHAIR: We will now go to crossbench questions. The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Before I ask questions, could I get clarification from Dr

Matthews about an answer to a previous question? You were talking about case follow-up and you referred to clients at home with non-government organisations [NGOs]. Did you mean in community homes?

Dr MATTHEWS: The Housing and Accommodation Support Initiative [HASI] program

commenced in Department of Housing accommodation. But the latest versions, what we are now calling HASI in the Home, allows for the same level of support from an NGO and the clinical services in either rented accommodation or owned accommodation. Many younger patients, of course, go home to their family. We are expanding on that.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: It is about providing support to people who have a mental illness in the

community. It is that thing I talked about before: If you do not provide support they bounce back to acute units, which is no good for them or anyone else.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Perhaps not. I would like to ask a question on community

mental health caseworkers. I note you talked in general terms, Dr Matthews, about the difficulty of maintaining and recruiting general mental health nursing staff. How many community mental health caseworkers are currently employed? Do you measure or can you tell us what is the average case workload? Is there a high turnover of caseworkers? Is that area also stressed and suffering?

Dr MATTHEWS: There are a number of questions there. The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I wanted to ask them together so that you got a drift of what

I was getting at. Dr MATTHEWS: We can certainly on notice give you the exact number of clinical FTEs—

full-time equivalents—in both hospital and community. As to average caseload— The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I guess that would be a determination of hours worked or

hours paid? Dr MATTHEWS: It does vary a lot depending on the type of work. An acute assertive

follow-up person would have a much smaller caseload than someone in general intake. That does vary a lot. The third one was turnover. We keep statistics, I am sure, on retention and turnover. NAMO—Nursing and Midwifery Office—can give us that on notice.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: If you could provide those figures on notice to the

Committee, could you also provide the corresponding figures for the last two whole periods, say, 2005 and 2006?

Dr MATTHEWS: Yes.


Mr PAUL LYNCH: The other interesting perspective on all of this is that despite the record

expenditure on beds and capital, the increasing community mental health money has been greater than the increase in the capital and the beds for the last two budgets. You cannot do one without the other. If you try to do one without the other it will not work.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Sitting here now I regret that I had not entered politics 35

years earlier and was not able to sit across the table and question the author of the Richmond report. Mr PAUL LYNCH: Interestingly, there is an argument that the Richmond report was really

the culmination of a whole range of other things. There was a deinstitutionalisation going on anyway with the development of more effective drugs. Richmond came at the end of that. There is a whole series of other issues which you and I and everyone around the table will agree upon, but it was not just Richmond, it was a much broader development.

Dr MATTHEWS: The peak resource was 1942—400 beds per 100,000. They were for a

very long length of stay, a different model of care. The development of three drugs—largactil, lithium carbonate and the first antidepressants—meant that people could actually be treated in the community. The bulk of deinstitutionalisation in terms of numbers occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, as the Minister said. The Richmond report codified what was already happening. The success of HASI is actually based on providing the component that was missing, which was the roof and the general support as opposed to the clinical support.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The HASI we are talking about is now $29 million a year. That is a lot

of money, but it is a lot cheaper than keeping people in institutions. We have 850 places at the moment to 1,000 places by the end of the year.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: They are impressive statistics. I agree that the method of

treating the problem is probably the only way to do it now. I would have to say that the massive dislocation caused by the deinstitutionalisation process and the effect on families were horrendous during those early years, and I am talking from my own personal family experiences. Thank you, Minister, I have no more questions.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Minister, you said the $29 million per year HASI program was now

providing 850 places and was expected to go to 1,000. How long before that 1,000 target is reached? Mr PAUL LYNCH: That should be by the end of the year. Ms SYLVIA HALE: This financial year? Dr MATTHEWS: This financial year. Ms SYLVIA HALE: Is there an expectation there will be a continuing increase every year

thereafter? Mr PAUL LYNCH: That is certainly something that is under review, which we are

reviewing now, as I understand the department's position. Dr MATTHEWS: The principal limiting factor at the moment is that we are stretching the

capacity of the current NGOs in this State to provide further services. So we have instituted a $2 million NGO infrastructure grant program to build that capacity.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Do you mean the NGOs capacity to provide the housing or the NGOs

capacity to provide psychiatric services? Dr MATTHEWS: There are three partners. The Department of Housing in the main or

private to provide the housing, the NGO provides a broad level of support and New South Wales Health provides the clinical services. The $29 million the Minister referred to is just that NGO component. That does not include the housing component or the clinical services component. We are


keen to expand but we need to expand that NGO sector first because in the last rounds of tenders they are being really stretched to take up the extra 150 places.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: How is it determined if a person is eligible for assistance under HASI?

Is it the Department of Housing that makes the approach? Mr PAUL LYNCH: The area health service makes the assessment. It is a clinical

assessment. Dr MATTHEWS: In partnership with the NGO. Ms SYLVIA HALE: You said earlier that the Hornsby unit will not open until there are

sufficient nurses available to ensure safe and appropriate level of care. Will the same constraints apply to the unit at Concord Hospital, which is under construction at the moment?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: And, indeed, ahead of schedule. Ms SYLVIA HALE: There is no point having it there if it is not open. Mr PAUL LYNCH: It would be the same principle right across the system. You cannot and

should not ever open a facility unless it is safe to do so, especially when you are dealing with the mentally ill. The advice that I received as of Monday is that we do not anticipate any difficulties with staffing at Concord.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Why should it be easier to staff Concord than to staff Hornsby? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Two reasons. In Hornsby you had those other three units that have

opened recently in the last two years. The advice I am given about the nursing workforce is that many nurses live in the general area in which they want to work. That is, they do not want to live in Hornsby and travel to Campbelltown. That is the first reason. The second factor, as I understand it, is that a significant component of the workforce currently at Rozelle will move over to Concord. That is the advice I am given as of Monday.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: As you know, the proposal is to close the facilities at Callan Park and,

even though there are fewer beds at Concord, to transfer the service there. But I understand veterans of World War II and the Korean War who currently reside at Callan Park will not be moved?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: That is my understanding, but I am happy to have that double-checked. Dr MATTHEWS: That guarantee has been given on a large number of occasions. Ms SYLVIA HALE: But will the level of expert staff be maintained at Callan Park to assist

them or will those people living at Callan Park be forced to go back and forth between there and Concord?

Dr MATTHEWS: They do that now. They will have further to go. You have to remember

that essentially this group of veterans are getting nursing home care with mental health input. They will continue to get nursing home care and they will continue to get mental health input, and if the clinicians have to travel a bit further to give it so be it.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: We have had some discussion about the reluctance of hospitals to

admit people suffering a psychotic episode. It seems to be a common source of complaints from members of the police force that they may have a patient who they take to a hospital, seeking admission, but because the patient may have calmed down somewhat by the time they get to the hospital or because they may have been given some form of drug or other, that in fact the hospitals are tending to seize the opportunity not to admit those patients and the police are often finding themselves having to spend many hours driving around, in effect, acting as carers for people in a totally inappropriate way.


Mr PAUL LYNCH: There are two points I would make about that. One is there is certainly some work to be done between the police and psychiatric services. There has been an historic difficulty and that needs to be worked through. A memorandum of understanding has been signed involving the police and the Department of Health recently, which is part of that process. The second thing that I think will make a difference to that is the development of the psychiatric emergency care centres. So that instead of the paddy wagon rolling up to an emergency department, which takes all comers, they will be going to people with specialist psychiatric training. That has all the other advantages for emergency departments, of course, but I think it makes that process you have talked about a whole lot easier. Does the Director General want to add anything more to that?

Dr MATTHEWS: We are working very closely with the police. Mr PAUL LYNCH: I was more diplomatic about the police than you are about to be. Dr MATTHEWS: No, not at all. Section 24 of the 1990 Act, which allows the police to take

people they consider to be mentally ill to a gazetted bed for assessment, was a real advance and the numbers of section 24s have increased exponentially because people are better educated about mental illness, and that is a good thing because many of those people would have previously been charged and locked up. The Act about enforced admission and treatment is very clear: the person has to meet the criteria of the Act, and not everyone who the police form the view as being mentally ill is in fact mentally ill; many are intoxicated.

So the Psychiatric Emergency Care Centres, which are now in about nine metropolitan

hospitals, allow a secure place for people to be assessed overnight and either admitted or reassessed when the intoxication has worn off, and discharged to community services. They are a real improvement. We have done that in partnership with the police. We have trialled a restraint device for people who are potentially violent. We thought about that very carefully because restraint devices have got a bad history, and as I went around and saw people full of amphetamines, the restraint device was, in fact, by a policeman. This is a far more humane restraint device; much safer for both the patient and police. We are doing lots of things to fix that problem.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The other footnote that probably should be added to that is that the new

mental health legislation gives ambulance officers a whole lot more power and a role in taking people in that condition to hospital. That is still to be rolled out, but it involves significant training of ambulance officers; you just cannot throw them into the deep end. But that also, in a small way, helps deal with the problem.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I was going to add that so far as the police are concerned one hears

universally good reports about their response to people with difficulties and that they seem to have become more aware of the problems, and I think that is a very good thing.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The thing you have highlighted also varies from area to area.

Obviously, I meet directly with representatives of various unions and groups in this area and the Police Association praised to the skies the relationship they have got with one of the units at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, for example. So, I think there is a variation of experience.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I heard some quite dreadful stories in the Dubbo area, for example.

Legal aid workers raised with me the inappropriate treatment of mental health patients. You mentioned amphetamines. Is St Vincent's Hospital the only hospital that has a unit dedicated to the treatment of amphetamine abusers?

