Webster’s dictionary defines self-congratulation, which is what the motion is about, as congratulation of one’s self, especially a complacent acknowledgement of one’s own superiority. Although it is not a surprise that a member of this complacent Government would move such a complacent motion, it is extraordinary that it would be done at this time. In fact, it is an absolute joke for any member of the State Government to congratulate himself or herself on preventing crime in the midst of this State facing the most serious threat from organised crime in a generation. I refer to outlawed motorcycle gangs. Hardly a day goes by when there is not a drive-by shooting, something that was unheard of when the Labor Party came to Government in 1995. If a drive-by shooting had occurred, particularly at a police station, that would have made the headlines in every newspaper. Today it rarely rates a mention, because it happens so frequently.

All that has happened under this Labor Government’s watch. However, the Government says that there is no crime, everything is under control, and boy, it is doing a good job! A Sydney Morning Herald article on the Sydney Airport bikie brawl stated:

A Hells Angels bikie was killed in a huge brawl with rival club, the Comancheros, in a brazen attack at Sydney Airport, witnessed by dozens of travellers yesterday afternoon.

The 29-year-old was knocked to the ground during the brawl—involving at least 10 men—and bashed repeatedly on the head with a metal bollard—

and this was in broad daylight—

The attack took place in terminal three, one of the most secure and monitored public spaces in Australia—

a place where, up until now, the public thought was quite safe—

A shocked NSW Premier, Nathan Rees, immediately announced he would meet the Police commissioner, Andrew Scipione, this morning to discuss tough new anti-bikie legislation.

Once the bikie violence became public, the Premier and State Labor Ministers were most probably advised that they needed to be seen to be doing something about it. The charade being played out in this House by means of this motion adds to that impression. Paragraph (a) of the motion congratulates the Government on its continued efforts to prevent crime in local communities across New South Wales. The Government does not make an effort to prevent crime in local communities. The Government makes an effort to prevent the perception of crime through the media. The Government not only prefers a good headline to a good result, but also is obsessed with good headlines, on a daily basis.

Under this Labor Government, this Parliament has been labelled the laziest in the country. This year—365 days—the Legislative Council is scheduled to meet 54 times. A lot of those sitting days are Clayton’s sitting days, because they do not have question time. That this House is scheduled to meet so infrequently would lead a reasonable person to conclude that when members do occasionally come to this place they debate important legislation that the Government wants passed. But we are not debating an increase in police powers, we are not debating an increase in police resources, we are not debating an increase in police pay, we are not debating how to better protect brave police officers, and we are not even debating a motion that congratulates police officers for doing a great job.

Indeed it is, to create the perception that this place is still relevant. The Government has an opportunity to go to the Police Association website and sign up to “Keep Our Cops”. I ask members: Who has been to the website and signed up? I think all Opposition members have. Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes certainly has, and I imagine Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile will do so straight after this debate. Of course, no Government member has signed up. The Government is continuing to demonstrate how inept, out of touch and devoid of any real solutions to the State’s problems it is. Unfortunately for the people of the State, the Government is not only inept on law and order, it has also failed the people of New South Wales in every portfolio and area of management across the board.

The Government has vandalised the New South Wales economy, almost beyond repair. It has put the State’s hospitals on their deathbed. It has taken trains off the rails and it has failed to invest in schools, and therefore it has failed our children and this State’s future leaders. But law and order is particularly out of control. With all the drive-by shootings, one could be forgiven for thinking that one went to sleep in Sydney and woke up in Baghdad. Paragraph (b) of the motion commends the Government for its leadership in bringing together government agencies, local communities and other stakeholders to work together to reduce crime. But by all accounts, any reduction in crime is despite the Government’s leadership and not because of it. The Government has done everything it can to allow crime in our once premier State to flourish. A prime example of this is police numbers. Yesterday we heard lies, damn lies and statistics.

