| JUNE 2008 Pages - Page 26 |
| THIS IS PAGE 26 OF JUNE 2008 PAGES - JUNE0826 |
WHICH WORDS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ???
The standard form of caution given by British police to customers is :
“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your
defence if you do not mention when questioned something
which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be
given in evidence.”
Jeremy Lindsay ,
We caution you - this is English but you might not understand it ,
Times On Line, 25 April 2008.
That caution reflects the "right to silence" as commonly understood
in all legal systems which derive from the British legal system.
In NSW our systems of democracy and law have derived from the
British systems. The standard police caution in Australia does not
follow the British one. The difference between them is essentially
that the British caution specifically draws to the customers attention
the fact that failure to mention matters may harm the customer's
defence - in other words, exercising the right to silence may not be without risks.
NOW in the democratic parliamentary system the executive government does not have a "right to silence". Indeed the institution of democracy is
dependent upon the executive being up front and answering questions, as fully as possible. So,theoretically, it casts a obligation on the executive
to provide answers (which is diametrically opposed to exercising an alleged right to silence). Further those answers should be truthful.
However, the rules of parliament (Standing Orders) do not necessarily provide a mechanism for ensuring that answers are provided by the
executive to questions asked. Indeed, the way the rules of parliament have been interpreted over the years, and slavishly followed by successive
Speakers, is that the Speaker cannot order the executive to answer a question in any particular way or at all. The system, only works where
people of good will take it upon themselves to impose upon themselves, an appropriate standard of behaviour.
A mechanism exists for the disciplining of executive members who provide to the parliament false answers, in breach of the requirement that the
executive provide truthful answers to questions asked of them. The parliament may censure a minister for "misleading the House". That is the
sanction in theory- although in practice that motion may not be decided on it's merits, but rather according to political allegiances.
OUTSIDE the walls of parliament - the people rely upon the institutions of democracy working in the manner they were intended to. IF the
institutions do not work in that way, then the people's expectations are thwarted.
Electors may not be however entirely stupid. They only get a chance once every 4 years to have a say. Some may take into account the
behaviour of politicians, who seek re-election , based on their performance over the preceding 4 years. One thing they may take into account is
whether they feel the executive government has been up front with them. AND they may feel that where the executive government has failed to
offer an explanation to them, then it is reasonable for them to conclude that the executive might be hiding something from them. OR where the
executive fails to answer a question a later explanation, months or years down the track is a recent invention- a product of spin.
THE RECENT BEHAVIOUR of NSW Premier Morris Iemma in the NSW Legislative Assembly (the bear-pit) is certainly something the electors might
be concerned about when it comes to assessing the performance of the Iemma government in 2011.
Take these examples :
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: My question is addressed to the Premier. Why does a Labor mate like Joe Scimone get suspended on full pay while under
investigation by the ICAC when an electorate staffer like Gillian Sneddon, who blew the whistle on allegations of paedophilia against the former
Minister Milton Orkopolous, was sacked in the same week she gave evidence at his trial?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I have already outlined the circumstances regarding Mr Scimone's standing down and the allegations he is facing.
The member for Murrumbidgee has previously asked about the staff member of Mr Orkopolous. As I have said, those employment
matters are matters for the Clerk and the Parliament. It is the same information in the question asked by the member about workers
compensation.
NSW LA HANSARD, Mr Joe Scimone Government Job Suspension , Milton Orkopoulos Electorate Officer Sacking , 26 February 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is addressed to the Premier. What action, if any, has the Premier taken to satisfy himself that the Minister
for Planning acted properly in relation to his February 2006 fundraiser and his handling of the Tralee development?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: What a sanctimonious hypocrite! Barry the bagman. What action for smearing the Minister for Planning? ... The
Leader of the Opposition should give us full transparency and disclosure of those donations before the sanctimonious hypocrite smears
the Minister for Planning, as he did yesterday.... The Leader of the Opposition smears from the textbook written by the member for
Vaucluse, ..... He smears the Minister for Planning about a phone call he may or may not have made. The issue is not whether a phone
call was made about a function; it is about conduct and acting improperly..... If the Leader of the Opposition has an allegation to make
about improper conduct he can take evidence or information to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.......If the Leader of the
Opposition has an allegation to make he can send it to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. ...... If the Leader of the
Opposition has an allegation against the Minister for Planning he can make it to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
NSW LA HANSARD , Minister for Planning and Tralee Residential Development , 27 February 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. With yet another developer getting the nod from the Minister for
Planning after thousands of dollars were donated to Labor, why has the Premier failed to implement the Independent Commission
Against Corruption's six-month-old recommendations that development applications lodged by political donors with the Minister for
Planing should be subject to a commission or inquiry, expert report or other arm's length safeguards? Is the Premier under orders from
Sussex Street fundraisers?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is a bit rich, Barry, coming from a former State director of the Liberal Party whose main responsibility was
raising funds. ..... As with an ever-increasing number of issues, the Leader of the Opposition, firstly, has got it wrong. Secondly, the
Minister for Local Government in his address to the Local Government and Shires Associations in fact outlined that the Government
was considering these measures and was providing a response.
NSW LA HANSARD ,Minister for Planning and Developer Political Party Donations , 28 February 2008.
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Following his decision to sack Port Macquarie-Hastings Council for a cost
blow-out, will he now apply the same scrutiny and sack the Deputy Premier for losing more than $100 million on the Tcard contract, the
Minister for Water for a $500 million desalination blow-out, the Minister for Planning for being compromised, the Minister for Ports for
conflicts of interest, the Minister for Health for mismanagement, including Bathurst hospital, and the Minister for Community Services
when a child known to the Department of Community Services dies every nine days?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The question asked by the Leader of The Nationals sums up the Opposition. It is interesting that the Leader of The
Nationals started in Port Macquarie....the Leader of the Opposition should have a look at what is being said about him. They want
someone who is not even in his party room, let alone anybody sitting beside him or behind him.......
NSW LA HANSARD , Ministerial Accountability , 28 February 2008.
Mr GREG PIPER: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. Under the Government's proposed power privatisation, how
will the imminent carbon trading scheme affect the sale and lease prices of electricity infrastructure and can the Premier categorically
rule out any State-provided indemnity?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: He will not get any of that detail from you, Barry, that's for sure,.....The member for Lake Macquarie has no chance
of getting anything out of you, that's for sure.....Some commentators have suggested that the value of our electricity businesses will be
eroded as a result of the commencement of a national emissions trading scheme. In response to the member for Lake Macquarie and
those commentators: the size of the liability will depend on the targets and the caps that are set; it will depend on the coverage; it will
depend on transitional arrangements for existing players, and it will also depend on the process of permit allocation. Another factor to
be taken into account will be the penalties for excess emissions.The Commonwealth Government has been undertaking modelling on
the design of a national emissions trading scheme and has indicated to the States that the modelling and the final shaping of the
scheme has to be carefully considered. That modelling is currently being done by the Commonwealth Treasury because we have all
signed up to a national emissions trading scheme to tackle climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are doing so
because we want to achieve the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and not have a negative impact on our economy or a
negative impact on our trade-exposed industries and existing players.....I say a few words about Standard and Poor's and the comments
it has made in recent times. Its comments about uncertainty on the rules around carbon trading apply whether the assets are in
government ownership or whether they are owned by the private sector. It does not depend on ownership.The risk and uncertainty
around the carbon trading scheme and emissions are there whether they are public or private. In fact, what Standard and Poor's has
had to say in recent times only strengthens the Government's case about retail and other issues that we have addressed in our package
to secure the State's electricity needs. What we will do is continue to work with the Commonwealth to ensure that the modelling, the
caps and the rules around this scheme lead to reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and investment in green energy and, at the same
time, allow jobs, investment and economic growth to continue.
COMMENT : A short answer would have sufficed : "I have absolutely no idea"
NSW LA HANSARD, Electricity Industry Privatisation , 5 March 2008.
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. What actions have the Premier and his industrial relations Minister taken
to assure themselves that Labor Ministers and members who accepted improper donations from the Transport Workers Union had no
knowledge about the way the Transport Workers Union's industry training, education and industrial rights fund was being operated?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: There he goes again—up he gets and smears more people in the Government. If he has an allegation to make, he
should make it; take it to the ICAC or the police.....I am satisfied with the integrity of my Government and my Ministers. I repeat: if the
member has information and he wants to make an allegation, there is the forum. ....He should take it to the ICAC, show some ticker and
back it up.....If he is referring to matters that have been raised in public and in the media about the Transport Workers Union, I refer
him to what has been said in the past in relation to that matter. However, if he wants to name a Minister or make an allegation, he
should take the 10 steps to the door and say it publicly or, if he is too gutless to do that go to the ICAC and the police.