Dr MATTHEWS: No. There are two trials happening: one is at St Vincent's with Dr

Wodak; the other one is in the Hunter, which have been funded. Both are using different methodologies because there is not a lot of evidence about what is the most effective treatment of amphetamine dependence. We have got effective treatments for heroin dependence but we have got a long way to go with amphetamines. We are trying substitution therapy at St Vincent's and we are trialling a cognitive behavioural therapy approach at the other centre to see which one gives us the best results, because around the world no one has really got a very good answer to this particular problem.


Ms SYLVIA HALE: How long will the trial last? How long before you expect to receive a report on its effectiveness?

Dr MATTHEWS: In terms of the sorts of outcomes we are looking for, which are decreased

use of amphetamines, decreased acute admissions, decreased re-arrest rates, those kinds of thing, it tends to take 12 months to two years to get a really solid outcome to see if there is any difference between the treatment methodologies.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Unlike heroin, where many people, as I understand it, recover from

their addictions say in their 30s or whatever—that may be a moot point—there are methods of responding to it. Amphetamine usage, as I understand it, can have very long-term devastating effects upon an individual's psychiatric health. If that proves to be the case and the trials prove to be ineffective in dealing with abusers, how do you intend to deal with the problem? It is obviously a problem that will not go away.

Dr MATTHEWS: I do not want to give you a highly technical answer but I probably will.

Our greatest success in heroin dependence has been with methadone substitution treatments. In terms of reduced death, reduced zero conversion and reduced crime, it is methadone one and daylight second. The question is, now that we have a simple urine test to tell the difference between legally prescribed amphetamine in a small dose and illicitly obtained amphetamine, if you take a group of people who are abusing amphetamines—are dependent—and you give them a small dose of the legally prescribed amphetamine on a daily basis, would you get a reduction or a loss of illicit use, a decreased frequency of acute exacerbations of mental illness and a decreased incidence of violent crime? If the answer to that, very carefully assessed, is yes, then it may be—heavily qualified with lots of caveats—that substitution therapy has a place. However, at this stage we simply do not know.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: We will have amphetamine clinics. Ms SYLVIA HALE: Earlier today in the estimates committee hearing dealing with the

Minister for Justice, I mentioned recent research indicating that there is an increased tendency for prisoners released from jail to suicide or overdose within six months. I asked how the Minister was responding. He said that the difficulty is that such people are often not on parole and the Department of Justice has no means of tracking them. How will we stop former prisoners falling through the gap and going untreated in this particularly vulnerable stage?

Dr MATTHEWS: I think the Minister was probably referring to our mortality study, which

linked all the people released from prison with the national death index. The highest reported cause of death is death by overdose within the first seven days. Whilst there are about 10,000 people in prison, the throughput is about 24,000. Of the 24,000 released each year, something like half are released from court—that is, granted bail. When you are running a health service and they go to court and are bailed, they do not know beforehand that they are getting out. So continuity of care becomes very difficult.

Significant numbers of people service very short sentences, albeit frequently. The number of

people who stay for more than six months is a relatively small percentage of the total. We are talking about high turnover and short stays, and people released unpredictably from court. All I am really doing is giving you a litany of excuses about why is it hard. However, that is the principal problem. Of course, the answer is that assertive follow up as can be arranged within the limits of that system and, of course, the individual's willingness to take that follow up. As Minister Hatzistergos said, if there are no parole conditions, there is no compulsion. Many people are not interested.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: Can you outline the latest initiatives under the

Government's mental nursing scholarship program? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Patients, carers and their families deserve high-quality mental health

care delivered by skilled and motivated staff who are responsive to their needs. Nurses are an indispensable part of a sophisticated and highly skilled mental health work force and are critical to the delivery of the State's quality mental health services. The New South Wales Government is working to improve the capacity of the health work force to deliver mental services. Under the Government's A


New Direction for Mental Health enhancement package we have committed $11 million over five years to mental health work force programs.

Mental health nursing scholarships are but one important component of this program, which

has been an outstanding success. Mental health nursing scholarships are funded in three categories for nurses working in or wishing to work in the field of mental health. To date our mental health enrolled nurse-to-registered-nurse scholarships have been valued at up to $5,000 each. In 2007, these scholarships assisted 93 enrolled nurses to take up studies to become registered nurses. In 2008, these scholarships will be enhanced up to $8,000 each. The mental health postgraduate scholarships are also valued at up to $5,000 each. In 2007, these scholarships assisted 194 registered nurses to advance their skills and qualifications in a diverse range of mental health fields, including child and adolescent, older adult, forensic and perinatal. Twenty-four scholarships were awarded to nurses undertaking nurse practitioner masters degrees.

Our mental health innovation scholarships are valued at up to $10,000. Ten scholarships were

awarded for nurse-led projects that demonstrate innovative models of practice leading to improvements in patient care. These exciting projects reflect the commitment of mental health nurses to meeting the needs of patients in all health settings and across the spectrum of their lives and illness. The success of the mental health nursing scholarships has exceeded even the most optimistic expectations.

The Government's original target in 2006 was to provide 40 mental health nurse scholarships.

It ended up funding 110 scholarships. In 2007, the number of nurses seeking mental health nursing scholarships for study has again greatly exceeded the Government's targets. Due to an overwhelming response from nurses, the number of funded mental health nursing scholarships has been increased again. That means that this year alone the Government has provided more than $1 million to enable almost 300 registered and enrolled nurses to build their skills and qualifications in mental health.

The success of the 2007 mental health nursing scholarships has been acknowledged by the

Mental Health Association of New South Wales with a Mental Health Matters Award in the government category. Over the next five years, NSW Health will enhance mental health service provision by providing 600 undergraduate and postgraduate scholarships for enrolled and registered nurses specialising in mental health. These prestigious mental health nursing scholarships are but one of a range of government strategies to expand this State's mental health nursing work force. Other programs include new graduate and transition training programs for nurses and allied health staff who choose to work in mental health, traineeships targeting careers in mental health, development of a post-enrolment qualification in mental health for enrolled nurses and, in 2007, a significant number of mental health nurses will receive help to undertake nurse practitioner and advanced practice studies.

Then there is the success of the New South Wales Government's Reconnect program for

nursing and allied health. As at September this year, well over 100 nurses have taken up jobs in mental health as a result of this program. Two weeks ago at Orange I met the one-hundredth nurse. The Government is committed to ensuring that the best possible support and care are available to people with mental health problems and disorders. We are proud of the success of the mental health nursing scholarships, which are one of many initiatives that demonstrate a commitment to attracting, retaining and building a highly skilled mental health nursing work force to meet the needs of patients now and in the future.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: Can you inform me about Government's efforts to improve

the recognition of and support for families and carers of people with a mental illness? Mr PAUL LYNCH: The role of families and carers of people with mental illness is critical.

It is families and carers who often carry the responsibility of daily care of people with a mental illness. It is families and carers who frequently help to navigate the treatment options and services available to the consumer. Family and carers regularly incur extra financial costs in taking care of the consumer. It is families and carers who commonly need to keep the rest of the family running while also caring for a consumer and supporting them to reach their full potential in life.

Families and carers come from all walks of life and include young carers, parents, siblings,

grandparents, extended family and even sometimes friends of the consumer. The physical and


emotional burden of being a carer has long been recognised in principle, but only recently has it been recognised in terms of resources. As noted in the New South Wales carers action plan, a whole-of-government document, some 11 per cent of people in New South Wales are carers. Approximately one in 10 provide assistance to someone with a mental illness. However, the real figures are likely to be significantly higher. Many carers do not readily identify themselves as carers.

Historically, family and carers have had significant difficulty accessing support and

information to help them to care for their loved ones, particularly in the mental health area. As one carer from the Hawkesbury said recently, "I couldn't get any answers because I wasn't the actual patient. I was only the carer."

The New South Wales family and carer mental health program addresses those needs. It is

the most innovative partnership program of this nature in Australia and, indeed, the first of its kind. It is developed from a very strong evidence base that indicates that significant consumer outcomes can be achieved through supporting families and carers. The program involves funding specific non-government organisations and all area mental health services, including Justice Health, to provide an integrated multifaceted approach to provide support, education and information to families and carers of people with a mental illness.

Area mental health services receive funding in order to develop family friendly mental health

services. This involves building the capacity of front-line clerical staff to ensure their families and carers are recognised, supported and included in treatment planning and service provision. Front-line clinical staff are building their skills to involve families and carers in clinical activities and to provide appropriate information to assist families and carers, particularly when the consumer is discharged home from an in-patient unit. These skills will also assist families to prevent the family breakdowns that can occur with the burden of an acute or chronic illness. This development in culture and practice is timely in light of the changes to the Mental Health Act, in particular with the introduction of the primary carers scheme.

The non-government partners working with the area mental health services in the New South

Wales family and carer mental health program are the Association of the Relatives and Friends of the Mentally Ill New South Wales, Carers New South Wales, the Schizophrenia Fellowship New South Wales through Carers Assist, and Uniting Care Mental Health. They are funded to provide services directly to families and carers in specific area health services. These organisations provide individual support, information and advocacy to families and carers. They also run education and training programs for families and carers, focused on building coping skills, resilience and knowledge about mental illness. The funded non-government organisations are working in close partnership not only with their allocated area health services but also with each other building a consistent best practice support service across New South Wales.

The non-government organisations have developed the NGO Link Up, which was recently

presented at the mental health services conference in Melbourne as a best practice approach. This is the first time non-government organisations have been able to work in such solid partnership and coordination at this level in New South Wales. These partnerships are further expanded to include mainstream carers support services, such as counselling, respite and financial support. Research into this field strongly demonstrates that by supporting families and carers, consumers and the health system at large also gain significant benefit.