The latest police numbers available to the community on the New South Wales Police Force website are for November last year. My leader, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, referred to that yesterday in his contribution to the debate. Under previous police Ministers, police numbers for one month were available by the middle of the following month. In my duty area of south-west Sydney, some residents have raised concerns with me over whether the Wetherill Park police station was just a Clayton’s station, as it was so understaffed and under-resourced. In an attempt to uncover the truth and discover whether the allegations had any basis, I went straight to the source. I called the Wetherill Park police station and, after being transferred between people—none of whom returned my calls—I spoke with an officer, who shall remain nameless.

I asked the constable what police officers wanted from the State Government. Her reply, without much hesitation, was that police needed not only more front-line officers but also higher-ranked officers who have the knowledge and experience necessary to combat crime. Further, the constable said, “New South Wales police are not sufficiently equipped.” She claimed that they lacked basics such as uniforms, radios and equipment. But her most alarming claim was that their car computers “never work” and that they needed PDT systems. That claim was further evidenced in a recent article in the Daily Telegraph, which stated:

Police stations in some of Sydney’s high-crime areas are suffering a shortage of senior police despite a streamlined promotions system.

The problem of attracting qualified sergeants to work at some southwest stations was so dire it was proposed to force officers to transfer.

There are 24 unfilled sergeant positions across the southwest region, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
Both Fairfield and Merrylands commands are believed to be among the hardest hit, with six and five vacant sergeant positions respectively. Other areas believed to be affected are Blacktown and Rosehill.

Although those suburbs in my duty area of south-west Sydney are some of the most dangerous in Sydney, they are also the most neglected by this Government; and, as a result, suffer the most from critical staff shortages. That has resulted in an increase in crime, as shown in a graph I have obtained from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. A couple of years ago, when a lot of crime was reported, how did the Government fix that? It changed the definition of crime. The Government took serious crime—regarded as serious by some people, such as murder, drug offences, and so forth—off the crime category statistics. That meant that Rose Bay was a more dangerous area than Lakemba. We all know that if Rose Bay were a dangerous place the Treasurer would probably move to Vaucluse; but that is not the case.

The Government actually changed the definition. The Government will do anything to manipulate statistics; it will fudge the figures or change a definition. Between 1995, when the Labor Government came to power, and 2007, which is the latest of the full year figures from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, in western Sydney assaults increased by 102.6 per cent, sexual assaults by 76.6 per cent, robbery with a weapon by 61.2 per cent, and robbery with a weapon not a firearm by 117.5 per cent. Especially interesting is a graph titled “Trend in violent crime—NSW: 1995-2008″, which can be downloaded from the Government’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research website. The graph shows an increase in violent crime of about 20 per cent from 1995 to 2008. I advise the Hon. Tony Catanzariti that it is not too late to withdraw his motion. This must be embarrassing to the Government, because I have quoted its own figures. I think one would call that almost an “own goal”.

Let us look at police powers, because we are talking about crime prevention. The New South Wales Labor Government pays lip service to police but does not support them at crunch time. In February last year this House debated the Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill 2007. This was a bill of some substance introduced by our leader, the shadow Minister for Police, Michael Gallagher, himself a former police officer, as we all know. He knows what New South Wales police officers need because he is in touch with many of his friends who are still in the Police Force and, like the rest of the Coalition, is in touch with the wider community. During that debate a conga line of Labor members spoke out against protecting police by opposing the setting of mandatory life sentences for the murder of police officers. Police put their lives on the line every day and every time the community calls them for help. But the one time police called for help this State Government did not answer.

For example, the Hon. Amanda Fazio said during the debate, “We cannot overlook the idea that a person may be able to be rehabilitated, that there might be some redemption for somebody who is convicted of a very serious crime.” Labor voted against the Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill and opposed the protection of officers who put their lives on the line. There is no more important person than a police officer when they have to put themselves in a dangerous situation to protect innocent people. There is no greater deed than to put their lives on the line. Many of them lose their lives in the line of duty.