NSW LA HANSARD, Transport Workers Union Industry Training, Education and Industrial Rights Fund , 8 April 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Given the global credit crisis, the 20 per cent fall on the Standard and
Poor's utilities index over the past 12 months, and the Origin takeover, what external advice has the Premier received about the
estimated sale price of the State's electricity assets? Does the Premier stand by his claim of $15 billion?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That just about sums up his performance on this issue, doesn't it?....The $15 billion is the avoided cost from the
Owen inquiry, and the newspapers quite accurately report the estimated avoided cost of cleaning up our current power stations, the
investment in base load generation, and the $2 to $3 billion that would be required to pump into retail businesses. That is the $15
billion figure that the Leader of the Opposition is quoting; it is the avoided cost to the taxpayer. As with any transaction, experts are
employed to go through the valuation of the businesses and determine their worth. That is hardly a surprise, but on this issue there are
lots of surprises when it comes to the Opposition........ I will come to the external advice......When it comes to energy, I refer to the
dishonest nature of the Leader of the Opposition. I remind the House the delivery of electricity to New South Wales households involves,
firstly, the generation of the power; transmission of the power along what industry insiders commonly call "wires and poles"; and the
selling, or retailing, of the power.........For 12 months he has been saying that the Opposition needs to see the details. ....Well, what was
it, Barry? Have you lost your marbles as well? ....Today the Leader of the Opposition asked, "Who provided that external advice?"....One
of them helped write the Owen report, but probably the Leader of the Opposition never read that. .... As Professor Owen has said, in
2014 the State will face a shortage of supply.
COMMENT : The short answer to the question was either "I have no frigging idea what electricity assets will sell for" or "I know but i am not telling you"
NSW LA HANSARD , Electricity Industry Privatisation , 6 May 2008.
Ms PRU GOWARD: My question is directed to the Premier. Morgan Stanley made the following statement to the Owen inquiry relating to
the absence of an emissions trading scheme:
"This policy uncertainty ultimately will come at a higher cost to the community."
Following that statement, what impact will this uncertainty have on the sale price if the sale of the State's electricity infrastructure
proceeds before an announcement of the emissions trading scheme?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: What has been happening since the inquiry? State Treasury, along with treasuries around the country, including
the Federal Treasury, has been modelling and devising rules and working out price scenarios. In addition, Professor Garnaut has been
doing his work to provide advice to the Commonwealth about a national emissions trading scheme. New South Wales has provided a lot
of information about possible rules—the architecture for a national emissions trading scheme. The whole point about the Owen inquiry
and advice from people such as Morgan Stanley and Professor Garnaut is that it makes the case more compelling to take action.
The fact that a decision has not been made about the price and rules for a national emissions trading scheme ought not to stand in the
way of coming to a landing on what to do. ........
COMMENT : The short answer "I have no frigging idea what effect it will have on the price"
NSW LA HANSARD , National Emissions Trading Scheme , 6 May 2008.
MIKE BAIRD: My question is directed to the Premier. Did he or his Ministers seek any advice from New South Wales Treasury or external
advisers on the joint venture model for the sale of this State's electricity assets before the compromise was presented to union officials
last weekend? If he did, will he release that and any other external advice relating to the transaction?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The member for Manly is quoted as saying that he understands the rationale for the Government's energy reform
package...Nevertheless, the member for Manly has stated some sort of position. He understands the rationale. I assume in coming to the
conclusion that he understands the rationale he has undertaken some reading and done some thinking. I direct him to the Owen report..
COMMENT : The answer is totally non-responsive to the question and it is difficult to fathom what a short answer would have been.
NSW LA HANSARD, Electricity Industry Privatisation , 6 May 2008
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that the long-term result of his proposal to privatise electricity
assets is likely to be job losses in regional and rural New South Wales, has he prepared a rural communities impact statement? If so,
will he table it?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The issues of regional and rural employment have been taken into account and are outlined in the Government's
response released.....Why don't I table it? It was made public, you fool. It is called "A Government Response to Professor Anthony
Owen's Inquiry". That was released in December and the Government has made further announcements, all on the public record....The
impact on rural and regional workers and regional communities has been taken into account by the Government and has been the
subject of a whole range of announcements the Government has made about securing the jobs of those workers in the electricity
industry in regional and rural New South Wales. Detail number one: the Government's plan involves retaining 100 per cent ownership
of the transmission and distribution network. Detail number two: the Government currently is undertaking an investment of $2 billion
in upgrading...our electricity, transmission and distribution network. As part of that there is an apprenticeship training guarantee that
lasts for four years to ensure that the apprenticeship intake into our electricity network companies remains at current levels.......For
country New South Wales that means about 58 apprentices each year. Detail number four: all of the transmission network distribution
infrastructure, including the depots in rural and regional New South Wales, the transformers, the wires and poles, remain in
government ownership. The Government will continue to be responsible for maintaining, owning, building and operating the network.
That is the guarantee for regional and rural New South Wales. The Government's plans have absolutely no impact on 12,000 electricity
workers—guaranteed. Retail workers have a choice. The choice is to move across to the new operator. If they do so, there is a transfer
price and with that come job guarantees. If they choose not to move over, they remain employed by the Government. Why? Because
the Government's plan does not involve selling any electricity company owned by the Government. Those workers can stay working for
the Government in their workplace; whether it is the Coniston retail office, the one in Queanbeyan, Bathurst, Leeton or Port
Macquarie, they get a choice.......The fifth point is this: the Government's plan to secure extra supply is all about, guess what? Building
power stations. And when you build power stations you create jobs. You create jobs building the power stations and you create jobs
operating the power stations. If the baseload power station is fired by coal—this might come as a surprise to the Leader of The
Nationals—that might have a flow-on effect of creating jobs in coalmining, but we will not say that too loudly for the Leader of The
Nationals. If it is powered by gas, guess what? It also creates jobs in the gas infrastructure to get it to the power station. No! It is all
coming out now. When you invest money in building infrastructure it creates jobs. ..... As the Minister for Police and one of the local
members said, under this Government a new power station is being built because of our carbon trading scheme. A gas-fired power
station is being built at Tallawarra on the South Coast by a company called True Energy. Some 600 jobs have been created in building
the power station. There will be about 50 new jobs in operating the power station and a company, hopefully in the Illawarra, will
maintain the gas turbines off site. About 200 workers will be required to maintain the biggest gas turbines in Australia. As the Minister
for Police said, the power station is under construction. I can provide the House with an update: It will be producing electricity in June
of this year.....I withdraw that comment. The Minister for Police correctly said that it is a 400-megawatt peaking plant. I can provide a
further update to the House: The company proposes to lodge a development application to double the size of the plant. That plant will
supply electricity to 250,000 households, with a 70 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and will be Australia's most
efficient power station. It is soon to be followed by another power station at Wagga Wagga. Guess what? That power station will create
jobs, too. Jobs are created when infrastructure is built.
COOMMENT : The short answer is : "We will not produce a Rural Impact Statement. We have already considered all the issues."
NSW LA HANSARD, Electricity Industry Privatisation , 7 May 2008.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: My question is directed to the Premier. With the cost of underwriting $10 billion in current market conditions being an
estimated $400 million more than at the same time last year—which is enough to build two new hospitals or to provide a new hall for
every school in the State—how can the Premier guarantee that privatising the State's electricity assets at this time would give New
South Wales taxpayers the best value for those assets?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: .....Here are some figures to assist the member for Manly, as he wants some figures on value impact and potential
diversion from hospitals, schools and roads. I will give one example. From 2002 to 2007 the market share of the three electricity retail
companies grew by about $100,000; their private sector competitors grew by more than $3 million. The status quo option for retail
electricity is somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion to enable them to compete against 21 private sector companies........
COMMENT : Short answer : "I don't understand the question and if I did i have no idea when the best time to sell is."
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. In light of his Government's history of failed deals with the private
sector—and their consequences for taxpayers—will he ensure the public interest is protected in his power privatisation plan and agree
to the Auditor-General's involvement in the process from day one?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: ......The Leader of the Opposition has finally woken up. He talks about Auditor-General oversight. For his benefit I
inform him that the Auditor-General has oversight and releases regular reports on State finances. .... He slipped it out so that nobody
would notice. It contained five points. The first point was about the Auditor-General, and we have dealt with that....
