| JUNE 2008 Pages - Page 4 |
| THIS IS PAGE 4 OF JUNE 2008 PAGES - JUNE0804 |
FARDELL & DRAPER GIVE MORE POWER TO SARTOR
Apart from the sheer hypocrisy of Premier Morris Iemma allowing the parliament to sit beyond midnight on 3 June 2008,
the other mind-boggling thing about the sitting was that Dawn Fardell MP (Dubbo)
and Peter Draper MP (Tamworth) voted in favour of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008,
which was rammed through parliament at 2.00am at the request of Frank Sartor, MP.
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008 was described by Clover Moore MP (Sydney)
as "the worst legislation I have seen in 20 years" as a MP.
Clover Moore MP, Rob Oakeshot MP (Port Macquarie) and Greg Piper MP (Lake Macquarie) voted against the bill. Richard Torbay MP (Northern
Tablelands) did not get a vote as he was in the chair.
Ms Moore said :
"This bill reduces communities' say in local development and transfers planning decisions from elected representatives to bodies
predominantly hand-picked by the Minister, or by developers, to make decisions behind closed doors. The bill removes processes that
are in place to protect environment, heritage and neighbourhood and community amenity and reduces the role of the independent Land
and Environment Court. People and communities will be excluded. If this bill is enacted, our planning system will be more conducive to
corruption, not less. There is no excuse in a democracy, whatever the claimed benefits or otherwise, for excluding people from being
informed about and involved in issues that affect them and their lives."
" Allowing the planning Minister to delegate the extraordinary development assessment powers under part 3A of the Environmental
Protection and Assessment Act to a body comprising ministerial appointees will not increase transparency or reduce risks and
perceived risks of corruption. This is particularly outrageous, given the recent exposure of substantial development donations to major
parties and to individuals within those parties, including Ministers."
and
"It is a betrayal of consumer protection, transparency and accountability to allow developers to select and pay the person who checks
whether a development complies with council conditions and building standards. The Minister said that the bill does not give private
certifiers new powers, but certifiers can approve complying development, which will be expanded to include approving new dwellings."
"..the Minister seeks to justify these proposals by claiming that they will benefit mum and dad applicants, but this is to be achieved by
excluding mums and dads who are neighbours—our constituents."
" This legislation stuns me with its blatant ineptitude and attack on democratic principles. I cannot believe that a democratically elected
government would propose reforms that exclude the involvement of citizens. The Government is so embroiled in the developer donation
scandal of influenced decision-making it is prepared to sell out planning development and heritage decisions to developers. Sustainable
development is so critical that controls are being fast-tracked for developer convenience and oversight removed from a democratic tier
of government. Many members of this House who have come from local government and who believe, or who believed, in grassroots
democracy, are mute or are meekly supporting this travesty of democracy. "
In giving her reasons for supporting the bill Dawn Fardell MP (Dubbo) said :
The bill is controversial, and deciding whether to support it was a matter of conscience for me. However, there have been good meetings between
the Minister, the Department of Planning and the shires in my electorate. Some concerns remain but the majority of major concerns have been
addressed. As a consequence, I will support the bill.
Peter Draper MP (Tamworth)spoke to the bill at 1.19am in the morning, a time which the Premier believes a person is incapable of making
rational decisions, and said :
"I rise at this hour of the morning to support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008. Every council and interest group
that I have had discussions with has said that changes are needed. They have differed on what the changes should be but they have indicated
that change is essential. This bill provides an opportunity to speed up development applications, which is a very important issue for country
communities. Importantly, it also provides an opportunity to improve transparency and to remove the justifiable perceptions of corruption that the
community currently associates with the planning process. My one sticking point with the legislation is that the representation balance on the
planning panels is weighted towards the Department of Planning. I ask the Minister to correct the situation and weight the process to give local
councils a fairer say. After all, councillors live in the local area and are much more aware of community needs and sentiments than the
department."
"In conclusion, I would like to thank the Minister, who kindly facilitated a meeting with my local council general managers or their representatives.
They have not come back to me with any concerns so I am assuming that the meeting was constructive. I hope the Government can correct the
balance on planning panels to favour local government and with that request I commend the bill to the House."