Consumers benefit considerably when their families and carers are supported and informed.

In particular, research has demonstrated outcomes such as reduced relapse rates, fewer hospital admissions, improved early intervention as families are able to recognise and act appropriately on signs and symptoms prior to them becoming a concern, increased adherence to medication and treatment regimes, increased success and independence in community living, improved social situations and functioning, including reduced psychopathology, restoration of hope and self-belief with a positive impact on long-term recovery. As one consumer from a hospital in North Ryde put it:

I believe where there is a will there is a way and where there is continuing hope of a consumer recovering there is always the prospect that it will actually occur. That is why the maintenance of hope by the consumer or those around them such as their carers and service providers is so vital in determining whether or not he or she finally recovers.


These benefits to consumers translate into considerable benefits for health services, including real savings in costs associated with acute psychiatric interventions, including a reduction in bed days and the length of stay. An American study found that for every US$1 spent on family psycho-education, US$34 were saved in hospital costs. The authors predict a saving at this ratio of one in 10 can be achieved, and a valuation of the program in New South Wales is to be implemented in the near future and will include an assessment of our results in light of the American findings.

There are also savings to be made associated with reduced demand on funded support services as the family and/or carer often provides many of the services. Families and carers also receive significant benefits from direct support and information including experiencing optimum health, significantly improved quality of life, reduced distress and isolation, improved family relationships, greater access to services, better early intervention for their own health needs and forming links and relationships to other people in the same situation such as through peer support groups. As one carer from Penrith stated, "I thought I was the only one." These savings also represent savings for the health system.

Carers of people with a mental illness typically experience poorer physical and emotional

health than their counterparts in non-caring roles. This can result in a significant burden on the health system, in particular the primary care sector. There are also considerable benefits for help service providers beyond the financial, as caregivers are a valuable resource for mental health professionals, providing information that helps with treatment, planning, monitoring medication, providing practical help with appointments and rehabilitation programs and supporting consumers in their efforts to recover. The New South Wales Government will be spending over $6.5 million on the family and carer mental health program in 2007-08. This demonstrates a significant commitment to improve the supporting services available to families and carers of people with a mental illness.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: During your response to that question of mine you

mentioned non-government organisations, which as you know, I have a substantial interest in. How is the Government investing in non-government organisations to care for and support people with a mental illness, their families and carers?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The role of non-government organisations is absolutely critical, as you

would have gathered from the discussion we have had already. Non-government organisations play an important role in the delivery of support services to people with mental health problems and also provide advocacy, clinical research, education, training in health promotion and information services. A large number of community-based, mental health non-government organisations receive funding from the New South Wales Government, either directly from New South Wales Health or through grants administered by the area health services. Non-government organisation funding by the New South Wales Government in 2006-07 was $23.1 million. We have increased this funding to $25.7 million in 2007-08.

In addition, the New South Wales Government is investing in and expanding the highly

successful housing and accommodation support initiative involving non-government organisation funding of more than $26 million in 2007-08. The housing and accommodation support initiative or HASI is a partnership program that enables stable housing linked to specialist support for people with mental illness. It is underpinned by significant investment by the New South Wales Government. The housing and accommodation support initiative began in 2003 with an initial rollout of over 100 places across New South Wales. The latest stage of the housing and accommodation support initiative in 2007 takes the number of places to more than 850 across the State bringing an annual investment of many millions of dollars as well as funding by the Department of Housing.

The funding by New South Wales Health is provided for a range of specialist non-

government organisations. Together with existing clinical mental health services and the provision of permanent social housing it supports people of mental illness to live independently in the community. I am also pleased to advise that a further stage of the housing and accommodation support initiative is currently subject to tender processes and the number of places will climb to over 1,000. The next stage is called HASI in the home. It is aimed at supporting people affected by mental illness to live in the community. These are people who may not be living in public housing but with their ageing parents or in extended family situations or people who are homeless. HASI in the home is funded to the tune of $5 million per annum.


The Government funds non-government organisations to deliver the important family and

carer mental health program, with current funding of $4.92 million being provided for that. The role of families and carers of people with a mental illness is critical. It is families and carers who often carry the responsibility of the daily care for people with a mental illness. Families and carers frequently help them navigate the treatment options and services available. Families and carers often incur fomenting costs in providing care. It is carers who commonly keep the rest of the family running whilst caring for a person with a mental illness and supporting them to reach their full potential in life.

The New South Wales family and carer mental health program aims to assist families and

carers in the caring role. It is the most innovative partnership program of this nature in Australia. It involves funding specific non-government organisations in all area mental health services including Justice Health to provide an integrated multifaceted approach that offers support, education and information to families and carers. The non-government partners working with area mental health services are ARAFMI NSW, Carers New South Wales, the Schizophrenia Fellowship New South Wales, through Carers Assist, and Uniting Care Mental Health. Initial funding for these non-government organisations was $240,000 per non-government organisation per area per year, a total of $1.92 million per area per year. In June 2006, as part of New South Wales' new direction for mental health the Premier announced additional funding of $13.5 million to expand the program significantly over the next five years.

Non-government organisations play in important role in mental health support for Aboriginal

people. Funding to non-government organisations to provide aboriginal mental health and wellbeing services was over $1.1 million in 2006-07 and is increasing to $2.2 million in 2007-08. This funding is for Aboriginal mental health workers and a range of rural, regional and metropolitan Aboriginal-community controlled health services.

These workers cooperate in partnership with local area mental health services and local

communities to provide mental health and social and emotional wellbeing services for Aboriginal people. Aboriginal mental health funding also includes support to the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council to employ a coordinator of Aboriginal mental health. The coordinator's role is to advise the Aboriginal community child health services and the New South Wales Aboriginal health partnership on issues related to the mental health and social and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal people in New South Wales.

Funding is also being provided to develop the mental health assessment package relevant to

the needs of the Aboriginal population in New South Wales. Research is a vital component of the network of activities undertaken to improve the lives of people with a mental illness, as well as those families and carers. Research is the great hope for thousands of people affected by mental illness. One in every five Australians will experience a mental illness at some point in their life. Understanding mental health and mental illness remains a priority for this Government. That is why we have provided significant funding to a range of non-government research organisations.

We have provided over $1.9 million to the Schizophrenia Research Institute to support its

worldwide studies and research into the causes of schizophrenia. That includes an annual grant of $500,000 to support the establishment of Australia's first chair of schizophrenia research, in partnership with the University of New South Wales and Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute. Professor Sharon Leichhardt, a world renowned researcher whose work focuses on multiple areas of molecular biology related to schizophrenia and brain development, was recruited as the chair in late 2006.

The Government has also provided $235,000 per year for the past four years to support the

institute in various initiatives aimed at increasing public awareness and understanding about schizophrenia in the workplace and in the broader community. Since 2002 the Black Dog Institute has focused on improving the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of mood disorders through research, education and training. The New South Wales Government has committed more than $5 million over the next three years to the institute. This Government has reinforced its commitment to mental health research and, in particular, to the important work of the Black Dog Institute, with an additional $1.5 million from September this year. That is to support specialist research into mood disorders, including depression.


This funding will support the institute to progress mental health research and improve the

lives of adults and young people with mood disorders. The New South Wales Government also provides a range of other funding for research and related activities in mental health. The New South Wales Government is providing $5.9 million to Beyond Blue over five years from 2006 to assist in raising community awareness about depression, anxiety and related disorders and to reduce the stigma associated with these illnesses.

The Government has signed a partnership agreement with Beyond Blue which covers five

priority areas—early intervention in post-natal depression, early intervention in primary and secondary school students; depression, anxiety and related disorders in older persons, particularly those in community and residential care; improving pathways and linkages between primary care and general practice mental health services; and tackling depression in rural and indigenous communities. Also, $22 million has been provided to the Brain and Mind Institute over the financial years 2005-06 and 2006-07 to build one of the best mental health facilities of its kind in the world. It brings together patient support groups, front-line carers, scientists and mental health clinicians.

This funding to support the mental health of young people will boost research into the link

between drugs and alcohol and mental health problems. The facility will provide comprehensive clinical services and research focused on the early phases of major psychotic and mood disorders, including severe depression and bipolar disorder. The new facility will offer 20 clinical suites for treating patients, 30 clinicians providing treatment, including 10 psychiatrists with a youth focus and 20 clinical psychologists with expertise in areas such as alcohol and substance misuse, juvenile criminal behaviour, early onset psychosis, and cognitive behavioural management of major mental disorders. I should indicate there is a range of others, but I will conclude my comments there.

CHAIR: There are 10 minutes remaining so I shall allocate five minutes to the Opposition

and five minutes to the crossbench. Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have a supplementary on amphetamines if members are interested. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Can that be tabled? Mr PAUL LYNCH: It is handwritten. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Perhaps Mr Brown might ask a question on that. Minister,

are you able to provide a list of the non-government organisations [NGOs] funded to provide mental health services in 2006-07 and 2007-08, together with the funding allocated by the State and by the Commonwealth? You will probably need to take that question on notice.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: We will take that on notice. I do not know that we will be able to give

you the figures for the Commonwealth but we can certainly give you the figures for the State. Mr BARKER: In our annual report we actually publish the grants for NGOs given by NSW

Health. If the Commonwealth gives us funding and we administer that, we are aware of that, but if they fund NGOs organisations directly, the Minister is correct, we would not be able to give you that advice. The 2007-08 grants are yet to be approved by the Minister, so they have not been determined at this point in time, but upon the Minister making a decision on all our NGOs grants, we then advise those NGOs what their approved grant is, so at that point in time we will be able to advise the Committee, but we could not take that question on notice until such time as the Minister has made that decision.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: In relation to the drought and the funding for grants and

subsidies for voluntary organisations, in 2006-07 the funding was $34.945 million. This year it is $23.41 million, a drop of about $11 million in grants and subsidies for voluntary organisations such as Lifeline, I presume. Are you concerned about the impact of the drought, particularly in rural and regional areas, where we had great autumn rain, then a very dry period, resulting in crop failures through central and western New South Wales? What representations have you had from Minister Macdonald and will you increase funding in relation to mental health issues?