The public should be given a very clear message: nobody touches police. If you do, the maximum force of the law will be brought against you. That is protection of the civil community; that is supporting police. But this Government voted against that. It is obvious that Government members do not move very far away from their inner-city cafes, which are fairly secure places. But further west where there is crime because of lack of police numbers and powers and lack of police leadership and political leadership, it is sometimes a veritable war zone. Members opposite refused to help them.

Members opposite should be ashamed of themselves. Henry, you need to get up in caucus and speak out on this, mate. That bill should be reintroduced because the situation is very serious. The mover of this complacent motion, which congratulates the State Government and not police officers, was not present during that debate on 27 February, but it is fair to say he probably would have crossed the floor had he been in this Chamber.

What do police want? The New South Wales Police Association started a petition to get a fair wage for a fair day’s work. I have signed that petition and I support the campaign of the Police Association and the more than 15,000 police to obtain a decent pay rise. More and more police officers are quitting the force every day. Again the Government is fudging the figures. Police officers just cannot get out of the Police Force now. I met a policeman the other night who has been on the list to get out of the force for two years. He has a friend who has been on the list for four years. This allows the Government to fudge the figures again. It is a perception rather than a reality. The Keep our Cops website shows that 1,463 police have left the force since the last State election.

What are police looking for? They want a salary that recognises the risks faced by police officers and the contribution they make. This Government wants to cap a police wage increase at 2.5 per cent, which is a cut in take-home pay for our men and women in blue. More than three-quarters of New South Wales police say that they will seriously reconsider their position in the Police Force if wage increases are capped at 2.5 per cent. When we consider that many police stations across the State are already chronically understaffed, this becomes a serious concern. Fair pay relative to the job our police do to keep us safe is vital. Without it there is no guarantee police will stay in the job.

They want protection with death and disability insurance, which should be their right. Our police put their lives on the line day in, day out to keep the streets safe. Police and their families deserve comprehensive insurance protection should they be killed or injured in the line of duty. Currently there is a fundamentally good system in place but it is at serious risk. Death and disability insurance should be considered a basic right of employment for all New South Wales police.

They want reasonable breaks between shifts. They currently get an eight-hour break between shifts. When travel time and sleep are factored in, and the fact is that the cost of living in Sydney is forcing many people to live away from their workplace, fatigue becomes a major issue. For example, an officer finishing a shift at 2.00 a.m. can be asked to start again at 10.00 a.m. When travel time and time with the family are factored in, the time for sleep in preparation for the next 12-hour shift is very limited. Police are charged with looking after community safety. We cannot afford to have police officers working without adequate rest, which is why the association is calling for an increase in the break between shifts from eight hours to at least 10 hours.

They want compensation for being on call during personal time. New South Wales police currently get a miserly amount of money—less than $20 per shift, not per hour—for being on call. That is not a lot considering the limitations put on on-call officers. The fact that they could be called into work at any moment means that they spend their day by the phone rather than spending their time off relaxing. It means they cannot commit to looking after children or to catching up with friends and family and cannot travel far from home. New South Wales police realise the importance of on-call duty, but they should be duly compensated for the restrictions it places on their home lives.

Police want recognition of specialist skills to keep police in critical areas. Police with specialist skills such as lawyers and water police are in short supply. The pay rates for those with specialist skills in the Police Force are far less than those for comparable positions in the commercial sector. If we are to attract and retain the best people for the job, the people we want to be looking after community safety, we need to be able to pay them what they are worth.

Paragraph (c) of this motion calls on the Coalition to support the Government’s measures to reduce crime. As I have outlined, the Government’s measures are not reducing crime. The figures from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research add truth to that statement. This is a Government that is obsessed with media spin. It prefers a good headline to a good result. I certainly cannot support the Government on this complacent motion of self-congratulation and I call on the mover of the motion to do the honourable thing and withdraw it before we put it to the vote.