The pattern continues - Peter Draper relying on what Iemma ministers say and trusting them to do things - like giving councils a fairer say, and
making untested assumptions.. Whereas on previous occasions that reliance has simply resulted in him getting egg on his own face, this time the
detrimental consequences will be visited upon the whole community.
SOURCES :
NSW LA Hansard, Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008, 3 June 2008 : Clover Moore MP (6.04pm),. Dawn Fardell MP
(12.08am), Peter Draper MP (1.17am).
Jano Gibson , Angry Sartor lashes out at 'dumb' council critics , Sydney Morning Herald, 5 June 2008.
==================================================================================================================
Apart from the sheer hypocrisy of Premier Morris Iemma allowing the parliament to sit beyond midnight on 3 June 2008,
the other mind-boggling thing about the sitting was that Dawn Fardell MP (Dubbo)
and Peter Draper MP (Tamworth) voted in favour of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008,
which was rammed through parliament at 2.00am at the request of Frank Sartor, MP.
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008 was described by Clover Moore MP (Sydney)
as "the worst legislation I have seen in 20 years" as a MP.
Clover Moore MP, Rob Oakeshot MP (Port Macquarie) and Greg Piper MP (Lake Macquarie) voted against the bill. Richard Torbay MP (Northern
Tablelands) did not get a vote as he was in the chair.
Ms Moore said :
"This bill reduces communities' say in local development and transfers planning decisions from elected representatives to bodies
predominantly hand-picked by the Minister, or by developers, to make decisions behind closed doors. The bill removes processes that
are in place to protect environment, heritage and neighbourhood and community amenity and reduces the role of the independent Land
and Environment Court. People and communities will be excluded. If this bill is enacted, our planning system will be more conducive to
corruption, not less. There is no excuse in a democracy, whatever the claimed benefits or otherwise, for excluding people from being
informed about and involved in issues that affect them and their lives."
" Allowing the planning Minister to delegate the extraordinary development assessment powers under part 3A of the Environmental
Protection and Assessment Act to a body comprising ministerial appointees will not increase transparency or reduce risks and
perceived risks of corruption. This is particularly outrageous, given the recent exposure of substantial development donations to major
parties and to individuals within those parties, including Ministers."
and
"It is a betrayal of consumer protection, transparency and accountability to allow developers to select and pay the person who checks
whether a development complies with council conditions and building standards. The Minister said that the bill does not give private
certifiers new powers, but certifiers can approve complying development, which will be expanded to include approving new dwellings."
"..the Minister seeks to justify these proposals by claiming that they will benefit mum and dad applicants, but this is to be achieved by
excluding mums and dads who are neighbours—our constituents."
" This legislation stuns me with its blatant ineptitude and attack on democratic principles. I cannot believe that a democratically elected
government would propose reforms that exclude the involvement of citizens. The Government is so embroiled in the developer donation
scandal of influenced decision-making it is prepared to sell out planning development and heritage decisions to developers. Sustainable
development is so critical that controls are being fast-tracked for developer convenience and oversight removed from a democratic tier
of government. Many members of this House who have come from local government and who believe, or who believed, in grassroots
democracy, are mute or are meekly supporting this travesty of democracy. "
In giving her reasons for supporting the bill Dawn Fardell MP (Dubbo) said :
The bill is controversial, and deciding whether to support it was a matter of conscience for me. However, there have been good meetings between
the Minister, the Department of Planning and the shires in my electorate. Some concerns remain but the majority of major concerns have been
addressed. As a consequence, I will support the bill.
Peter Draper MP (Tamworth)spoke to the bill at 1.19am in the morning, a time which the Premier believes a person is incapable of making
rational decisions, and said :
"I rise at this hour of the morning to support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008. Every council and interest group
that I have had discussions with has said that changes are needed. They have differed on what the changes should be but they have indicated
that change is essential. This bill provides an opportunity to speed up development applications, which is a very important issue for country
communities. Importantly, it also provides an opportunity to improve transparency and to remove the justifiable perceptions of corruption that the
community currently associates with the planning process. My one sticking point with the legislation is that the representation balance on the
planning panels is weighted towards the Department of Planning. I ask the Minister to correct the situation and weight the process to give local
councils a fairer say. After all, councillors live in the local area and are much more aware of community needs and sentiments than the
department."