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129. If the Premier is so confident, why will he not agree
to the Auditor-General oversighting the process from day one?
The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Why won't you answer it ?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We have. We are always supportive of the Auditor-General. ....
COMMENT : Short answer - "I do not want the Auditor General overseeing the process."
NSW LA HANSARD , Electricity Industry Privatisation , 13 May 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Given his history of failed deals involving the private sector and
the Auditor-General's report into the Cross City Tunnel that said, "Government, Treasury and the RTA did not sufficiently consider
the implication of an upfront payment" and "The handling of the amending deed also lacked transparency" and was not "robustly
assessed", will he accept that it is essential that the Auditor-General review his electricity industry privatisation plans and report
to Parliament before any sale is finalised?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: .......Of course transparency and accountability will occur in these transactions.
COMMENT : Real answer - "I don't want the Auditor General to report to parliament before the sale."
NSW LA HANSARD , Electricity Industry Privatisation , 13 May 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that he supported this Chamber's 1994 insistence that the Auditor-
General provide a report to Parliament before the half billion dollar sale of the State Bank, why is he refusing to allow the Auditor-
General to do a similar report before the $15 billion sale of the State's electricity industry?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Government has been consistent in stating that legislation is required. It has commented also on the type of
legislation. There is enabling legislation as far as the transactions are concerned. There is enabling legislation also in the treatment of
employees.....
Mrs Jillian Skinner: What about the Auditor-General?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, we have addressed the auditor and we will continue to address the auditor...... As the Leader of the Opposition
knows, the Government has no difficulty whatsoever with the Auditor-General being involved in the process to whatever extent he
wants. He has a role and he will carry it out, and he will do so with the support of the Government. .....
Mr Barry O'Farrell: What about the Auditor-General?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Exactly, the Auditor-General. This Government will support whatever involvement he wishes to have ....
Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: It is obvious that the Premier is debating the issue. He should either answer the question as to
whether the Auditor-General will report to Parliament before the process or sit down.
The SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough of the point of order. I will listen further to the Premier.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As tempted as I am to repeat the words of Mike Carlton from last week, I will not.
COMMENT : "Sheesh - how can I bulls**t my way through this answer without responding to the question"
NSW LA HANSARD, Electricity Industry Privatisation , 14 May 2008.
Ms CLOVER MOORE: I direct my question to the Premier. Given that the New South Wales Freedom of Information Act is based on principles
developed more than 30 years ago and that it has been the subject of more than 60 amendments, and given the poor rate of freedom of
information releases in New South Wales, will the New South Wales Government commit to implementing the Ombudsman's recommendations
following his review of the Act?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As the member quite correctly states, the Ombudsman has commenced a review. ....The govenment welcomes the
Ombudsman's review. It will support it and cooperate with the Ombudsman. It will also give very serious consideration to his
recommendations when the report is completed.
COMMENT : "We will implement those bits that suit us "
NSW LA HANSARD, Freedom of Information Act Review , 14 May 2007
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that the budget reveals that expenses will continue to exceed revenue over
the next four years, what else will the Government privatise to try to keep the budget in balance?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition asked that question....
COMMENT : Short answer : "I don't know what I am going to do" or "I am keeping it a secret from you, the Unions and electors as I did with electricity "
NSW LA HANSARD, Budget Expenses and Revenue, 3 June 2008.
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that in last year's budget the Premier said the reason no additional
funding was allocated for the Parks and Forbes hospitals was that they were at the planning stage, can he explain why, 12 months later, there
still is no funding for these hospitals, which he promised in 2004 and 2007?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: My advice is that planning for the redevelopment of both hospitals is proceeding.
COMMENT : "Ha Ha - it's easy to succinctly answer a question if I want to ! "
NSW LA HANSARD, Parkes and Forbes Hospitals Redevelopment , 3 June 2008.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: My question is directed to the Premier. Is his decision not to fund any of the recommendations of the Rural and Regional
Task Force, unless the House supports his plan to privatise electricity, an unethical attempt to blackmail the people of country New South Wales?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The answer to the two-part question is: No. No. I have made it very clear that the Government will provide a
response to the Rural and Regional Task Force. There are matters in the budget that relate to rural infrastructure that has been
funded. The Treasurer and I made it clear yesterday, in response to a question asked in this House by the Opposition, that the
Government would provide a response to the Rural and Regional Task Force, and the Government has never made any bones about the
fact that an infrastructure statement would be made. The Treasurer confirmed that at the media conference about the budget. The
indication was that the Government would make a statement about further infrastructure investment related to electricity. The
Government will make a statement in response to the Rural and Regional Task Force: No, and, no.
COOMMENT : "See how easy it is to properly answer questions if I try."
NSW LA HANSARD, Rural and Regional Task Force Electricity Industry Privatisation , 4 June 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Given that his Ministerial Code of Conduct states, "Ministers will be
frank and honest in official dealings with their colleagues", why did he fail to sack the Hon. John Della Bosca when, to quote the media, "He lied
to you" about his involvement in the preparation of the Iguana apology?
The SPEAKER: Order! I will allow the question but I remind all members that the matter is the subject of a police investigation
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Having gone down the path of referring the matter to the police and the Independent Commission Against
Corruption, the Leader of the Opposition now wants to conduct an investigation in the Parliament. .....The relevant agencies will do that
job, and they will do it thoroughly and professionally. It will not be the Leader of the Opposition who does it.
COMMENT : "There is no way I am gunna answer for my own conduct to this parliament"
NSW LA HANSARD, The Hon. John Della Bosca, MLC: Iguanas Waterfront Restaurant Incident , 17 June 2008.
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Did the Premier's chief of staff, Josh Murray, or any other of his staff members
have a role in procuring four statutory declarations from John Della Bosca and Belinda Neal's dinner companions about the night at Iguana
Joe's?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I refer the Leader of The Nationals to my previous answer. If I wanted to detain the House I could go through the
three pages of conflicting statements by Mr Spence and the member for Terrigal.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: My point of order is on relevance. The question pertains to matters outside the police investigation: the
statutory declarations defending John Della Bosca and Belinda Neal.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will refer to one: the member for Terrigal said, "Chris Spence tried to ring me. Finally I got a message to ring him
and I rang and he was already there." In another account, on Monday 10 June 2008, he said, "I wasn't there." Chris Hartcher was not
there. He found out about it the following day. And so the inconsistencies went on for the rest of the week.
COMMENT : "See how good I am at avoiding answering questions by smearing other people"
NSW LA HANSARD, The Hon. John Della Bosca, MLC: Iguanas Waterfront Restaurant Incident , 17 June 2008
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Does the Premier stand by his claims that John Della Bosca did not offer to
stand down from his ministry last Tuesday and that the Premier's staff had no role in procuring statutory declarations from John Della Bosca's
dinner companions at Iguana Joe's? If so, will the Premier sign this statutory declaration attesting to those claims?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I refer the Leader of the Opposition to my previous answer and my reference to his colleague the member for
Terrigal.
COMMENT : "There's not much I can say - I can't even bulls**t my way through this one"
NSW LA HANSARD, The Hon. John Della Bosca, MLC: Iguanas Waterfront Restaurant Incident , 17 June 2008.
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Will the Premier confirm that his so-called discipline of John Della Bosca over the
Iguana incident and subsequent cover-up is so weak that he had retained his full ministerial salary while he has been stood down?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I have addressed the matters in relation to Minister Della Bosca. I did so on Friday at the press conference and they
are a matter of record.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: Order! Has the Premier concluded his answer?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes.
Mr Andrew Stoner: I refer to Standing Order 129. The question has not previously been addressed in any way. This is an issue entirely under the
Premier's control and I ask him to answer it.
The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of The Nationals to resume his seat.
NSW LA HANSARD , The Hon. John Della Bosca, MLC: Iguanas Waterfront Restaurant Incident , 17 June 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that the Premier's staff knew that nine people were present at the Iguana
Joe's Bistro dinner, did the staff ask for only four statutory declarations? Or, were the staff aware that seven statutory declarations were
available? That is, from everyone present except John Della Bosca and Belinda Neal?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: What an absurd question.
COMMENT ; "I am not going there "
NSW LA HANSARD, The Hon. John Della Bosca, MLC: Iguanas Waterfront Restaurant Incident , 18 June 2008.
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that Michael Costa described a rural communities impact statement on the
sale of electricity as "sensible" can the Premier explain why it was the Liberal-Nationals Coalition that dragged him kicking and screaming over
the line on this, rather than his so-called Country Labor faction?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: To the best of my recollection, the Leader of The Nationals has asked me that question previously.