The world was stunned at the ferocity of the fires that engulfed Victoria on a day that will be seared into our collective memory forever. World leaders expressed their heartfelt sympathy to the victims of the fires and were generous in their offers of aid to help. The Australian community rallied to the cause and dug deep to fill the coffers of the bushfire appeal. Ethnic communities generously donated large sums of money. I am proud to say that students of Port Moresby Grammar School in Papua New Guinea conducted a very successful fundraising campaign for victims. It is indeed a truism that adversity brings out the best in people. In speaking to the motion I pay tribute to members of the emergency services who responded selflessly and heroically to fight against the fires. Men and women, professional and volunteers, young and old, standing side by side in the face of the worst fires in our history, generated enormous pride in our firefighters, police, paramedics, ambulance drivers, doctors, nurses, Salvos and all of our community organisations.

I pay particular tribute to my brother Rod, who is a professional firefighter with the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Conservation. Over the years Rod has been in a number of life-threatening situations where he has been isolated on his dozer as fires raged around him. He has required counselling to alleviate the stress caused by those incidents. He, along with his workmates, worked throughout the Victorian fires and many were beginning to feel the strain well before the fires were extinguished. Their work, much of it unsung and unheralded, will continue long after the fires are extinguished. The words “courage”, “mateship”, “sacrifice” and “endurance” are engraved on four granite pillars at the Isurava battle site on the Kokoda Trail. Those same words could be engraved on similar granite pillars at Healsville, Kinglake, Churchill and other towns ravaged by the fires.

Now, as we comb through the ashes of the fires we have to begin the task of review. There is no doubt that such a catastrophic event deserves nothing less than a royal commission, and I congratulate the Victorian Government for acknowledging that fact. I hope that rural people with experience and local knowledge are not denied an opportunity to express their views without fear of retribution. Earlier in the debate my colleague the Hon. Richard Colless provided an analysis of the ingredients and conditions necessary for a bushfire to turn into a devastating crown fire. His knowledge is based on his review of scientific papers and his personal experience. His views are supported by Mr Phil Cheney, a CSIRO scientist and one of our foremost bushfire experts. In his submission to the Australian Capital Territory coronial inquiry into the 2003 bushfire crisis, he referred to Judge Stretton, who wrote in the report of the royal commission that inquired into the 1939 bushfires:

There is one fundamental policy of fire prevention and of protection against fire. There is only one basis upon which that policy can safely rest, namely, the full recognition by each person or department who has dominion over the right to enter the forests of the paramount duty to safeguard the property and the rights of others. No person or department can be allowed to use the forest in such a way as to create a state of danger to others.

According to Cheney, if conformity to that rule cannot be brought about, the offender must be put out of the forest, or, in the case of a public department, its authority curtailed or enlarged so that the rule may be enforced, or voluntarily observed as the case may require.

According to Cheney, land management agencies actually include anyone who manages land, including private citizens, forestry companies, agricultural companies, catchment authorities, absentee landholders and government forestry and park authorities. Each has a core business and fire affects that business in different ways. Fire needs fuel, and fuel determines how far and how fast it will travel, how difficult it will be to round up and stop, and how much havoc and destruction will be wrought if the beast enters one’s property. So it is not just the landholder on whose property the fire starts who is responsible for the damage; all landholders affected contribute to both the spread and damage by the way they manage the fuel on their land. The basic premise is simple enough: if you own the fuel you own the fire.

Another expert, David Packham, a researcher from Monash University’s climatology group who has specialised in bushfires, said that governments had abandoned responsibility for the one control they had over wildfires—the state of the forests that fed the flames. Mr Packham further said:

Due to terribly ill-informed and pretty well outrageous concepts of conservation, we have failed to manage our fuel and our forests. They have become unhealthy, and dangerous

The politicians who willingly accept this rubbish use it to justify the perpetuation of the greatest threat to our forests, water supplies, homes and lives in order to secure a minority green vote. They continue to throw millions (and no doubt soon billions) at ineffective suppression toys, while the few foresters and bush people who know how to manage our public lands are starved of the resources they need to reduce fuel loads.