"In conclusion, I would like to thank the Minister, who kindly facilitated a meeting with my local council general managers or their representatives.
They have not come back to me with any concerns so I am assuming that the meeting was constructive. I hope the Government can correct the
balance on planning panels to favour local government and with that request I commend the bill to the House."
The pattern continues - Peter Draper relying on what Iemma ministers say and trusting them to do things - like giving councils a fairer say, and
making untested assumptions.. Whereas on previous occasions that reliance has simply resulted in him getting egg on his own face, this time the
detrimental consequences will be visited upon the whole community.
SOURCES :
NSW LA Hansard, Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008, 3 June 2008 : Clover Moore MP (6.04pm),. Dawn Fardell MP
(12.08am), Peter Draper MP (1.17am).
Jano Gibson , Angry Sartor lashes out at 'dumb' council critics , Sydney Morning Herald, 5 June 2008.
==================================================================================================================
ANDREW CLENNELL ON NSW BUDGET
Sydney Morning Herald Political Editor, Andrew Clennell on the 2008 NSW State Budget :
Not a word about the razor gang , Sydney Morning Herald, 4 June 2008.
Workers, it's your sacrifice , Sydney Morning Herald, 4 June 2008.
In relation to the 2.5% wage increase limit, Morris Iemma MP gave a hum-dinger of a topsey-turvey
explanation of it i parliament on 3 June 2007 :
It really isn't a limit at all. Wage increases of 4-5% are common. Additional increases are made for
"offsets" (presumably "productivity gains").
So for public servants who are working in a fee for service area - they will get a wage increase above 2.5%
if they increase the takings of the "business", which probably means increasing charges, which probably means
fueling inflation, which probably means a need for a greater pay rise next year, which probably means a greater increase in fees next year etc.
Public servants working in non-fee earning jobs can only get a wage increase greater than 2.5% if less people do the same amount of work,as
previously. Which means the workforce needs to be reduced, which will result in greater claims on the services of the government, resulting in a
need to increase the workforce to keep up to demand, but with a workforce increase wages will not rise, so the workforce will remain static, which
means service levels will fall, resulting in a need to further reduce the workforce to enable those in employment to increase their wages etc....
SOURCE :
NSW LA Hansard, Question - Public Sector Wage Growth, NSW Parliament, 3 June 2008.
=================================================================================================================
Sydney Morning Herald Political Editor, Andrew Clennell on the 2008 NSW State Budget :
Not a word about the razor gang , Sydney Morning Herald, 4 June 2008.
Workers, it's your sacrifice , Sydney Morning Herald, 4 June 2008.
In relation to the 2.5% wage increase limit, Morris Iemma MP gave a hum-dinger of a topsey-turvey
explanation of it i parliament on 3 June 2007 :
It really isn't a limit at all. Wage increases of 4-5% are common. Additional increases are made for
"offsets" (presumably "productivity gains").
So for public servants who are working in a fee for service area - they will get a wage increase above 2.5%
if they increase the takings of the "business", which probably means increasing charges, which probably means
fueling inflation, which probably means a need for a greater pay rise next year, which probably means a greater increase in fees next year etc.
Public servants working in non-fee earning jobs can only get a wage increase greater than 2.5% if less people do the same amount of work,as
previously. Which means the workforce needs to be reduced, which will result in greater claims on the services of the government, resulting in a
need to increase the workforce to keep up to demand, but with a workforce increase wages will not rise, so the workforce will remain static, which
means service levels will fall, resulting in a need to further reduce the workforce to enable those in employment to increase their wages etc....
SOURCE :
NSW LA Hansard, Question - Public Sector Wage Growth, NSW Parliament, 3 June 2008.
=================================================================================================================
PETER DRAPER JETS OFF OVERSEAS
Apparently Peter Draper MP (Tamworth) has been in parliament for the 'mandatory' period of time to be allocated
an overseas trip on "government business". Leaving aside for the moment, the value to the NSW community of
these taxpayer funded trips, we really must question the wisdom of Peter Draper taking an overseas trip at this
particular time.