Mr ANDREW STONER: And you weren't going to do it.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: No, just calm down—I will certainly provide him with a response. In relation to Country Labor, Mr Wong was Country
Labor's representative on the Unsworth committee. The terms of reference of the Unsworth committee were to test the impact—
I repeat: it was to test the impact. Some of the matters that the Unsworth committee had to take into account were the impact on jobs,
the impact on communities, the social impact, the pricing impact and the environmental impact. Mr Wong ably represented Country
Labor. As I responded when asked this question previously—
That is not all he put you up to. When asked this question previously, I ran through, for him, what the proposals involved in additional
investment, infrastructure and jobs for rural and regional New South Wales. Since that time I can point him in the direction of his
colleague the member for Upper Hunter. When the feasibility study of the Queensland Gas Company is complete, and should that
feasibility study give that company's proposal a tick, it will mean the location of an $800 million gas power station for his colleague in
the Upper Hunter, because his electorate covers two possible sites—Liddell and Bayswater. That power station can be converted to a
baseload power station. Further, his colleague's electorate plus others in the upper and lower Hunter area will also benefit from an
ancillary investment related to that gas power station, and that is the pipeline coming from south-east Queensland, the coal seam gas.
The coal seam gas will be brought into New South Wales, to an economic powerhouse such as the Hunter, to drive further investment
and jobs. The pipeline will be there for that potential power station and it will provide the platform for gas at a much more competitive
price in the Hunter for other businesses so that they can—guess what—expand, add jobs and invest, and add to the economic growth
of the Hunter. In the same way that a gas-fired power station is being built by TRUenergy at Tallawarra on the South Coast; it is almost
complete and will be commissioned in the second half of this year. The construction of this power station has created 600 jobs and
when commissioned will result in a 70 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The nation's most efficient power station will be
in the Illawarra and it will supply 225,000 households with electricity. In response to the honourable member's question, yes, we do
want more of that. Why? Because New South Wales needs more electricity!
The Leader of The Nationals has asked what the rural impact will be. My answer is that Country Labor was represented on the impact
assessment that was conducted.
As the Minister for Police says, well represented. The outcome of that impact statement was to enhance the package in the
environment with the green and the renewable energy funds and to enhance the social safety net, which was one of the points made
by the Leader of The Nationals in his press release. In April, as a result of the work of people such as Mr Whan, the Government
enhanced the package to provide for indexation of pensioner rebates for electricity and to provide disadvantaged people on sickness or
carers allowances to receive additional concessions.
As the Leader of The Nationals pointed out in his statement to the Treasurer, the Government would be pleased to conduct a further
round of impact consultation. To date studies of this matter have been examined in the following way. The submissions that were made
to the Owen Inquiry by environmental groups and the non-government sector in the social services area, for example, were addressed
in the consultation process that the Government undertook from September to December when the Government said it would consider
the recommendations of the inquiry. I note the Opposition did not bother to lodge a submission. In December the Government released
its response, following consideration of the Owen Inquiry recommendations and meetings with environmental groups, the trade union
movement and other consultations. In addition, the third measure of consultation and testing of the impact was the Unsworth
Committee. At the conclusion of the Unsworth Committee's work, the Government amended the package and added additional
enhancements and protections for pensioners, those on sickness allowances and carers benefits. In the area of the environment, the
Government added further measures to provide protection—
You want to have a further round of consultation on impact? The Government has no difficulty with that. We are absolutely confident—
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Because you don't have the numbers.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The member for Murrumbidgee should worry about his own show.
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. I place the member for Murray-Darling on three calls to order.
COMMENT : "Look we have already looked at the impact on the rural community. Ruddy Costa caved in to your demands. That's OK - I have wiped my hands of
the whole thing. Costa can run the show from now on. I am really p***ed off though"
NSW LA HANSARD ,Electricity Industry Privatisation , 18 June 2008.
Mr GREG PIPER: My question is addressed to the Premier. Under the Government's proposed power privatisation, will contracts for sale
or lease require purchasers or lessees to achieve renewable energy targets?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I inform the member for Lake Macquarie that the change will not change the New South Wales Government's
greenhouse goals, and the national target will continue to apply.
Mr George Souris: Will you read out the agreement?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, I will. We announced the New South Wales target, which was enhanced by the Rudd Government, and we
support those targets. The policy has had no impact on privatisation and will continue to apply. The national target will cover all
electricity companies, including those that acquire leases over assets. We have made that position clear. I confirmed that and I also
confirm that a national renewable energy target is the most appropriate way to drive increased investment in renewable energy
sources. Professor Owen has made the point that investment in renewable sources of energy is important. Renewable energy
resources make an important contribution to securing future electricity and energy supplies for the State. But renewable sources of
energy alone will not be sufficient, hence the need for additional baseload investment. I thank the member for Lake Macquarie for his
question.
COMMENT : "Do you think I care ? It's Costa's baby now - go ask him"
NSW LA HANSARD , Electricity Industry Privatisation , 18 June 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. If, as the Premier now claims, John Della Bosca failed to tell him about
the additional statutory declarations, meaning that he has misled the Premier a second time about the Iguana cover-up, when will the
Premier stop dithering and simply sack him?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I refer the Leader of the Opposition to my answer to the question yesterday....... The Leader of the Opposition speaks
about standards. A couple of others in the Opposition who ask questions in Parliament are sanctimonious hypocrites, like him.
COMMENT : " It's a shambles. I don't want to think about it"
NSW LA HANSARD, The Hon. John Della Bosca: Iguanas Waterfront Restaurant Incident , 19 June 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Premier, given that your department's code of conduct requires employees to carry out their duties with
"political neutrality and impartiality", why has Paul Lister, one of your department's public servants, been used by the Labor Party to dig
dirt on the Iguana workers who provided statutory declarations?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is another nonsense question from the conspiratorial hub.
COMMENT : "The whole thing has been a disaster from start to finish. It's too horrible to contemplate. I don't want to think about it"
NSW LA HANSARD , Department of Premier and Cabinet Code of Conduct , 19 June 2008.
THE BOTTOM LINE
If the system of the executive government being answerable to parliament - particularly through question time is not working (the
Westminster system is meant to operate that way) then there are 2 possible ways of ensuring the system works as it was designed to do.
.
THE first is a change of personnel.
THE second is by changing the rules.
IF the first option alone is chosen, then the new personnel must have a commitment to making the system work, and actually behave in
the appropriate manner.
NOW there is a pattern of behaviour by the Premier Morris Iemma in the "bear-pit" (a nick name for the NSW Legislative Assembly
chamber) which indicates he either has no commitment to making the system work, or his intentions are noble, but he is incapable of
behaving in the way the system requires.
WHEN Morris Iemma announced he intended to nominate Richard Torbay MP as Speaker in March 2007, he said he was doing so as a
unique experiment to improve the standard of behaviour in the parliament. On that basis, his intentions appear good, but his actual
delivery is appalling. It is now over 12 months since Mr Iemma was popularly elected as Premier - and his pattern of behaviour seems to
be a permanent feature.
A change of personnel mid-term of a parliament can only be effected by MP's. More particularly, by those MP's belonging to the party in
the majority . Whether they will arrange a change of personnel for the purpose, inter alia, of improving the operation of parliament is
for them to decide.
The only other way a change of personnel can take place is by the vote of the community. The community only get a say every 4 years.
The community do not have a say in relation to a change of personnel until March 2011.
CHANGING the rules (with or without a change of personnel) is the other way parliament can be moulded to achieve the purpose for
which it was intended. We have set out elsewhere on this website suggestions for doing that, designed to force the executive to at least
answer the rudiments of questions asked, and providing some type of remedy (shame) if the executive fail to do so.
CHANGING the rules is a matter which the community do not have a say in. Only MP's do (and effectively only the party in the majority).
IN July 2007, Speaker Richard Torbay MP told a conference in Raratonga that it was a high priority of his, to make changes so that
question time became more meaningful and relevant . He said he would do this in the early part of his term. Whilst that is encouraging,
unfortunately we are not aware of any proposals for reform that have been advanced as yet - despite the fact we are heading towards
the middle of a 4 year term.
SOMETHING needs to be done quickly. Either a change in personnel or a change in rules. The NSW parliament is further descending
into farce - and a stop must be put to this soon. Indeed, parliamentary standards must be lifted substantially if the NSW parliament is to
play it's role in the delivery of democracy to the people of NSW.
