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 Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: Mr President, members opposite would be well aware that on 12 March you gave a detailed ruling on the nature and formation of questions. The question is outside the purview of the Minister. It relates to matters under the control of the Commonwealth and therefore it should be ruled out of order.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: The Government almost on a daily basis, especially during Federal election campaigns, seems to wander across this area and blur the lines. It is up to the Minister how he answers the question.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Further to the point of order: Those of us in Australia who read the daily newspapers are aware of the dangers posed by drive-by shootings. That is why they have travel alerts to warn people—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Standing Order 64 (1) provides that questions may be put to Ministers relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected. I fail to see how matters relating to a foreign government would come under the purview of a Minister in this House. The question is out of order.

SYDNEY DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS

But, as the recent case of Justice Marcus Einfeld demonstrates, they are also subject to the same human fallibilities as we all are. The fact that Marcus Einfeld, now a convicted criminal serving a prison sentence, will continue to receive a taxpayer funded pension in excess of $200,000 a year indexed for life, indicates that the judiciary have done very well for themselves in negotiating their pay and conditions.

‘Politically correct appointments’ such as controversial NSW magistrate Pat O’Shane also serve to undermine public confidence against the justice system. We expect our police to uphold the law and protect us from criminal activity but their public humiliation by Pat O’Shane in the courts undermines public confidence in the system. People feel disempowered because such people are appointed for life and there is nothing they can do about it.

When these fallibilities are exposed in the media it begs the question as to whether judges should continue to be appointed by politicians for life or elected by voters and therefore be accountable to them. There are obviously pros and cons of both arguments.

In America most States have an ‘uncontested retention election model’. This is a democratic system where lawyers interested in seeking an appointment to the judiciary apply to a non-partisan Judicial Commission for an appointment. The commission interviews all applicants and submits three names to the State Governor. When a vacancy occurs, the Governor appoints one of these three to the Court they applied for.

After serving one year on the Bench, these newly appointed judges must be confirmed in their position by voters using an ‘uncontested retention vote’. To assist voters in their decision, lawyers conduct and evaluation survey and rate the judges for their performance such as fairness, legal analysis skills, diligence and decisiveness. The results of the survey are made public. Once retained by the voters, judges have to go through the same process every six years thereafter.

Such a system would require change to our constitution and would be resisted by civil libertarians because of the threat it would present to unaccountable left-wing members of the judiciary who deem themselves to be superior to us ordinary beings.

Bring on the debate!

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I really do not intend to make public the internal discussions that I, as chair of the management committee, have with the New South Wales Crime Commission. I also do not intend to unnecessarily give any outsiders any knowledge of the commission’s operations.

NSW CRIME COMMISSION STAFFING

What we now have is a deep seated attitudinal crises caused by misguided social philosophies of the political left. An examination of the voting patterns in public housing estates will indicate that the politics of dependency have been an outstanding success for Labor. Every election, welfare-dependent residents of these areas are reminded that ‘Liberals will cut welfare payments’. It’s enough to guarantee a voting pattern as high as 80 per cent in some areas.

This none-too-subtle mindset places welfare-dependent communities at a serious disadvantage. Labor can afford to take them for granted and give their bleeding hearts free reign to conduct social engineering experiments such as the idiotic and now discredited Radburn housing estate design. Progressive left policies in regard to law and order, justice, drugs, alcohol, parenting and teaching have led to the disempowerment of authority, parents, elders and other positive role models in our society.

The progressive left believe that a person’s rights are more important than their responsibilities towards society. They believe human behaviour can be legislated by acts of Parliament rather than influenced by Christian values. They have effectively removed the boundaries between acceptable and non-acceptable human behaviour in a law-abiding society. It’s OK to hurl abuse at Police and call them ‘Pigs’! It’s OK to scream obscenities at your teacher. It’s OK to use your welfare payments to get stoned. It’s OK to burgle houses and steal cars because you’ll only get a slap on the wrist.

But we should not make the mistake of blaming the residents of Rosemeadow for the situation in Rosemeadow. We have created the social environment that allows them to eat junk food, live on a mental diet of junk television and live according to the rules of the jungle. It has nothing to do with the houses they live in. It’s about the disempowerment of positive leaders, the lack of Christian values and the lack of substantive programs that give them hope for a better life.

Whether we consolidate low income people in public housing estates or distribute them among the wider community will make no difference to their behaviour if it is not accompanied by programs that bring about positive attitudinal change in regard to their roles and responsibilities in our society.

Shane Robertson (not his real name) has nothing. No self-respect, no money, no fame. He want for anything.

The only link these two young Australians have is their addiction to illicit drugs.

Cousins, with the support of a wealthy AFL club and a close family, is able to tackle his addiction at an exclusive drug rehabilitation centre in the United States.

No such safety net exists for Robertson. He has robbed his family, lost his friends and lives on the street. His rehabilitation includes a trek across the Kokoda Trail with a group from Father Chris Riley’s Youth Off The Streets.

The debate on illicit drugs ranges between zero tolerance, harm minimisation and decriminilisation.

A major impediment in finding a solution to the drug problem is the opportunity for quick profits on a massive scale. Drug dealers who have never had a decent job are flush with cash and able to cruise the streets in late model BMWs. The insidious influence of their evil trade reaches into all our social, sporting, commercial and political institutions.

The reasons people take drugs are as complex as human nature itself. Drugs offer a temporary escape from the daily misery of a poverty stricken environment for many. Peer pressure is an important factor in our schools. For others from more privileged backgrounds it is a cool way to get a buzz.

Nobody is immune from the insidious influences of the drug trade.

Solutions to the problem are just as complex. Early intervention, education, effective policing, drug courts, injecting rooms and rehabilitation are all part of the debate in arguing the pros and cons of zero tolerance, harm minimization or decriminalization.

There is no argument that we should do our utmost to discourage the use of drugs and to support those who have become addicted to them.

On the other hand there is a strong argument for those who deal in drugs to be treated as harshly as we would treat a murderer or a rapist. Drug pushers rob children of their innocence, destroy family relationships and imperil local communities. There should be no greater crime than the destruction of a young persons mind through drug addiction.

Drug pushers are a cancer in our society. It matters not whether it is the sale of a few tablets at a nightclub or the distribution of heroin on the street. It all has the same outcome – the destruction of our greatest resource – the mind of a young Australian.

The challenge for our political leaders is to develop and implement a zero tolerance policy for drug pushers with harsh punishments for those who indulge themselves in the trade.