He is going on a study tour to USA as a member of the Ombudsman & Police Integrity Commission Review Committee,
departing Friday 6 June 2008 and returning Monday 16 June 2008. The Committee will look at US based systems for
identifying at risk and vulnerable law enforcement officers and will travel to San Francisco, Edmonton (Canada), Phoenix and Los Angeles. We
understand that each of those towns has at least one MacDonalds restaurant, and therefore expect the cost to NSW taxpayer's of the trip will be
very small. However, given the events of this week in NSW, it appears the trip is about 2 years late, and there is little arguable reason why the
trip should not be taken a month later.
It is the middle of the most important parliamentary sittings since the 2007 election, with the Iemma government determined to ram through all
sorts of draconian legislation in a last minute rush, sitting beyond midnight. It would have been far better for him to stay in Australia at this time to
prepare for these important debates.
It is impossible to fathom why the trip had to be held that particular week. There is a long "winter break" from 30 June 2008 to 30 September,
2008. That would have been a suitable time for the "study trip".
As to the identification of "at risk" officers, it would not be difficult to identify 2 factors which would be at the very top of the list : 1. A gambling
addiction, and 2. Sex (usually an illicit liaison ).
For a night out on the town during the trip may we suggest the following as possible points of interest:
San Francisco - 440 Castro , 440 Castro St.
Edmonton - Boots Bar , 10242 106th St. (Hint : take plenty of cash-notes to slip to the private dancers)
Phoenix - Bunkhouse - 4428 N. 7th Ave.
Los Angeles - The Bullet - 10522 Burbank Blvd , North Hollywood
SOURCES :
Jordan Baker, Dylan Welch and Andrew Clennell , Standen case may complicate other prosecutions , Sydney Morning Herald, 5 June 2008.
================================================================================================================
Apparently Peter Draper MP (Tamworth) has been in parliament for the 'mandatory' period of time to be allocated
an overseas trip on "government business". Leaving aside for the moment, the value to the NSW community of
these taxpayer funded trips, we really must question the wisdom of Peter Draper taking an overseas trip at this
particular time.
He is going on a study tour to USA as a member of the Ombudsman & Police Integrity Commission Review Committee,
departing Friday 6 June 2008 and returning Monday 16 June 2008. The Committee will look at US based systems for
identifying at risk and vulnerable law enforcement officers and will travel to San Francisco, Edmonton (Canada), Phoenix and Los Angeles. We
understand that each of those towns has at least one MacDonalds restaurant, and therefore expect the cost to NSW taxpayer's of the trip will be
very small. However, given the events of this week in NSW, it appears the trip is about 2 years late, and there is little arguable reason why the
trip should not be taken a month later.
It is the middle of the most important parliamentary sittings since the 2007 election, with the Iemma government determined to ram through all
sorts of draconian legislation in a last minute rush, sitting beyond midnight. It would have been far better for him to stay in Australia at this time to
prepare for these important debates.
It is impossible to fathom why the trip had to be held that particular week. There is a long "winter break" from 30 June 2008 to 30 September,
2008. That would have been a suitable time for the "study trip".
As to the identification of "at risk" officers, it would not be difficult to identify 2 factors which would be at the very top of the list : 1. A gambling
addiction, and 2. Sex (usually an illicit liaison ).
For a night out on the town during the trip may we suggest the following as possible points of interest:
San Francisco - 440 Castro , 440 Castro St.
Edmonton - Boots Bar , 10242 106th St. (Hint : take plenty of cash-notes to slip to the private dancers)
Phoenix - Bunkhouse - 4428 N. 7th Ave.
Los Angeles - The Bullet - 10522 Burbank Blvd , North Hollywood
SOURCES :
Jordan Baker, Dylan Welch and Andrew Clennell , Standen case may complicate other prosecutions , Sydney Morning Herald, 5 June 2008.
================================================================================================================
IS IEMMA F**KED ???
Premier Iemma has spoken to the legislation he introduced to authorise the sell-off of NSW electricity assets.
He has written to the alternative government saying he is "able to accommodate your requests" .