The standard form of caution given by British police to customers is :
“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your
defence if you do not mention when questioned something
which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be
given in evidence.”
Jeremy Lindsay ,
We caution you - this is English but you might not understand it ,
Times On Line, 25 April 2008.
That caution reflects the "right to silence" as commonly understood
in all legal systems which derive from the British legal system.
In NSW our systems of democracy and law have derived from the
British systems. The standard police caution in Australia does not
follow the British one. The difference between them is essentially
that the British caution specifically draws to the customers attention
the fact that failure to mention matters may harm the customer's
defence - in other words, exercising the right to silence may not be without risks.
NOW in the democratic parliamentary system the executive government does not have a "right to silence". Indeed the institution of democracy is
dependent upon the executive being up front and answering questions, as fully as possible. So,theoretically, it casts a obligation on the executive
to provide answers (which is diametrically opposed to exercising an alleged right to silence). Further those answers should be truthful.
However, the rules of parliament (Standing Orders) do not necessarily provide a mechanism for ensuring that answers are provided by the
executive to questions asked. Indeed, the way the rules of parliament have been interpreted over the years, and slavishly followed by successive
Speakers, is that the Speaker cannot order the executive to answer a question in any particular way or at all. The system, only works where
people of good will take it upon themselves to impose upon themselves, an appropriate standard of behaviour.
A mechanism exists for the disciplining of executive members who provide to the parliament false answers, in breach of the requirement that the
executive provide truthful answers to questions asked of them. The parliament may censure a minister for "misleading the House". That is the
sanction in theory- although in practice that motion may not be decided on it's merits, but rather according to political allegiances.
OUTSIDE the walls of parliament - the people rely upon the institutions of democracy working in the manner they were intended to. IF the
institutions do not work in that way, then the people's expectations are thwarted.
Electors may not be however entirely stupid. They only get a chance once every 4 years to have a say. Some may take into account the
behaviour of politicians, who seek re-election , based on their performance over the preceding 4 years. One thing they may take into account is
whether they feel the executive government has been up front with them. AND they may feel that where the executive government has failed to
offer an explanation to them, then it is reasonable for them to conclude that the executive might be hiding something from them. OR where the
executive fails to answer a question a later explanation, months or years down the track is a recent invention- a product of spin.
THE RECENT BEHAVIOUR of NSW Premier Morris Iemma in the NSW Legislative Assembly (the bear-pit) is certainly something the electors might
be concerned about when it comes to assessing the performance of the Iemma government in 2011.
Take these examples :
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: My question is addressed to the Premier. Why does a Labor mate like Joe Scimone get suspended on full pay while under
investigation by the ICAC when an electorate staffer like Gillian Sneddon, who blew the whistle on allegations of paedophilia against the former
Minister Milton Orkopolous, was sacked in the same week she gave evidence at his trial?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I have already outlined the circumstances regarding Mr Scimone's standing down and the allegations he is facing.
The member for Murrumbidgee has previously asked about the staff member of Mr Orkopolous. As I have said, those employment
matters are matters for the Clerk and the Parliament. It is the same information in the question asked by the member about workers
compensation.
NSW LA HANSARD, Mr Joe Scimone Government Job Suspension , Milton Orkopoulos Electorate Officer Sacking , 26 February 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is addressed to the Premier. What action, if any, has the Premier taken to satisfy himself that the Minister
for Planning acted properly in relation to his February 2006 fundraiser and his handling of the Tralee development?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: What a sanctimonious hypocrite! Barry the bagman. What action for smearing the Minister for Planning? ... The
Leader of the Opposition should give us full transparency and disclosure of those donations before the sanctimonious hypocrite smears
the Minister for Planning, as he did yesterday.... The Leader of the Opposition smears from the textbook written by the member for
Vaucluse, ..... He smears the Minister for Planning about a phone call he may or may not have made. The issue is not whether a phone
call was made about a function; it is about conduct and acting improperly..... If the Leader of the Opposition has an allegation to make
about improper conduct he can take evidence or information to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.......If the Leader of the
Opposition has an allegation to make he can send it to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. ...... If the Leader of the
Opposition has an allegation against the Minister for Planning he can make it to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
NSW LA HANSARD , Minister for Planning and Tralee Residential Development , 27 February 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. With yet another developer getting the nod from the Minister for
Planning after thousands of dollars were donated to Labor, why has the Premier failed to implement the Independent Commission
Against Corruption's six-month-old recommendations that development applications lodged by political donors with the Minister for
Planing should be subject to a commission or inquiry, expert report or other arm's length safeguards? Is the Premier under orders from
Sussex Street fundraisers?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is a bit rich, Barry, coming from a former State director of the Liberal Party whose main responsibility was
raising funds. ..... As with an ever-increasing number of issues, the Leader of the Opposition, firstly, has got it wrong. Secondly, the
Minister for Local Government in his address to the Local Government and Shires Associations in fact outlined that the Government
was considering these measures and was providing a response.
NSW LA HANSARD ,Minister for Planning and Developer Political Party Donations , 28 February 2008.
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Following his decision to sack Port Macquarie-Hastings Council for a cost
blow-out, will he now apply the same scrutiny and sack the Deputy Premier for losing more than $100 million on the Tcard contract, the
Minister for Water for a $500 million desalination blow-out, the Minister for Planning for being compromised, the Minister for Ports for
conflicts of interest, the Minister for Health for mismanagement, including Bathurst hospital, and the Minister for Community Services
when a child known to the Department of Community Services dies every nine days?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The question asked by the Leader of The Nationals sums up the Opposition. It is interesting that the Leader of The
Nationals started in Port Macquarie....the Leader of the Opposition should have a look at what is being said about him. They want
someone who is not even in his party room, let alone anybody sitting beside him or behind him.......
NSW LA HANSARD , Ministerial Accountability , 28 February 2008.
Mr GREG PIPER: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. Under the Government's proposed power privatisation, how
will the imminent carbon trading scheme affect the sale and lease prices of electricity infrastructure and can the Premier categorically
rule out any State-provided indemnity?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: He will not get any of that detail from you, Barry, that's for sure,.....The member for Lake Macquarie has no chance
of getting anything out of you, that's for sure.....Some commentators have suggested that the value of our electricity businesses will be
eroded as a result of the commencement of a national emissions trading scheme. In response to the member for Lake Macquarie and
those commentators: the size of the liability will depend on the targets and the caps that are set; it will depend on the coverage; it will
depend on transitional arrangements for existing players, and it will also depend on the process of permit allocation. Another factor to
be taken into account will be the penalties for excess emissions.The Commonwealth Government has been undertaking modelling on
the design of a national emissions trading scheme and has indicated to the States that the modelling and the final shaping of the
scheme has to be carefully considered. That modelling is currently being done by the Commonwealth Treasury because we have all
signed up to a national emissions trading scheme to tackle climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are doing so
because we want to achieve the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and not have a negative impact on our economy or a
negative impact on our trade-exposed industries and existing players.....I say a few words about Standard and Poor's and the comments
it has made in recent times. Its comments about uncertainty on the rules around carbon trading apply whether the assets are in
government ownership or whether they are owned by the private sector. It does not depend on ownership.The risk and uncertainty
around the carbon trading scheme and emissions are there whether they are public or private. In fact, what Standard and Poor's has
had to say in recent times only strengthens the Government's case about retail and other issues that we have addressed in our package
to secure the State's electricity needs. What we will do is continue to work with the Commonwealth to ensure that the modelling, the
caps and the rules around this scheme lead to reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and investment in green energy and, at the same
time, allow jobs, investment and economic growth to continue.
COMMENT : A short answer would have sufficed : "I have absolutely no idea"
NSW LA HANSARD, Electricity Industry Privatisation , 5 March 2008.
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. What actions have the Premier and his industrial relations Minister taken
to assure themselves that Labor Ministers and members who accepted improper donations from the Transport Workers Union had no
knowledge about the way the Transport Workers Union's industry training, education and industrial rights fund was being operated?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: There he goes again—up he gets and smears more people in the Government. If he has an allegation to make, he
should make it; take it to the ICAC or the police.....I am satisfied with the integrity of my Government and my Ministers. I repeat: if the
member has information and he wants to make an allegation, there is the forum. ....He should take it to the ICAC, show some ticker and
back it up.....If he is referring to matters that have been raised in public and in the media about the Transport Workers Union, I refer
him to what has been said in the past in relation to that matter. However, if he wants to name a Minister or make an allegation, he
should take the 10 steps to the door and say it publicly or, if he is too gutless to do that go to the ICAC and the police.