Mr PAUL LYNCH: And the real horror about the drought recently, as I understand it, is that in light of the rain people went out, made investments, borrowed, and that was the last—

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Throw of the dice? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Yes, that is right. Recently I met with Jock Laurie. Two weeks ago I

was out at Bloomfield for a day, met people from the institute out there. The first trip I had outside of Sydney as Minister was to Bourke in May and I was in Bourke council chambers meeting the local ROC, the local mayors and general managers.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Wayne O'Malley? Mr PAUL LYNCH: They were very keen to say a few words to the new Local Government

Minister. The only time in the day where there was absolute silence was when the rain started to fall on the roof. I must say it made an impact on me.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Maybe we should send you out again. Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have done a fair bit of travelling, I have to say. CHAIR: You have been to Gunnedah with me. Mr PAUL LYNCH: That is right. One of the mayors who was there—one certainly not of

my political persuasion—had a discussion with me outside of the main room. He talked to me about these issues and pulled out of his pocket the packet of antidepressants he was on to say, "This is how I get through each day". That was actually a good story in the sense that he recognised the issue and he was sufficiently relaxed to talk about it and to tell his political opponent. There was actually a glimmer of hope from that particular exchange.

The point of that is that, yes, I do concede there is an extremely serious problem out there and

those stories I have told specifically to say that it is not just rhetoric; I have actually talked to people face-to-face. As to future funding, that is under active consideration at the moment. I am not making promises about anything because that decision has not been made. It is something that is certainly in my consciousness.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: With respect to mental health access to telephone

counselling, you made a provision of about $5 million in the current budget. Given to the effects of the drought and what you have seen in regional areas, the effects of increasing drug usage, reduction in grants for voluntary NGOs and other organisations, is $5 million enough? Often the telephone counselling service is the only link to any assistance for some farmers?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Yes, I must say I have not had anyone specifically put to me that that is

not enough money. I have had some representations about some things but that has not been put to me yet, I must say. I wonder whether the deputy director general has a view on that.

Dr MATTHEWS: Obviously telephone access to advice and counselling is critical. Lifeline

did get some additional funding in the last two financial years. We are about to go out to tender for the provision of a mental health designated line for the State with a mental health nurse at the end of the line 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That would be linked with the national call centre that New South Wales and the majority of States have signed up to. But it is our intention to provide a single number for the State whereby whatever time a person rings, there will be a mental health nurse there who will not only be able to give them advice and counselling but will also be able to link them to services, either immediately or the next day or the next week, depending on the level of acuity, and that will be available for all rural New South Wales, and indeed all metropolitan New South Wales.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Minister, in outlining the amounts of money that have been made available for the Housing and Accommodation Support Initiative you spoke about $25.7 million in 2007-08 being your department's contribution. You then mentioned a further $27 million for Housing. Do I take it that that means that $27 million is provided to the initiative from Housing, or is it from your own budget?


Mr PAUL LYNCH: If I said there was $27 million from Housing, that seems to be an error,

I suspect, or it has been lost in the translation. The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: That is not really relevant to my question. I simply wanted

to get an idea of that. Mr PAUL LYNCH: The money I was talking about is money to the non-government

organisations from Health. In addition to that there will be the assessments done by the area health service and the psychiatric services provided there, and then whatever it is the Department of Housing is doing is separate to that again.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Is the portfolio of the Department of Community Services

also involved in the Housing and Accommodation Support Initiative? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Not in a formal sense. It would be informally, if there were children of

the consumer, I would anticipate, but it is not formally involved. Ms SYLVIA HALE: Minister, you would obviously be aware of increasing levels of

homelessness both as a result of addictions or rent rises within the private rental market and also the increasing harshness of the eligibility test for public housing. However, you would probably also be aware of research that shows that not only are people suffering with mental illness unduly represented amongst homeless people but homelessness in itself gives rise to mental health problems. Have you made any representations to the Minister for Housing to ease the eligibility criteria for public housing?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The other element of that, of course, is that many of the people who are

homeless have co-morbidities that they have a mental illness and an abuse issue as well, and that is the level of complication. My involvement with the Department of Housing on this is the Housing and Accommodation Support Initiative, which, amongst other things, helps house homeless people. That is part of the answer I have already given and that is the real involvement we have in this field. Rather than making representations, the program is actually doing things.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I have always been struck at the phalanx of advisers who accompany

the Minister to budget estimates hearings. Is this good for your own mental health, or for the mental health of the advisers who have to sit through the hearing?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: It may well be detrimental to everyone's mental health going through

these processes. Part of the problem is that I have three portfolios and I have a separate set of advisers for each portfolio. That is why we end up with so many. We have a supplementary answer concerning amphetamine use.

Dr MATTHEWS: In my earlier answer I was operating from memory, and that is becoming

increasingly faulty. The two clinics are at St Vincent's and Newcastle. They have been funded for four years under New Directions in Mental Health. Effectively the trials will run for four years. Preliminary evaluation at St Vincent's has concluded that in what is so far a small group of follow-up there has been a significant decrease in the use of illicit amphetamines. That evaluation is being done by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. There will be a very substantial report following, once there are sufficient numbers in the trial to determine that.

I would also point out that we recently released new treatment guidelines for amphetamine

use. We are very good at treating intoxication. As I said before, we really do not have all the answers to dependence, but we did in New South Wales, through Minister Hatzistergos, take some national leadership and convene the forum that involved health, police and attorneys to take a comprehensive approach to this problem all the way from law enforcement across to treatment. It is a significant and growing problem. We are trying to do as much about it as we can, but it is, I have to acknowledge, an area where no-one has the answers.

(The witnesses withdrew)


CHAIR: We will now go to the portfolio area of Aboriginal Affairs. I would like to welcome the representatives from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. JODY BROUN, Director General of Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and STEPHEN WRIGHT, Registrar Aboriginal Land Rights Act, sworn and affirmed.

CHAIR: Does the Minister have an opening statement? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have an opening statement of about 5 minutes. I would like to show

my respect and acknowledge the Gadigal people, members of one of the 29 clans, which make up the Eora Nation who are the traditional custodians of this land. I extend that respect to other Aboriginal people here tonight.

Madam Chair, I commence by speaking of the tragedy and the horror of child sexual abuse and assault in Aboriginal communities. I should stress that the particular actions of individual agencies are for those specific agencies and their Ministers to speak about. The issue of child sexual assault is one of profound seriousness. It has devastating and long-term consequences for individuals and families. No government, Liberal or Labor, Federal or State, has anything to be proud of when it comes to tackling the chronic problems that confront Aboriginal communities in New South Wales and around Australia. It is perhaps time to stop the politicking because that achieves nothing. There is no easy solution to the terrible scourge. The Government will not play politics with such an important issue. All tiers of government must acknowledge past failures in addressing this issue. We need to work together to ensure the best outcomes for indigenous communities. We welcome any initiative to address child abuse in any community and we will work co-operatively with the Federal Government on this issue where their proposals are appropriate for us.

The NSW Government was the first to support the proposal to second police officers to the taskforce in the Northern Territory. I think we offered ten but I understand that we have actually sent eleven. Those officers commenced their duties in the Northern Territory on the 6th of October. Tackling Aboriginal disadvantage and child sexual assault requires a holistic and coordinated response from Government. That is why we established the Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce and commissioned the Breaking the Silence report. Already we have acted on the recommendations of the taskforce. In January this year the New South Wales Government released a comprehensive plan to deal with child sexual assault in Aboriginal communities in New South Wales. That is known as the "Interagency Plan". The 88 actions in the plan represent a considered response that balances law enforcement, child protection, early intervention and prevention, and community leadership and support. The 88 measures will be delivered to communities at a cost of more than $30 million over the next four years.

We have established a Ministerial advisory panel to monitor and report on the implementation of the Interagency Plan to Tackle Child Sexual Assault in Aboriginal Communities. The membership of the advisory panel has been drawn from the Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce [ACSAT], Aboriginal communities and public servants with relevant expertise. They are all people with high levels of expertise, commitment and community confidence. The Chair of the Panel is Ms Sandra Bailey, who is the chief executive officer of the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council. Ms Bailey has a strong background as an advocate on behalf of Aboriginal people. She has previous experience in a range of fields including Aboriginal cultural, legal and social justice work. This has included the Cummeragunja Housing and Development Corporation, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, as well as being head of the Aboriginal Issues Unit for the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in Victoria.

The Deputy Chair of the Panel is Ms Gillian Calvert, the New South Wales Commissioner for Children and Young People. In this role Ms Calvert is responsible for ensuring that the safety, welfare and wellbeing of children and young people is paramount in New South Wales Government policy. Closer involvement of the Commissioner of Children and Young People in relation to child sexual assault matters was a recommendation in the Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce Breaking the Silence report.