It is hard for me to see this perversion of public policy and to accept that the folk of the bush have lost their battle to live a safe life in a cared-for rural and forest environment, all because of the environmental fantasies of outraged extremists and latte conservationists.

In a letter to his local paper, the Weekly Times, on 25 January 2009, Mr Packham predicted that Victorians were facing a very critical situation in which 1,000 to 2,000 homes could be lost in the Yarra catchment, the Otways and/or the Strezleckies, that 100 souls could be lost in a most horrible and violent way, and that there was even a threat to Melbourne’s water supply, which could be rendered unusable by the ash and debris. Horrifically, much of this has come to pass—and it was not yet the end of the bushfire season at the time he wrote that article. It was a horrific prediction, but as we now know it erred on the side of caution. The reality of the disaster was actually much worse. Mr Packham’s letter continued:

In the face of this inferno, the perpetrators of this obscenity should have the decency to stand up and say they were wrong. Southeast Australia is the worst place in the world for bushfires, and we must not waste any time in getting down to the task of making our bush healthy and safe.

I believe that hell will freeze over before radical environmentalists in the green movement admit they are wrong in their opposition to fuel reduction in our forests. Despite the views of our scientific experts in bushfire management, governments around Australia continue to allow the views of quack scientists from those misguided ideologues to prevail. Liam Sheahan is a living example of one adversely affected by such irresponsible, misguided and discredited environmental and political quackery. He cleared 200 trees in close proximity to his house as a precaution against bushfire. For this he was prosecuted by his local council and spent more than $100,000 defending his right to protect his family and his property against the inevitable. When the inevitable happened his house was saved while others perished. Those councillors will have blood on their hands for the rest of their lives. They should issue a public apology to Mr Sheahan and provide him with full recompense for the cost of his defence against their misguided prosecution. None of them will, of course. They will go to ground and resurface on taxpayer-funded committees where they will continue to peddle their environmental quackery.

As the ashes cool, as the dead are laid to rest and the task of rebuilding lives and communities begins, we must ensure that dreadful loss of life and property is never forgotten. We must ensure that the royal commission does not become another set of carefully bound documents whose findings will eventually be gelded by bureaucratic inertia and ongoing sabotage by quack environmental scientists in the radical green movement. Before people say that could not possibly happen, let me place the following quote from Mr Phil Cheney of the CSIRO on the record. He said:

The truth was hard to find. Accordingly, it was sometimes sought in other places as I am entitled to do. Much of the evidence was coloured. Much of it was quite false. Little of it was wholly truthful. Some people were afraid that if they gave evidence they would not be given future employment. Departmental officers were, in the main, youngish men of very good character who were afraid that if they were too outspoken, their future advancement in the departments employ would be endangered.

That is not an original quote from Mr Cheney. It was written by Judge Stretton in his report of the royal commission inquiring into the 1939 bushfires—65 years ago! It was quoted by Cheney in his capacity as an expert witness to the Australian Capital Territory coronial inquiry into the 2003 bushfire crisis in the Australian Capital Territory. According to Cheney, the quote had a contemporary and decidedly unhealthy ring about it. Black Saturday has provided chilling evidence that governments in Australia are more concerned with pandering to zealous green environmentalists than they are about protecting people’s lives from the ravages of bushfires. We must ensure it never happens again. I asked by brother Rod what he regarded as the most important action we could take to prevent it ever happening again. He believes that the State needs to appoint a chief fire officer who has the authority to override all other agencies in the planning and execution of a coordinated fuel reduction plan. We can only hope. I congratulate the Hon. Mick Veitch for bringing this notice of condolence before the House.