NSW LA HANSARD, Transport Workers Union Industry Training, Education and Industrial Rights Fund , 8 April 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Given the global credit crisis, the 20 per cent fall on the Standard and
Poor's utilities index over the past 12 months, and the Origin takeover, what external advice has the Premier received about the
estimated sale price of the State's electricity assets? Does the Premier stand by his claim of $15 billion?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That just about sums up his performance on this issue, doesn't it?....The $15 billion is the avoided cost from the
Owen inquiry, and the newspapers quite accurately report the estimated avoided cost of cleaning up our current power stations, the
investment in base load generation, and the $2 to $3 billion that would be required to pump into retail businesses. That is the $15
billion figure that the Leader of the Opposition is quoting; it is the avoided cost to the taxpayer. As with any transaction, experts are
employed to go through the valuation of the businesses and determine their worth. That is hardly a surprise, but on this issue there are
lots of surprises when it comes to the Opposition........ I will come to the external advice......When it comes to energy, I refer to the
dishonest nature of the Leader of the Opposition. I remind the House the delivery of electricity to New South Wales households involves,
firstly, the generation of the power; transmission of the power along what industry insiders commonly call "wires and poles"; and the
selling, or retailing, of the power.........For 12 months he has been saying that the Opposition needs to see the details. ....Well, what was
it, Barry? Have you lost your marbles as well? ....Today the Leader of the Opposition asked, "Who provided that external advice?"....One
of them helped write the Owen report, but probably the Leader of the Opposition never read that. .... As Professor Owen has said, in
2014 the State will face a shortage of supply.
COMMENT : The short answer to the question was either "I have no frigging idea what electricity assets will sell for" or "I know but i am not telling you"
NSW LA HANSARD , Electricity Industry Privatisation , 6 May 2008.
Ms PRU GOWARD: My question is directed to the Premier. Morgan Stanley made the following statement to the Owen inquiry relating to
the absence of an emissions trading scheme:
"This policy uncertainty ultimately will come at a higher cost to the community."
Following that statement, what impact will this uncertainty have on the sale price if the sale of the State's electricity infrastructure
proceeds before an announcement of the emissions trading scheme?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: What has been happening since the inquiry? State Treasury, along with treasuries around the country, including
the Federal Treasury, has been modelling and devising rules and working out price scenarios. In addition, Professor Garnaut has been
doing his work to provide advice to the Commonwealth about a national emissions trading scheme. New South Wales has provided a lot
of information about possible rules—the architecture for a national emissions trading scheme. The whole point about the Owen inquiry
and advice from people such as Morgan Stanley and Professor Garnaut is that it makes the case more compelling to take action.
The fact that a decision has not been made about the price and rules for a national emissions trading scheme ought not to stand in the
way of coming to a landing on what to do. ........
COMMENT : The short answer "I have no frigging idea what effect it will have on the price"
NSW LA HANSARD , National Emissions Trading Scheme , 6 May 2008.
MIKE BAIRD: My question is directed to the Premier. Did he or his Ministers seek any advice from New South Wales Treasury or external
advisers on the joint venture model for the sale of this State's electricity assets before the compromise was presented to union officials
last weekend? If he did, will he release that and any other external advice relating to the transaction?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The member for Manly is quoted as saying that he understands the rationale for the Government's energy reform
package...Nevertheless, the member for Manly has stated some sort of position. He understands the rationale. I assume in coming to the
conclusion that he understands the rationale he has undertaken some reading and done some thinking. I direct him to the Owen report..
COMMENT : The answer is totally non-responsive to the question and it is difficult to fathom what a short answer would have been.
NSW LA HANSARD, Electricity Industry Privatisation , 6 May 2008
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that the long-term result of his proposal to privatise electricity
assets is likely to be job losses in regional and rural New South Wales, has he prepared a rural communities impact statement? If so,
will he table it?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The issues of regional and rural employment have been taken into account and are outlined in the Government's
response released.....Why don't I table it? It was made public, you fool. It is called "A Government Response to Professor Anthony
Owen's Inquiry". That was released in December and the Government has made further announcements, all on the public record....The
impact on rural and regional workers and regional communities has been taken into account by the Government and has been the
subject of a whole range of announcements the Government has made about securing the jobs of those workers in the electricity
industry in regional and rural New South Wales. Detail number one: the Government's plan involves retaining 100 per cent ownership
of the transmission and distribution network. Detail number two: the Government currently is undertaking an investment of $2 billion
in upgrading...our electricity, transmission and distribution network. As part of that there is an apprenticeship training guarantee that
lasts for four years to ensure that the apprenticeship intake into our electricity network companies remains at current levels.......For
country New South Wales that means about 58 apprentices each year. Detail number four: all of the transmission network distribution
infrastructure, including the depots in rural and regional New South Wales, the transformers, the wires and poles, remain in
government ownership. The Government will continue to be responsible for maintaining, owning, building and operating the network.
That is the guarantee for regional and rural New South Wales. The Government's plans have absolutely no impact on 12,000 electricity
workers—guaranteed. Retail workers have a choice. The choice is to move across to the new operator. If they do so, there is a transfer
price and with that come job guarantees. If they choose not to move over, they remain employed by the Government. Why? Because
the Government's plan does not involve selling any electricity company owned by the Government. Those workers can stay working for
the Government in their workplace; whether it is the Coniston retail office, the one in Queanbeyan, Bathurst, Leeton or Port
Macquarie, they get a choice.......The fifth point is this: the Government's plan to secure extra supply is all about, guess what? Building
power stations. And when you build power stations you create jobs. You create jobs building the power stations and you create jobs
operating the power stations. If the baseload power station is fired by coal—this might come as a surprise to the Leader of The
Nationals—that might have a flow-on effect of creating jobs in coalmining, but we will not say that too loudly for the Leader of The
Nationals. If it is powered by gas, guess what? It also creates jobs in the gas infrastructure to get it to the power station. No! It is all
coming out now. When you invest money in building infrastructure it creates jobs. ..... As the Minister for Police and one of the local
members said, under this Government a new power station is being built because of our carbon trading scheme. A gas-fired power
station is being built at Tallawarra on the South Coast by a company called True Energy. Some 600 jobs have been created in building
the power station. There will be about 50 new jobs in operating the power station and a company, hopefully in the Illawarra, will
maintain the gas turbines off site. About 200 workers will be required to maintain the biggest gas turbines in Australia. As the Minister
for Police said, the power station is under construction. I can provide the House with an update: It will be producing electricity in June
of this year.....I withdraw that comment. The Minister for Police correctly said that it is a 400-megawatt peaking plant. I can provide a
further update to the House: The company proposes to lodge a development application to double the size of the plant. That plant will
supply electricity to 250,000 households, with a 70 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and will be Australia's most
efficient power station. It is soon to be followed by another power station at Wagga Wagga. Guess what? That power station will create
jobs, too. Jobs are created when infrastructure is built.
COOMMENT : The short answer is : "We will not produce a Rural Impact Statement. We have already considered all the issues."
NSW LA HANSARD, Electricity Industry Privatisation , 7 May 2008.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: My question is directed to the Premier. With the cost of underwriting $10 billion in current market conditions being an
estimated $400 million more than at the same time last year—which is enough to build two new hospitals or to provide a new hall for
every school in the State—how can the Premier guarantee that privatising the State's electricity assets at this time would give New
South Wales taxpayers the best value for those assets?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: .....Here are some figures to assist the member for Manly, as he wants some figures on value impact and potential
diversion from hospitals, schools and roads. I will give one example. From 2002 to 2007 the market share of the three electricity retail
companies grew by about $100,000; their private sector competitors grew by more than $3 million. The status quo option for retail
electricity is somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion to enable them to compete against 21 private sector companies........
COMMENT : Short answer : "I don't understand the question and if I did i have no idea when the best time to sell is."
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. In light of his Government's history of failed deals with the private
sector—and their consequences for taxpayers—will he ensure the public interest is protected in his power privatisation plan and agree
to the Auditor-General's involvement in the process from day one?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: ......The Leader of the Opposition has finally woken up. He talks about Auditor-General oversight. For his benefit I
inform him that the Auditor-General has oversight and releases regular reports on State finances. .... He slipped it out so that nobody
would notice. It contained five points. The first point was about the Auditor-General, and we have dealt with that....
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129. If the Premier is so confident, why will he not agree
to the Auditor-General oversighting the process from day one?