Madam Chair, in addition to Ms Sandra Bailey and Ms Gillian Calvert other members of the Ministerial Advisory Panel include: Ms Marcia Ella Duncan; Ms Joan Dickson; Mr Greg Telford; Ms Melva Kennedy; Professor Chris Cunneen; Ms Beverley Manton, Chair of the New South Wales Aboriginal Lands Council; Ms Wendy Fernando; Ms Glendra Stubbs; and Mr Brendan Thomas. The selection panel that chose my Ministerial advisory panel members included Ms Marcia Ella Duncan, the Chair of the Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce. A preliminary meeting of the advisory panel was held on 10 September 2007 and I am advised that the next meeting of the advisory panel is planned for 14 December. I am briefed regularly on the progressive implementation of the Interagency Plan by the chief executive officer's forum on Human Services and Justice. In fact I met with them as recently as yesterday.

Interagency Plan recommendations already implemented include: additional victim support

and counselling under the Victims of Crime Counselling Scheme; provision of training resources to Aboriginal families and carers and commencement of training for DOCs workers in trial drug testing sites; establishment of an Aboriginal and alcohol issues sub-committee to support the development of the Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Plan; establishment of 142 local liquor accords, which proactively involve the Aboriginal community in implementing local initiatives to reduce alcohol related harm; providing feedback to mandatory reporters in relation to Aboriginal children; and implementation of the Schools in Partnership initiative to assist school attendance. Our plan strikes a balance between strong law enforcement action needed to crackdown on criminal activity and the importance of early intervention and prevention services to help families at risk.

The New South Wales Government is committed to working with Aboriginal communities to tackle this serious crime. We will work in partnership, with sensitivity and mutual respect because if the last 200 years of history has taught us anything, it is that impose a solution on Aboriginal people without their active involvement and participation is to set that solution up for failure. In the six or so months that I have been the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I have had the opportunity to visit some remarkable places in New South Wales and meet some truly inspiring Aboriginal people. Some of the places I have visited outside the greater Sydney metropolitan area include: Bathurst, Boobera Lagoon, Boggabilla, Bourke, Coffs Harbour, Collarenebri, Goulburn, Kariong, Moree, Nowra, Orange, Queanbeyan, Tamworth, Toomelah, Wagga Wagga, Walgett and Wyong. I look forward to continuing to meet and talk with Aboriginal people from across the State.

In that context it is appropriate for me to talk briefly about the State Plan, which sets out the

goals Aboriginal people of New South Wales said they wanted the Government to work towards. The State Plan identifies priorities and targets for government action to help achieve these goals. This 10-year plan includes a specific priority to improve the health, education and social outcomes for Aboriginal people. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is the lead agency for coordinating with partner agencies and Aboriginal people, a driver for positive change and achievements in four key areas: safe families, education, environmental health, and economic development. The strong focus on these four core areas as well as strategies to strengthen cultural awareness and build cultural resilience within Aboriginal communities will make steps towards overcoming Aboriginal disadvantage.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I understand your electorate office in Liverpool is close to

the Gandangarra Aboriginal Land Council. Have you been there? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have been over the years to the Gandangarra office a number of times. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Over the years? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Yes. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: That was an incorrect report that you had not been there? Mr PAUL LYNCH: It was certainly a report in the local paper. The president and the

treasurer of the land council at the time those comments were made have now been removed by the land council, which suggests the level of support they had locally. The current CEO is a man called Jack Johnson, who has now had three meetings in my office with me and I have had several other meetings with other members of the land council over the last few months.


The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Through you, Madam Chair, to the Minister, given the priority areas in the Two Ways Together—health, housing, education, family, young people, culture, heritage—how does the closure of the Aboriginal Children's Services Limited meet this agenda, noting that the organisation provided community out-of-home care programs for Aboriginal children at risk?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The decision to shut that service was made by the Department of

Community Services. The details of that decision need to be directed towards them. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Are you concerned with the services that are now lacking?

Have you followed up as to what services will replace those programs? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I had some pleasure not that long ago in being part of a presentation of

$9 million over a period of years to Kari Aboriginal Resources, which is one of the services to pick up in the provision of those sorts of services.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: How does the closure of the Sydney operation of the

Murumbi Aboriginal Leaving Care and After Care Service, which provided specialist Aboriginal after-care services, meet the agenda of Two Ways Together?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Once again, that was not a Department of Aboriginal Affairs decision

to shut that service. If you want to inquire into the service you ought to be asking the body that closed it down.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: As the Minister should you not know why all these services

are being shut down and what is replacing them? Mr PAUL LYNCH: We are going to have a rerun of the argument we had before. I have

responsibilities as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I am not the Minister for DOCS [Department of Community Services], I am not the Minister for Education, I am not the Attorney General.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Were you consulted by the Department Of Community

Services at any stage? Mr PAUL LYNCH: At the closure of those facilities, no, I was not because it is a decision

for the Department of Community Services. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Are you not concerned with finding out what is happening? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Whether I am concerned or not is irrelevant to the estimates committee

hearing of my ministerial responsibilities. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Obviously not. Mr PAUL LYNCH: That is not what I said. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Minister, I would like to take you back to the ministerial

advisory panel that you mentioned in your opening address. As you said, there was a first meeting of that group. It has taken until September for a first meeting. Were terms of reference presented at that meeting?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Terms of reference have subsequently been determined. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Since the meeting? Mr PAUL LYNCH: It was not a formal meeting because legal documentation needed to be

completed before you could actually have the official meeting. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It was an unofficial meeting because documentation was not

done?


Mr PAUL LYNCH: It was an informal meeting because police checks had not been

completed. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Do the members of the committee have the terms of

reference? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I understand they have, subject to what my Director General might say. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: As to the $30 million that has been heralded as the money

to deal with the many agencies involved with the Breaking the Silence report, do you as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs pinpoint where that money should go or does someone else direct where that money should go?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The allocation of the money will be based upon the interagency plan.

The figure is calculated from the assessment of the cost of those actions. The interagency plan specifies what actions must occur and indicates which agency is to carry out the action.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: At what stage is the interagency plan up to? Mr PAUL LYNCH: That was announced publicly in January this year. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: But we do not have any idea of where the $30 million is

being spent over the next four years at this point? Mr PAUL LYNCH: If you look at the interagency plan, it sets out the actions that will

occur. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Without funding commitments. Mr PAUL LYNCH: The funding commitment was that the actions of the plan will be

implemented. That is where the $30 million figure comes from. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: We are not sure where that $30 million is going. How much

is going to the Department of Housing or the Department of Education or the Department of Community Services?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The money is calculated from those actions. That is what those actions

have been estimated to cost to be implemented. The money is available in each of the departmental budgets. The actions that are set out in the interagency plan to be carried out by DOCS will come out of the DOCS budget.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Has the specific amount that each of those departments has

to find been identified? Mr PAUL LYNCH: That has been identified within the departments—that is their job—in

addition to whatever funding they had at the time the plan was announced. There have, of course, been significant enhancements to agencies like DOCS and Health in the last State budget.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Minister, there was a bit of controversy regarding the author

of the Breaking the Silence report, Marcia Ella Duncan, and the termination of her contract. Have you investigated the issues that she raised concerning comments made by former Minister Orkopoulos's chief of staff, who is now the Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Water Utilities? There are claims that he made inappropriate comments in front of her and other indigenous staff, referring to child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities. Have you investigated that issue at all?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: She has certainly not asked me to do that. Granted the ventilation that

issue has already had, it would seem that a further investigation is profoundly superfluous. It was raised at question time at great length.


The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It depends on whether you are the Minister or the Opposition wanting to find out whether a Minister of the Crown was making inappropriate comments that offended indigenous people. I thought you may have had an interest in getting to the bottom of that. You do not?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: It seemed to me that granted the extraordinary publicity already

attached to that, there is nothing I could do that could shed any light upon it at all. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: We would not want the truth, would we? The Hon. IAN WEST: That is inappropriate. Madam Chair, can we have questions through

you rather than value judgements and comment? CHAIR: It would be better use of the time available to stick to questions and answers. Mr PAUL LYNCH: Just to complete that, can I suggest you go to Hansard? That is where

all the evidence is now. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Madam Chair, through you to the Minister, on the subject of

Aboriginal land councils, can you tell us which local Aboriginal land councils are currently under administration and the reason for the appointment of the administrator? I have a number of other questions relating to those land councils that I have put in writing. How many currently are under administration?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Perhaps the Director General could give the number. Ms BROUN: We have appointed two investigators and six administrators, which included

extensions of previous appointments to local land councils in the past year. The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: As to the level of remuneration that the administrators are

paid and their fees, who authorises and pays? Is it the local land council? How does the financial arrangement work?

Mr WRIGHT: The Aboriginal Land Rights Act prescribes that the Minister administering

that Act appoints an administrator. It is done by way of an instrument of appointment. That decision is made by the Minister. The remuneration is that the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council is to pay the remuneration. Even though the Minister makes the appointment, the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council is responsible for the payment of the administrator. The remuneration is settled before the appointment is made and is reflected in the instrument of appointment, which is provided to the administrator and to the land council to be administered. That amount can vary, depending on the requirements of the particular administration. At its discretion the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council can recover the cost of that administration from the local Aboriginal land council for whom the administrator has been appointed. So that actual remuneration is paid for from the Aboriginal Land Rights Act resources. However, the appointment is a ministerial appointment.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Can you tell me what auditing systems are in place to assess

expenditure, hours worked, disbursements, by the administrators? Mr WRIGHT: I would gladly take that question on notice because it is a question that could

be answered in very great detail by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council who conducts those payments. Do you have a specific administration in mind?