However alternate government spokesman Mike Baird MP (Manly) says that the government has not met it's conditions
for a sale because Premier Iemma had said the Auditor-General would report on any sale of the power industry assets,
only after the sale had been concluded.
Without the support of the alternative government it is unlikely the bill will succeed in the Upper House.
So is Premier Iemma f**ked???
Debate on the bill has been adjourned to a date to be fixed.
THE speech delivered by Premier Iemma in the chamber was pathetic. It was not the speech of a great reformer, determined to bring the greater
good to the community. It lacked passion. It lacked any coherent argument as to why electricity had to be sold off. It lacked any vision or plan as
to how the electricity assets would be sold off or what would be done with the proceeds.
IT failed to address all the concerns of the alternate government.
ON that performance, Premier Iemma looked f**ked, sounded f**ked and probably is now totally f**ked.
SOURCE :
Brian Robins and Andrew West , Coalition wants auditor's report before power sale , Sydney Morning Herald, 5 June 2008.
ABC News, Privatisation bills introduced to Parliament , ABC Radio, 4 June 2008.
NSW LA Hansard, Agreement in Principle - ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURING BILL 2008 , 4 June 2008.
=================================================================================================================
Premier Iemma has spoken to the legislation he introduced to authorise the sell-off of NSW electricity assets.
He has written to the alternative government saying he is "able to accommodate your requests" .
However alternate government spokesman Mike Baird MP (Manly) says that the government has not met it's conditions
for a sale because Premier Iemma had said the Auditor-General would report on any sale of the power industry assets,
only after the sale had been concluded.
Without the support of the alternative government it is unlikely the bill will succeed in the Upper House.
So is Premier Iemma f**ked???
Debate on the bill has been adjourned to a date to be fixed.
THE speech delivered by Premier Iemma in the chamber was pathetic. It was not the speech of a great reformer, determined to bring the greater
good to the community. It lacked passion. It lacked any coherent argument as to why electricity had to be sold off. It lacked any vision or plan as
to how the electricity assets would be sold off or what would be done with the proceeds.
IT failed to address all the concerns of the alternate government.
ON that performance, Premier Iemma looked f**ked, sounded f**ked and probably is now totally f**ked.
SOURCE :
Brian Robins and Andrew West , Coalition wants auditor's report before power sale , Sydney Morning Herald, 5 June 2008.
ABC News, Privatisation bills introduced to Parliament , ABC Radio, 4 June 2008.
NSW LA Hansard, Agreement in Principle - ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURING BILL 2008 , 4 June 2008.
=================================================================================================================
DOES PRISON WORK ??
An interesting article by Gino Vumbaca, Children pay the price of our addiction to prisons, Sydney Morning Herald, 5 June 2008 says that 1
in 25 Australian children (1 in 5 indigenous children) have a parent in prison.
It examines the consequences for children of having the sins of the parent visited upon them.
A very thought provoking article.
The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal says that the need of an offender to care for children is not (except in very exceptional circumstances) to be
taken into account as a factor when sentencing offenders : Regina v Togias [2001] NSWCCA 522 , Regina v Capper [2000] NSWCCA 63.
=================================================================================================================
An interesting article by Gino Vumbaca, Children pay the price of our addiction to prisons, Sydney Morning Herald, 5 June 2008 says that 1
in 25 Australian children (1 in 5 indigenous children) have a parent in prison.
It examines the consequences for children of having the sins of the parent visited upon them.
A very thought provoking article.
The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal says that the need of an offender to care for children is not (except in very exceptional circumstances) to be
taken into account as a factor when sentencing offenders : Regina v Togias [2001] NSWCCA 522 , Regina v Capper [2000] NSWCCA 63.
=================================================================================================================
TATTOOS & PIERCING BILL
The Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Body Piercing and Tattooing) Bill 2008,
passed through the Legislative Assembly on 4 June 2008.
The bill was passed on the voices and no formal vote was taken. A Temporary Speaker was in the chair.
The member for Burrinjuck, the member for Newcastle and the member for Smithfield were the only
speakers to the bill, apart from Minister Greene who introduced it.
=================================================================================================================
The Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Body Piercing and Tattooing) Bill 2008,
passed through the Legislative Assembly on 4 June 2008.