The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Why won't you answer it ?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We have. We are always supportive of the Auditor-General. ....
COMMENT : Short answer - "I do not want the Auditor General overseeing the process."
NSW LA HANSARD , Electricity Industry Privatisation , 13 May 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Given his history of failed deals involving the private sector and
the Auditor-General's report into the Cross City Tunnel that said, "Government, Treasury and the RTA did not sufficiently consider
the implication of an upfront payment" and "The handling of the amending deed also lacked transparency" and was not "robustly
assessed", will he accept that it is essential that the Auditor-General review his electricity industry privatisation plans and report
to Parliament before any sale is finalised?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: .......Of course transparency and accountability will occur in these transactions.
COMMENT : Real answer - "I don't want the Auditor General to report to parliament before the sale."
NSW LA HANSARD , Electricity Industry Privatisation , 13 May 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that he supported this Chamber's 1994 insistence that the Auditor-
General provide a report to Parliament before the half billion dollar sale of the State Bank, why is he refusing to allow the Auditor-
General to do a similar report before the $15 billion sale of the State's electricity industry?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Government has been consistent in stating that legislation is required. It has commented also on the type of
legislation. There is enabling legislation as far as the transactions are concerned. There is enabling legislation also in the treatment of
employees.....
Mrs Jillian Skinner: What about the Auditor-General?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, we have addressed the auditor and we will continue to address the auditor...... As the Leader of the Opposition
knows, the Government has no difficulty whatsoever with the Auditor-General being involved in the process to whatever extent he
wants. He has a role and he will carry it out, and he will do so with the support of the Government. .....
Mr Barry O'Farrell: What about the Auditor-General?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Exactly, the Auditor-General. This Government will support whatever involvement he wishes to have ....
Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: It is obvious that the Premier is debating the issue. He should either answer the question as to
whether the Auditor-General will report to Parliament before the process or sit down.
The SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough of the point of order. I will listen further to the Premier.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As tempted as I am to repeat the words of Mike Carlton from last week, I will not.
COMMENT : "Sheesh - how can I bulls**t my way through this answer without responding to the question"
NSW LA HANSARD, Electricity Industry Privatisation , 14 May 2008.
Ms CLOVER MOORE: I direct my question to the Premier. Given that the New South Wales Freedom of Information Act is based on principles
developed more than 30 years ago and that it has been the subject of more than 60 amendments, and given the poor rate of freedom of
information releases in New South Wales, will the New South Wales Government commit to implementing the Ombudsman's recommendations
following his review of the Act?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As the member quite correctly states, the Ombudsman has commenced a review. ....The govenment welcomes the
Ombudsman's review. It will support it and cooperate with the Ombudsman. It will also give very serious consideration to his
recommendations when the report is completed.
COMMENT : "We will implement those bits that suit us "
NSW LA HANSARD, Freedom of Information Act Review , 14 May 2007
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that the budget reveals that expenses will continue to exceed revenue over
the next four years, what else will the Government privatise to try to keep the budget in balance?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition asked that question....
COMMENT : Short answer : "I don't know what I am going to do" or "I am keeping it a secret from you, the Unions and electors as I did with electricity "
NSW LA HANSARD, Budget Expenses and Revenue, 3 June 2008.
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that in last year's budget the Premier said the reason no additional
funding was allocated for the Parks and Forbes hospitals was that they were at the planning stage, can he explain why, 12 months later, there
still is no funding for these hospitals, which he promised in 2004 and 2007?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: My advice is that planning for the redevelopment of both hospitals is proceeding.
COMMENT : "Ha Ha - it's easy to succinctly answer a question if I want to ! "
NSW LA HANSARD, Parkes and Forbes Hospitals Redevelopment , 3 June 2008.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: My question is directed to the Premier. Is his decision not to fund any of the recommendations of the Rural and Regional
Task Force, unless the House supports his plan to privatise electricity, an unethical attempt to blackmail the people of country New South Wales?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The answer to the two-part question is: No. No. I have made it very clear that the Government will provide a
response to the Rural and Regional Task Force. There are matters in the budget that relate to rural infrastructure that has been
funded. The Treasurer and I made it clear yesterday, in response to a question asked in this House by the Opposition, that the
Government would provide a response to the Rural and Regional Task Force, and the Government has never made any bones about the
fact that an infrastructure statement would be made. The Treasurer confirmed that at the media conference about the budget. The
indication was that the Government would make a statement about further infrastructure investment related to electricity. The
Government will make a statement in response to the Rural and Regional Task Force: No, and, no.
COOMMENT : "See how easy it is to properly answer questions if I try."
NSW LA HANSARD, Rural and Regional Task Force Electricity Industry Privatisation , 4 June 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Given that his Ministerial Code of Conduct states, "Ministers will be
frank and honest in official dealings with their colleagues", why did he fail to sack the Hon. John Della Bosca when, to quote the media, "He lied
to you" about his involvement in the preparation of the Iguana apology?
The SPEAKER: Order! I will allow the question but I remind all members that the matter is the subject of a police investigation
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Having gone down the path of referring the matter to the police and the Independent Commission Against
Corruption, the Leader of the Opposition now wants to conduct an investigation in the Parliament. .....The relevant agencies will do that
job, and they will do it thoroughly and professionally. It will not be the Leader of the Opposition who does it.
COMMENT : "There is no way I am gunna answer for my own conduct to this parliament"
NSW LA HANSARD, The Hon. John Della Bosca, MLC: Iguanas Waterfront Restaurant Incident , 17 June 2008.
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Did the Premier's chief of staff, Josh Murray, or any other of his staff members
have a role in procuring four statutory declarations from John Della Bosca and Belinda Neal's dinner companions about the night at Iguana
Joe's?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I refer the Leader of The Nationals to my previous answer. If I wanted to detain the House I could go through the
three pages of conflicting statements by Mr Spence and the member for Terrigal.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: My point of order is on relevance. The question pertains to matters outside the police investigation: the
statutory declarations defending John Della Bosca and Belinda Neal.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will refer to one: the member for Terrigal said, "Chris Spence tried to ring me. Finally I got a message to ring him
and I rang and he was already there." In another account, on Monday 10 June 2008, he said, "I wasn't there." Chris Hartcher was not
there. He found out about it the following day. And so the inconsistencies went on for the rest of the week.
COMMENT : "See how good I am at avoiding answering questions by smearing other people"
NSW LA HANSARD, The Hon. John Della Bosca, MLC: Iguanas Waterfront Restaurant Incident , 17 June 2008
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Does the Premier stand by his claims that John Della Bosca did not offer to
stand down from his ministry last Tuesday and that the Premier's staff had no role in procuring statutory declarations from John Della Bosca's
dinner companions at Iguana Joe's? If so, will the Premier sign this statutory declaration attesting to those claims?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I refer the Leader of the Opposition to my previous answer and my reference to his colleague the member for
Terrigal.
COMMENT : "There's not much I can say - I can't even bulls**t my way through this one"
NSW LA HANSARD, The Hon. John Della Bosca, MLC: Iguanas Waterfront Restaurant Incident , 17 June 2008.
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Will the Premier confirm that his so-called discipline of John Della Bosca over the
Iguana incident and subsequent cover-up is so weak that he had retained his full ministerial salary while he has been stood down?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I have addressed the matters in relation to Minister Della Bosca. I did so on Friday at the press conference and they
are a matter of record.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: Order! Has the Premier concluded his answer?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes.
Mr Andrew Stoner: I refer to Standing Order 129. The question has not previously been addressed in any way. This is an issue entirely under the
Premier's control and I ask him to answer it.
The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of The Nationals to resume his seat.
NSW LA HANSARD , The Hon. John Della Bosca, MLC: Iguanas Waterfront Restaurant Incident , 17 June 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that the Premier's staff knew that nine people were present at the Iguana
Joe's Bistro dinner, did the staff ask for only four statutory declarations? Or, were the staff aware that seven statutory declarations were
available? That is, from everyone present except John Della Bosca and Belinda Neal?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: What an absurd question.
COMMENT ; "I am not going there "
NSW LA HANSARD, The Hon. John Della Bosca, MLC: Iguanas Waterfront Restaurant Incident , 18 June 2008.
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that Michael Costa described a rural communities impact statement on the
sale of electricity as "sensible" can the Premier explain why it was the Liberal-Nationals Coalition that dragged him kicking and screaming over
the line on this, rather than his so-called Country Labor faction?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: To the best of my recollection, the Leader of The Nationals has asked me that question previously.