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: No, just generally what system is followed. What

accountability? What system? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Can I perhaps also interject on that and say the last time Estimates

hearings were held there was a representative from the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council here. That was at a time when the council was under administration so there was an administrator able to be here. But now they have been democratically elected and it is perhaps not appropriate that they


are here at the table, but they have indicated to me that on questions and detail like that they are happy to convey information.

Mr WRIGHT: Just to add to that. It was before the Minister's time, but that representative

was the administrator Murray Chapman, who was with us at Estimates last year. Murray has since passed away, just for the information of the Committee.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Have matters involving the Metropolitan Aboriginal Land

Council's failings in their financial statement been fully resolved? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I do not think they have been resolved. I have just appointed an

investigator, in fact. The investigator has been recently appointed. He has had the first meeting, as I recall, with the officers and he has advised me, without looking at my papers, that he had a very productive meeting; they were being very cooperative.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: There will be a time frame for all that? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Yes, and he is obligated to report to me monthly. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Just in relation to the Darkinjung Aboriginal Land Council,

what measures have you put in place to ensure the funds of that council are not wasted on ongoing court cases and administration fees?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I will defer in a moment to Mr Wright, who is the world expert on

Darkinjung, but I have appointed an administrator who, in my view, is acting properly and correctly. The use of resources for legal expenses are defensive actions by him for the most part, or him carrying out his duties. There has been an extraordinary series of litigation, which he has won at every opportunity, as he should, pursuing what I regard as the correct course. I would not regard him as wasting any resources at all, but Mr Wright can no doubt add some more colour to that.

Mr WRIGHT: The saga of litigation involving the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land

Council is something we discussed last year, and it continues to be a topic that we can discuss, although I am happy to report to the Committee that we can at least discuss the finalisation of a number of the major cases that were being heard. If I can refer to the September report of the administrator, he refers to the following cases as being on foot in some form or another: Hillig v Darkinjung Pty Limited and others—Supreme Court proceedings remained on foot although substantially resolved; Bradford v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, NSWALC and Hillig, proceedings commenced by the former chairperson of Darkinjung, who is now suspended from that council in relation to concerns he had about activities of the administrator.

Those proceedings will not go anywhere until the final matters are resolved in the Supreme

Court proceedings. DLALC v The Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act Committee—I can refer you to something that is the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. I am very happy to report to you that that is the case involving DLALC and the Minister for Lands in relation to a land claim where the land council won and will have the land transferred to it. So we can look at that as a positive piece of litigation. There is another matter involving David Pross v Peter Hillig in his capacity as the administrator of the DLALC. Mr Pross has to make a move in the court; that is a matter involving his concern about the suspension of a number of members of the council by the administrator. That matter will not proceed unless Mr Pross wishes it to proceed.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Mr Wright, would it be possible for you to table that

briefing note on Darkinjung because it is a very extensive issue and we only get 20 minutes to ask questions of this really important portfolio?

Mr WRIGHT: I am referring to a report of the administrator provided to the Minister and

referred to me. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Could you table it? Mr WRIGHT: I am not sure of the answer to that.


Mr PAUL LYNCH: Perhaps if we take the question on notice and then make a

determination as to what can be released and what cannot. Mr WRIGHT: Which is why I am referring to it because I am not sure of that. But certainly

if it can be it will be. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Just going back to the Breaking the Silence report and the

extent of sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities. There has been a lot of concern in recent months in the Wallaga Lake community on the South Coast of New South Wales. Are you aware of what is being offered in terms of extra services and resources to that community to deal with that issue?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The services that would be provided would be by agencies other than

the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, so you need to direct that to the relevant Ministers. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It must at times be a very frustrating job to be Minister for

Aboriginal Affairs. Mr PAUL LYNCH: Quite seriously, absolutely. It is one of the great difficulties of this

portfolio because you do not have direct ministerial control over other departments. But that is as it ought to be because you should not say that the protection of Aboriginal children is not a core responsibility of the Department of Community Services. The education of Aboriginal children is a core responsibility of the Department of Education and so on and so forth. If you were to hive those responsibilities off into the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and give one Minister control over it, I think that is a backward step. You have got to drive those departments—

The Hon. Robert Brown: Take away the mainstreaming of it. Mr PAUL LYNCH: Yes. You cannot simply deal with everything as mainstreaming, but

you have got to have those main agencies regarding it as their core responsibilities to do those things. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: In relation to your opening statement again, you mentioned

Aboriginal liquor accords in the Aboriginal populations and general population. In a lot of Aboriginal remote communities—you would have seen it out at Bourke—there has been an improvement in terms of what is happening on the streets with less drinking on the streets. What are you doing about the concerns though that are now generating where people are going home to drink? What actions are you going to support or push within government to deal with increasing levels of domestic violence and sexual abuse at home because people are not drinking in the streets, they are going home?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: That is a real issue in terms of drinking at home. There are some

proposals before Cabinet at the moment, which I cannot go into because they are before Cabinet, to try and address some of those issues. Can I say as a caveat, you cannot explain all sexual abuse simply on the basis of alcohol; it is whole lot more complicated than that, but it is certainly an element that needs to be addressed.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: On a recent visit with some parliamentary colleagues to

western New South Wales, there were some very bright points within Aboriginal education but some very dark points as well. What are you doing to increase the role of Aboriginal educators within the education department? We have a real disconnect between AEAs moving through and becoming teachers and we need our home-grown Aboriginal teachers within those communities to provide the leadership and the continuity. What are your thoughts and goals to help achieve that?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Obviously, the Department of Education and the Minister for

Education are my thoughts. Because it is a serious question I will take it in that sense. It is critical to have more Aboriginal workers everywhere. It is not just education, it is a general thing right across the field, and it is one of the great challenges. We need to have more members of the Aboriginal community with more skills to perform a lot of these front-line roles. The other side though relates a bit to those things I said about being the Minister and other departments. You do not want to be in a position where you say that only Aboriginal workers can deal with the Aboriginal community.


The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I am not saying that. Mr PAUL LYNCH: I am not suggesting you are. I am just saying that is the danger of going

too far down that path. There are some other things. I will take the rest of that on notice because we are actually having a sensible discussion.

CHAIR: It is time for crossbench questions. The Hon. Robert Brown has indicated that he

has no questions so I call Ms Hale. Ms SYLVIA HALE: Turning to the question of stolen wages, according to documents

released in 2004, approximately $80 million is owed to Aboriginal people for wages stolen over many decades. Yet thus far the Government has announced that only $15 million will be paid to claimants. I think Bob Carr said that in 2004. Will you, as the new Minister in this portfolio, commit to paying direct living claimants and descendants of claimants money that was to be held in trust by the Government but which is not the Government's to bestow or withhold the full amount that is owed to them?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I will not commit to paying it because I am not the Minister

responsible. But I will share some information with you. In 2004 this Government took the initiative and corrected the past wrong against Aboriginal people. Money had been deducted from some Aboriginal people's pensions, family endowment payments, apprentice wages, inheritances and lump sum compensation payments. Sometimes this occurred without people's consent or knowledge. That is why we established the Aboriginal Trust Fund Repayment Scheme [ATFRS]. The scheme will pay moneys owed to Aboriginal people whose wages were put into trust funds operated by the Aborigines Protection Board and later the Aborigines Welfare Board between 1900 and 1969. The scheme will make payments based on evidence that money paid into the trust funds was never repaid.

Ministerial responsibility for the scheme rests with the Deputy Premier, and Minister for

Finance, the Hon. John Watkins. My department is working in conjunction with the Department of Premier and Cabinet and State Records New South Wales to ensure the moneys are repaid. As at 12 September 2007 there were 1,533 names on the scheme's expression of interest register. Of these, 360 were direct claimants—that is people claiming for the return of their own money—and 1,173 were descendant claimants, who are people claiming on behalf of deceased relatives. Of the 360 direct claims on the register, 325 have had their record search completed and an interim assessment prepared. Of these, 83 claims were found to have money owing, 46 had no money owing and 197 had no records located relating to a trust account. These claims will be rechecked upon completion of the indexing project being undertaken by State Records. With respect to the 1,173 descendant claimants on the register, the processing of 162 claims has commenced involving 134 claimants. The total value of interim assessments prepared as of 12 September 2007 was $854,205—$824,511 being direct claims and $29,694 being descendant claims.

There have been some suggestions of delays in payments. I should advise the Committee that

in June 2006 the family records unit within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was officially launched. This unit strengthened the department's capacity to respond to requests from people seeking to access the records of the Aborigines Welfare Board and the Aborigines Protection Board. An increased number of staff are able to respond to inquiries from people trying to access records and to undertake the indexing of the records that support claims to the ATFRS. Delays in processing applications arose from a range of factors beyond the Government's control. Initial delays resulted from the need to clarify the tax status of payments. There have subsequently been significant challenges in locating relevant records as it appears that many records are missing, have been destroyed or are incomplete. The Government is aware of the impact of these delays on claimants and their families and will continue to focus on meeting these challenges.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: So no money has been paid to date. Mr PAUL LYNCH: The figure that I gave was $854,000. Ms SYLVIA HALE: That has actually been paid out; not just determined as owing. Mr PAUL LYNCH: Yes, that has been paid out.