The bill was passed on the voices and no formal vote was taken. A Temporary Speaker was in the chair.
The member for Burrinjuck, the member for Newcastle and the member for Smithfield were the only
speakers to the bill, apart from Minister Greene who introduced it.
=================================================================================================================
PETER DRAPER MP HELPS OUT HIS LABOR MATES - ASKS A DOROTHY DIXER
I have to keep reminding myself - YES Peter Draper MP (Tamworth) is an Independent.
He was not officially endorsed by any registered political party at the 2007 election, and thus under the electoral
laws was entitled to put the word :"Independent" next to his name on the ballot paper.
SOURCE :
NSW LA Hansard, Question - Grain Haulage, 4 June 2008.
==================================================================================================================
I have to keep reminding myself - YES Peter Draper MP (Tamworth) is an Independent.
He was not officially endorsed by any registered political party at the 2007 election, and thus under the electoral
laws was entitled to put the word :"Independent" next to his name on the ballot paper.
SOURCE :
NSW LA Hansard, Question - Grain Haulage, 4 June 2008.
==================================================================================================================
PREMIER IEMMA - YOU'RE A JOKE !!!
Premier Iemma insisted the sitting hours of parliament be changed to make them "family friendly". He decreed the
parliament should not sit beyond 7pm. He said rational decisions could not be made after midnight.
Yet on 3 June 2008 he allowed the parliament to sit until 2am, when presumably irrational MP's voted on a bill, rammed through
at the insistence of Frank Sartor MP. When Frank's ridiculous legislation gains the ire of the community, will Morris Iemma
turn around and declare the legislation invalid, because it was voted on by an irrational parliament ?
The next day, 4 June 2008 the parliament finished "government business" at 8.20pm. It then sat on for Private Member' Statements until
9.32pm, at which time it adjourned. Presumably, MP's then went home to their kiddies to read them bed-time stories and tuck them into bed,
albeit a little later than one would expect.
How stupid !!!
If Premier Iemma was better able to organise the government's work-flow, the parliament could have sat to 11.30 pm on Tuesday 3 June 2008
an then to 11.30pm on Wednesday 4 June 2008 and achieved the same amount of "work". It would also have meant that the vote on the Sartor
bill would have been taken at about midday - a time when MP's (hopefully) would be in a rational frame of mind. Better still some of the
legislation now being debated, should have been introduced earlier in the year - when there was ample time available,with the parliament often
rising early.
What was so urgent about the Sartor bill requiring it to be passed in the early hours of Wednesday morning ?
Either Premier Iemma is a hypocrite or has lost control of the cabinet - with Sartor now setting his own rules.
=================================================================================================================
Premier Iemma insisted the sitting hours of parliament be changed to make them "family friendly". He decreed the
parliament should not sit beyond 7pm. He said rational decisions could not be made after midnight.
Yet on 3 June 2008 he allowed the parliament to sit until 2am, when presumably irrational MP's voted on a bill, rammed through
at the insistence of Frank Sartor MP. When Frank's ridiculous legislation gains the ire of the community, will Morris Iemma
turn around and declare the legislation invalid, because it was voted on by an irrational parliament ?
The next day, 4 June 2008 the parliament finished "government business" at 8.20pm. It then sat on for Private Member' Statements until
9.32pm, at which time it adjourned. Presumably, MP's then went home to their kiddies to read them bed-time stories and tuck them into bed,
albeit a little later than one would expect.
How stupid !!!
If Premier Iemma was better able to organise the government's work-flow, the parliament could have sat to 11.30 pm on Tuesday 3 June 2008
an then to 11.30pm on Wednesday 4 June 2008 and achieved the same amount of "work". It would also have meant that the vote on the Sartor
bill would have been taken at about midday - a time when MP's (hopefully) would be in a rational frame of mind. Better still some of the
legislation now being debated, should have been introduced earlier in the year - when there was ample time available,with the parliament often
rising early.
What was so urgent about the Sartor bill requiring it to be passed in the early hours of Wednesday morning ?
Either Premier Iemma is a hypocrite or has lost control of the cabinet - with Sartor now setting his own rules.
=================================================================================================================