Mr ANDREW STONER: And you weren't going to do it.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: No, just calm down—I will certainly provide him with a response. In relation to Country Labor, Mr Wong was Country
Labor's representative on the Unsworth committee. The terms of reference of the Unsworth committee were to test the impact—
I repeat: it was to test the impact. Some of the matters that the Unsworth committee had to take into account were the impact on jobs,
the impact on communities, the social impact, the pricing impact and the environmental impact. Mr Wong ably represented Country
Labor. As I responded when asked this question previously—
That is not all he put you up to. When asked this question previously, I ran through, for him, what the proposals involved in additional
investment, infrastructure and jobs for rural and regional New South Wales. Since that time I can point him in the direction of his
colleague the member for Upper Hunter. When the feasibility study of the Queensland Gas Company is complete, and should that
feasibility study give that company's proposal a tick, it will mean the location of an $800 million gas power station for his colleague in
the Upper Hunter, because his electorate covers two possible sites—Liddell and Bayswater. That power station can be converted to a
baseload power station. Further, his colleague's electorate plus others in the upper and lower Hunter area will also benefit from an
ancillary investment related to that gas power station, and that is the pipeline coming from south-east Queensland, the coal seam gas.
The coal seam gas will be brought into New South Wales, to an economic powerhouse such as the Hunter, to drive further investment
and jobs. The pipeline will be there for that potential power station and it will provide the platform for gas at a much more competitive
price in the Hunter for other businesses so that they can—guess what—expand, add jobs and invest, and add to the economic growth
of the Hunter. In the same way that a gas-fired power station is being built by TRUenergy at Tallawarra on the South Coast; it is almost
complete and will be commissioned in the second half of this year. The construction of this power station has created 600 jobs and
when commissioned will result in a 70 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The nation's most efficient power station will be
in the Illawarra and it will supply 225,000 households with electricity. In response to the honourable member's question, yes, we do
want more of that. Why? Because New South Wales needs more electricity!
The Leader of The Nationals has asked what the rural impact will be. My answer is that Country Labor was represented on the impact
assessment that was conducted.
As the Minister for Police says, well represented. The outcome of that impact statement was to enhance the package in the
environment with the green and the renewable energy funds and to enhance the social safety net, which was one of the points made
by the Leader of The Nationals in his press release. In April, as a result of the work of people such as Mr Whan, the Government
enhanced the package to provide for indexation of pensioner rebates for electricity and to provide disadvantaged people on sickness or
carers allowances to receive additional concessions.
As the Leader of The Nationals pointed out in his statement to the Treasurer, the Government would be pleased to conduct a further
round of impact consultation. To date studies of this matter have been examined in the following way. The submissions that were made
to the Owen Inquiry by environmental groups and the non-government sector in the social services area, for example, were addressed
in the consultation process that the Government undertook from September to December when the Government said it would consider
the recommendations of the inquiry. I note the Opposition did not bother to lodge a submission. In December the Government released
its response, following consideration of the Owen Inquiry recommendations and meetings with environmental groups, the trade union
movement and other consultations. In addition, the third measure of consultation and testing of the impact was the Unsworth
Committee. At the conclusion of the Unsworth Committee's work, the Government amended the package and added additional
enhancements and protections for pensioners, those on sickness allowances and carers benefits. In the area of the environment, the
Government added further measures to provide protection—
You want to have a further round of consultation on impact? The Government has no difficulty with that. We are absolutely confident—
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Because you don't have the numbers.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The member for Murrumbidgee should worry about his own show.
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. I place the member for Murray-Darling on three calls to order.
COMMENT : "Look we have already looked at the impact on the rural community. Ruddy Costa caved in to your demands. That's OK - I have wiped my hands of
the whole thing. Costa can run the show from now on. I am really p***ed off though"
NSW LA HANSARD ,Electricity Industry Privatisation , 18 June 2008.
Mr GREG PIPER: My question is addressed to the Premier. Under the Government's proposed power privatisation, will contracts for sale
or lease require purchasers or lessees to achieve renewable energy targets?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I inform the member for Lake Macquarie that the change will not change the New South Wales Government's
greenhouse goals, and the national target will continue to apply.
Mr George Souris: Will you read out the agreement?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, I will. We announced the New South Wales target, which was enhanced by the Rudd Government, and we
support those targets. The policy has had no impact on privatisation and will continue to apply. The national target will cover all
electricity companies, including those that acquire leases over assets. We have made that position clear. I confirmed that and I also
confirm that a national renewable energy target is the most appropriate way to drive increased investment in renewable energy
sources. Professor Owen has made the point that investment in renewable sources of energy is important. Renewable energy
resources make an important contribution to securing future electricity and energy supplies for the State. But renewable sources of
energy alone will not be sufficient, hence the need for additional baseload investment. I thank the member for Lake Macquarie for his
question.
COMMENT : "Do you think I care ? It's Costa's baby now - go ask him"
NSW LA HANSARD , Electricity Industry Privatisation , 18 June 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. If, as the Premier now claims, John Della Bosca failed to tell him about
the additional statutory declarations, meaning that he has misled the Premier a second time about the Iguana cover-up, when will the
Premier stop dithering and simply sack him?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I refer the Leader of the Opposition to my answer to the question yesterday....... The Leader of the Opposition speaks
about standards. A couple of others in the Opposition who ask questions in Parliament are sanctimonious hypocrites, like him.
COMMENT : " It's a shambles. I don't want to think about it"
NSW LA HANSARD, The Hon. John Della Bosca: Iguanas Waterfront Restaurant Incident , 19 June 2008.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Premier, given that your department's code of conduct requires employees to carry out their duties with
"political neutrality and impartiality", why has Paul Lister, one of your department's public servants, been used by the Labor Party to dig
dirt on the Iguana workers who provided statutory declarations?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: That is another nonsense question from the conspiratorial hub.
COMMENT : "The whole thing has been a disaster from start to finish. It's too horrible to contemplate. I don't want to think about it"
NSW LA HANSARD , Department of Premier and Cabinet Code of Conduct , 19 June 2008.
THE BOTTOM LINE
If the system of the executive government being answerable to parliament - particularly through question time is not working (the
Westminster system is meant to operate that way) then there are 2 possible ways of ensuring the system works as it was designed to do.
.
THE first is a change of personnel.
THE second is by changing the rules.
IF the first option alone is chosen, then the new personnel must have a commitment to making the system work, and actually behave in
the appropriate manner.
NOW there is a pattern of behaviour by the Premier Morris Iemma in the "bear-pit" (a nick name for the NSW Legislative Assembly
chamber) which indicates he either has no commitment to making the system work, or his intentions are noble, but he is incapable of
behaving in the way the system requires.
WHEN Morris Iemma announced he intended to nominate Richard Torbay MP as Speaker in March 2007, he said he was doing so as a
unique experiment to improve the standard of behaviour in the parliament. On that basis, his intentions appear good, but his actual
delivery is appalling. It is now over 12 months since Mr Iemma was popularly elected as Premier - and his pattern of behaviour seems to
be a permanent feature.
A change of personnel mid-term of a parliament can only be effected by MP's. More particularly, by those MP's belonging to the party in
the majority . Whether they will arrange a change of personnel for the purpose, inter alia, of improving the operation of parliament is
for them to decide.
The only other way a change of personnel can take place is by the vote of the community. The community only get a say every 4 years.
The community do not have a say in relation to a change of personnel until March 2011.
CHANGING the rules (with or without a change of personnel) is the other way parliament can be moulded to achieve the purpose for
which it was intended. We have set out elsewhere on this website suggestions for doing that, designed to force the executive to at least
answer the rudiments of questions asked, and providing some type of remedy (shame) if the executive fail to do so.
CHANGING the rules is a matter which the community do not have a say in. Only MP's do (and effectively only the party in the majority).
IN July 2007, Speaker Richard Torbay MP told a conference in Raratonga that it was a high priority of his, to make changes so that
question time became more meaningful and relevant . He said he would do this in the early part of his term. Whilst that is encouraging,
unfortunately we are not aware of any proposals for reform that have been advanced as yet - despite the fact we are heading towards
the middle of a 4 year term.
SOMETHING needs to be done quickly. Either a change in personnel or a change in rules. The NSW parliament is further descending
into farce - and a stop must be put to this soon. Indeed, parliamentary standards must be lifted substantially if the NSW parliament is to
play it's role in the delivery of democracy to the people of NSW.
| THIS IS PAGE 26 OF JUNE 2008 PAGES - JUNE0826 |