Ms SYLVIA HALE: What has been the largest payout? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I will take that question on notice. Ms SYLVIA HALE: How much of the trust fund money has been set aside for practical

assistance funding and if any has been set aside what was it spent on? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I think we are struggling with what you mean by "practical assistance". Ms SYLVIA HALE: I presume it could be assistance for people making the claims—or

perhaps that is doubtful. Mr PAUL LYNCH: The money is paid out pursuant to claims. As I understand it, that is the

only basis for payment. Ms SYLVIA HALE: So there are no strings attached. Mr PAUL LYNCH: That is right. It is their money, it was taken away and now they are

getting it. So there should not be strings. Ms SYLVIA HALE: Has the scheme undertaken any community education and awareness

raising in the past 12 months? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I will take that question on notice. I can say anecdotally that there is

fairly wide recognition of it within the community because people keep raising issues about it when I travel around the community. It is not as if they do not know about it. But we will get you a proper answer.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Is it true that you recently abolished the New South Wales Aboriginal

Youth Advisory Group? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Let me tell you about the Aboriginal Youth Advisory Group. I was

hoping someone would ask this question. Ms SYLVIA HALE: I withdraw the question. Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have been waiting for this. In January 2007 the Government

established the Aboriginal Youth Advisory Group [AYAG], which was made up of 10 members from across the State. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs advises me that unfortunately since its inception the AYAG has not functioned—I might have buried it but it was dead before I got there.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It was Milton's problem. Mr PAUL LYNCH: You cannot even blame it on Milton, to be honest. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: He started it, though, did he not? Mr PAUL LYNCH: No, it was established in January 2007 so it was actually Reba

Meagher. Ms SYLVIA HALE: She does not have a good track record, does she? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I am advised by the department that following its establishment many

months passed without the AYAG being able to collectively reach agreement on its terms of reference. In fact, the finalisation of the terms of reference remained unresolved over the lifetime of the AYAG. Despite repeated efforts by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to contact AYAG members to progress group discussions, only two members regularly responded. In short, it could not be credibly argued by anyone that the group was a well-functioning and responsive advisory group. It was not.


After careful consideration and advice from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, it was

agreed to replace this group with a fuller regional structure. I also hoped that this would foster the participation of more young Aboriginal people in local initiatives such as land councils. Previous members, if interested, are able to apply. This aligns with the goals of the Bringing Back the Youth Project by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council [NSWALC], which aims to encourage and promote the participation of Aboriginal young people in the Aboriginal land council system both as members and as employees. The move towards this new structure for the advisory group also corresponds with the new legislative requirements for increased land council membership by encouraging more young people to the land council system.

For these reasons, I wrote to each advisory group member to inform them of my decision to

dissolve the group and to replace it with a broader regional advisory network. I also wrote to Bev Manton, chairperson of NSWALC, to seek her views on the issue and seek advice on the potential for NSWALC and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to work together to achieve joint objectives in relation to the advisory group. I was told orally by the director general earlier today that NSWALC has responded very positively to that proposal. Frankly, there were two members of the group who were active before it was disbanded—one from Goonellabah and one from Moree. The department made numerous attempts to contact group members, with frankly little success. Attempts were made by both phone and email throughout April 2007 to bring together the Sydney-based group members to meet with the DAA Sydney regional manager. That did not happen. They simply did not respond.

Numerous attempts were made throughout March, April and May to contact the group

member from Glebe by telephone and email to request that he return his acceptance of position form as a condition of his continuing participation in the AYAG. That never occurred. The DAA's director general wrote to him in June 2007 officially requesting the form but no response was received. Group members were contacted via email in May 2007 regarding attending the reconciliation conference in June. Only four members responded and of these only two attended. No further contact was ever made by group members with the DAA.

The chair attempted to contact the group via email throughout May and June to seek

feedback on the draft terms of reference as well as initiate other activities at a local level but got no responses. The group had its first meeting on the afternoon of its launch on 27 February 2007. The meeting was assisted by facilitator Annie Druitt, who drafted a list of actions arising out of the meeting. These included providing feedback on draft terms of reference, determining a date for the next meeting to be held by video linkup, test-running survey questions with local Aboriginal young people to get an idea of issues and needs, contacting other local and regional youth providers who work with Aboriginal young people, developing a listing of skills and experiences of each group member to share amongst the group, developing a job description for the chairperson, identifying existing events in the local area or region to be able to reach Aboriginal young people to consult them about their needs, finding out what other government agencies were doing with Aboriginal young people and developing a promotional flyer about the group to circulate to Aboriginal young people.

The chair started undertaking some of those actions and emailed the group to request the

completion of some of the work out of session but did not receive a response. None of that work was completed. The group just did not work. I must say that the development of a regional structure is ambitious. But this group was not working and hopefully the regional structure will.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: So you would agree that it would not be unreasonable to say that the

establishment of the advisory group was ill thought out, ad hoc and basically a cynical and tokenistic pre-election gimmick.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I would not go that far. I think it was a good idea that did not work.

There are myriad issues about the functionality of various Aboriginal communities and there are real challenges. We will not set up a structure and get it right every time, but we have to try. This one did not work, not because anyone was being cynical. We are going to have another go and see if we can get something that works.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Let us hope people learn from their errors. A recent report has

confirmed that indigenous people living in remote communities have a significantly larger rate of


dementia than other Australians. The report shows dementia is up to five times more prevalent in the remote indigenous population when compared to general Australian community. Since you have responsibility for both Aboriginal Affairs and mental health, what action is your department taking to address this very serious problem?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is not taking any action because

that is not one of its functions. However—unfortunately my mental health folder has probably gone—but earlier this year when I was in Wagga Wagga I launched an Aboriginal mental health policy, which covered a range of issues. I will take the question on notice and provide a proper and detailed answer.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: What specific programs and/or resources are there in the department

for traditional owners? Mr PAUL LYNCH: There are a number of programs that we run that assist a range of

people in the community, including traditional owners. I know some of the language grants that we have given to elders groups would include assistance to traditional owners.

Mr WRIGHT: The phrase "traditional owner" is well understood in the Aboriginal

community. It is understood as referring to someone who has connection to country, particular country. However, when it comes to finding a legal hook to allow people to assert rights under that name, or that category, it becomes increasingly problematic, difficult and frustrating for Aboriginal people. I start by saying that because I know many people who strongly advocate their traditional rights to country, but there may or may not be a legal way for them to address that.

One of the main ways in which this Parliament has authorised assisting people with

traditional association to country, or cultural association to country, is through the National Parks and Wildlife Act, which contains provision for the Aboriginal ownership of certain national park estate lands and other lands of Aboriginal cultural significance. That scheme provides that people may become what is referred to as a "registered Aboriginal owner". That is why I say there is some disconnect between the general phrase "traditional owner" and these more specific, albeit narrow, legal definitions. That is one mechanism for doing that: that refers to a number of national parks in New South Wales that are culturally significant to Aboriginal people. People may seek registration and they in fact become the majority of the boards of management. That is one way that people of traditional or cultural association are assisted.

There have also been amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act that the Parliament

considered in November last year. They provide that people anywhere in New South Wales who seek to come under this legal category of registered Aboriginal owner will be granted automatic membership of a local land council where there is land with which they have a traditional or cultural association. They are two significant legal ways in which the Aboriginal Land Rights Act and the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Act assist. Of course, there is the whole agenda of native title, which well beyond this Parliament's jurisdiction. It is very much a Federal matter.

Then more generally the issues become engagement with people who assert traditional rights.

Unfortunately at one end of the scale there are some very narrow legal definitions that we work with. At the other end there are people self-identifying very strongly as a traditional owner. That can sometimes create tensions and difficulties for people. It is a very problematic area, but a couple of very significant steps forward have been taken in New South Wales that you will not find in other States, except perhaps in the Northern Territory under the land rights regime or the models of joint management at Kakadu or Uluru. Apart from that, it is difficult to see similar sorts of benefits provided.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Have any resources been allocated to the significant region of the

Murray-Darling Basin for people who might fall into that general category of traditional owner, despite the legal problems?

Mr WRIGHT: Taking the legal problems on board, I am happy to take the question on

notice. I can get information from the national Native Title Services Pty Ltd and the Native Title Tribunal because I know resources have been put into a number of native title claims in that area,


most substantially relating to the Barkingi claim, which covers most of western New South Wales west of the Darling. That information can be forthcoming. We have Mutawintji National Park in western New South Wales in the area you described as the Murray-Darling Basin and Mungo National Park, which are or will become jointly managed under the joint management regime in New South Wales. There are other areas in which I am not directly involved, such as language programs, that are being addressed in that area. There is some activity at both the Federal and State level in that area.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Minister, I have a question that affects you as both the local member

and as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It relates to Collingwood House and the ridge of land on which it is situated. I am sure you are aware of the significance of this ridge to the local Aboriginal community because it was the meeting place of three tribes and you can look over the Georges River and back down. In your capacity as Minister, have you made any representations to the administrator of Liverpool City Council against the rezoning of the curtilage of the house for residential development?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I need to make two corrections. First, it does not affect me as the local

member because it is not in my electorate. Ms SYLVIA HALE: I am sorry; I thought it was. Mr PAUL LYNCH: The next time you quote me in one of your speeches at least pay me the

credit of accrediting me. You used a phrase referred to in the Liverpool Champion about Collingwood House being a microcosm of our history. That was my quote and you used without it attribution.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I am sorry; I was not aware of that. I would hate to be accused of

plagiarism. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It was not Sylvia; it was a staffer. Ms SYLVIA HALE: Yes, they should have put in it quotes. Mr PAUL LYNCH: I could not resist! I am well aware of the argument about the

significance of that site for the Aboriginal communities. I have talked about it a bit myself. I think some people have a contrary view to that. I understand that Jim Kohen is the historian who has been able to define that as a historic place for Aboriginal people. That is the position I have always adopted.

My view about that site was to support option 3 when the campaign was conducted for the

Heritage Council. That is still my position. That ridge will be largely untouched by the development—the strip down the side. The real problem with the development is that there is already development right up to Collingwood House.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: You are just making matters worse. Mr PAUL LYNCH: I think that the strip is a long way from Collingwood. If the argument is

about Collingwood— Ms SYLVIA HALE: The argument is about further encroachment on the curtilage of

Collingwood. The members of the Aboriginal community to whom I spoke were deeply concerned about it.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Aunty Shelley, who is probably the person you were speaking to, is a

great mate of mine. I drive her to the local Labor Party branch meeting every month. Ms SYLVIA HALE: Well, she is not particularly happy with the outcome of the last council

meeting. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: As stated in last year's budget estimates by your

predecessor, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is responsible for facilitating the Two Ways Together plan, which along with other responsibilities assesses potential gaps and overlap of services in addressing Aboriginal issues. Can you detail the gaps and overlap of services that have been assessed under the Two Ways Together plan so far and how have those discrepancies been addressed?


Mr PAUL LYNCH: I might take that on notice I think, and give you a sensible answer to it. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: In relation to extra funding as part of the Government's

interagency planned attack on child sexual assault in Aboriginal communities of $20 million, are you seeking recurrent funding for the budget period 2008-09 and onwards for your department—extra funding—or do you have to find that funding out of the existing budget?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The funding would come out of the individual agencies whose responsibility it is to deliver those actions.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: But as overseer you do not need any extra money? Mr PAUL LYNCH: I do not have a role in going for the extra money. All of that has to be

done by the individual agencies. Individual agencies are getting enhancements. In this year's State budget there as an extra 11 per cent for Department of Community Services and an extra 8 per cent for Health, for example, and there will inevitably be some re-prioritisation.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Would you be able to explain to the Committee in a little

more detail the decrease in the budget this year, a decrease of 40.9 per cent from 2006-07? Knowing that there is an explanation in the budget papers in relation to the Aboriginal Community Development Program [ACDP], are there any other reasons?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: No, it is very simple, it is all Aboriginal Community Development

Program. The department's operating budget has been maintained, there has been no impact on the department's operating budget, it is simply the planned and intended change in the Aboriginal Community Development Program funding. Capital projects like that are bulky. You build a house and you move on and that is essentially what has been happening.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Following up on a similar question from Ms Hale, but a

completely different issue, there is a recent report in the Medical Journal of Australia identifying alarming rates of blindness in Aboriginal communities as a result of cataracts and a call by indigenous health specialists for a comprehensive health strategy to treat the situation. How are we going in New South Wales to deal with the findings in that medical journal report?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: That would probably be for the Minister for Health I think. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: In the Breaking the Silence report there was a lot of

discussion about the Department of Housing and there were very complicated issues in terms of housing, the transient nature of many Aboriginal people moving in and out of communities and in some homes you have two or three families living under the one roof, up to 15 people, and that has profound implications on children in terms of being able to sleep, get up for school, but also it creates a difficult situation in relation to sexual abuse. Has there been any discussion about a way to audit the housing issue within particularly remote Aboriginal communities where a lot of this dysfunction is occurring?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: A significant amount of the effort in rural areas or remote areas is the

Aboriginal Community Development Program, so there has been some active involvement of my department in that in overseeing the program. One of the problems, of course, is that people have so little faith in the system, they actually do not make an application, so the level of difficulty is quite extreme because it is not like the thing you discover as a local member in Sydney where people are on the list and the issue is how they get their turn. In a lot of these communities people are not even on the list because they just do not fill in the form. Certainly the Aboriginal Community Development Program process has involved an amount of auditing in that sense, certainly it has been based on a needs survey and what is needed in the area, which is in a sense I think the audit you are talking about and the Aboriginal Community Development Program was targeting particular locations in response to that need.


The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: But you have the Aboriginal Community Development Program and you have also got Aboriginal housing and you have the Department of Housing, so you have three agencies delivering—

Mr PAUL LYNCH: But the practicality of it was that the Aboriginal Community

Development Program was an extra big dollop of money and that actually made a difference and if it had been not done that way I think the reality is we might have been struggling to get the money.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: But I think having the separate agencies does have issues—

continuity of service—but during our recent visit there was a call from Aboriginal people for an audit, and that was actually I think one of the recommendations in the Breaking the Silence report, of the current housing stock and some of the issues of overcrowding in particular areas. Will there be a timeframe for the Department of Housing to meet those recommendations?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I hesitate to say, but I guess we have to ask the Department of Housing. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: They have said they are going to do something; I do not

know when. In relation to the submission to Cabinet that you mentioned in relation to liquor, is that something that you have worked up with the Minister—

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I probably said too much by even saying that, so you are not going to

be able to tease me on it any further. Good try though. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: We could go to Port Macquarie, but we would not want to

do that, would we? Mr PAUL LYNCH: We would just end up screaming at each other again. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: In relation to Brewarrina, that is one of the towns that you

have not been to? Mr PAUL LYNCH: Yes. The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: There are a couple of buildings there actually that are not

being used. They have been built and they are not being used, but there is a particular one that was built I think seven years ago through the Department of Community Services and it is called Brewarrina Village. At the moment it is about eight buildings that have all been destroyed. They are shells: the internal areas have been destroyed. But there are a lot of issues in Brewarrina in terms of accommodation and safe homes. Could you take it on notice to have a look at this building as a potential venue for children and women within that community? It just means a refit and it could be a very good place for people to go to. Was that particular building raised with you while you were out there?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: No, I was at lots of other places. It is not my responsibility in terms of

ministerial stuff. I am happy to have a look at it. I guess the issue would be how much it would cost to do the work on it, but I will make some inquiries.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Without in any way wanting to know the substance of your

submission, are the proposals that are before Cabinet with regard to liquor and domestic violence applicable across the whole community or are they specifically related to the Aboriginal community?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Good try. All I would say is I have a fundamental problem in having

race-specific laws. Ms SYLVIA HALE: So would I. Mr PAUL LYNCH: That is as much as I will say. I am not going to be drawn any further,

having said too much already.


Ms SYLVIA HALE: I think you indicated there was about $30 million to spend on Breaking the Silence?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The interagency plan, yes. Ms SYLVIA HALE: I understand that budget preparations were well advanced prior to the

interagency plan being developed. What confidence do you have that each of the ministries responsible will have adequate resources to implement that?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have a degree of confidence, I must say. I indicated in my opening

address the process of implementing the plan. That involves amongst other things regular meetings between chief executive officers and me, where I ask them where they are up to with implementation. Not having money is not an excuse because they need to find the money. That decision has been made. In addition to that, even if people do not trust me, there is a ministerial advisory panel, which has on it a number of personalities who will not let me get away with anything. Frankly, it has been designed like that. Marcia Ella-Duncan and the other members of the task force are on the ministerial advisory panel. That is a very clear decision about the process we are trying to develop.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Tonight, the responses to a lot of questions have indicated that the

money or the responsibility lies in departments other than yours, which seems to me very conducive to a silo mentality. Will you in the interests of combating such a mentality undertake to adopt a transparent, publicly accessible reporting regime for the expenditure of funds under the interagency plan and which includes an annual report on the amounts and sources of all resources for each of the plan's actions, the outcomes to be achieved through these resources, whether the outcomes have been achieved and the action to be taken in any cases where outcomes have not been achieved?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: The fact that I have the ministerial advisory panel that I have means

nothing will be hidden away in government buildings, but I am not quite ready to sign up to that list of things you have just indicated.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: But the fear is that it will be dispersed across so many departments and

it will be impossible for anyone to have an overall view of the success or otherwise of the plan. Mr PAUL LYNCH: The other answer, of course, which I should have read is that the

implementation of the interagency plan is one of the elements of the State Plan which will be reported on publicly. I am not going to say it will be every level of detail you just requested, but the general performance of the interagency plan will have to be reported publicly as part of the State Plan, which is the other answer as to why I have a degree of confidence the money is going to be spent, because it is included in the State Plan priorities.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: So we can be confident there will be clearly spelt out a series of

targets, benchmarks set, the date by which those are to be met and the success or otherwise? Mr PAUL LYNCH: That has all been done and that is all going to the ministerial advisory

panel. Ms SYLVIA HALE: When will the first assessments of the plan be available? Would you

expect 12, 18 months? Mr PAUL LYNCH: The first assessments are available now—the interim assessments. I

have had two of them. They will be going to the ministerial advisory panel in December. As to when the State Plan is publicly reported on, that I will take on notice and get back to you.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: In relation to West Dubbo and the housing there and the decision by

the Department of Housing to break up that community, it was my understanding from talking to a number of people that one of the sources of discontent was the random housing in close proximity of groups that did not necessarily get on well and there were rivalries and antagonisms. This was done on a notion that did not take into account these differences. Will you be taking any steps to prevent that sort of animosity or the Department of Housing pursuing policies that provoke or engender that animosity?


Mr PAUL LYNCH: I have enough trouble having any influence over the Department of

Housing, granted that I am not the Minister, let alone getting them to stop doing things that cause antagonism. You need to direct that to the Minister for Housing.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I do not have a problem at all asking this question. It is not

really an Opposition-type question. This is more the sort of question that Mr Ian Cohen would have asked had he been there. Minister, in the previous budget estimates the previous Minister was asked about Government support for the provision of housing for Arakwal elders in the Byron Bay area. At that point the Arakwal Aboriginal Corporation was applying for registration with the New South Wales housing office as an Aboriginal community housing provider and apply for funding for new houses. Can you update the Committee on this matter?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I will take that on notice.

(The witnesses withdrew)

The Committee proceeded to deliberate. _______________


GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 3 · 2016-04-22 · CORRECTED GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING...

Documents

Transcript of GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 3 · 2016-04-22 · CORRECTED GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING...