With est. 62 per cent of all elected members of the 57th NSW Parliament being men, I suppose it should come as no surprise that inebriated bullies and sexual predators roam its halls at will

 

NSW Parliament House, Macquarie Street, Sydney
IMAGE: Sydney Living Museums

And New South Wales politicians wonder why they are held in such low repute.......

“Around half of incidents of harmful behaviour occurred at NSW Parliament House itself, with the remainder occurring across electorate offices, on work-related travel, at work related social functions and online. Insights from qualitative research showed that alcohol was considered to be a contributory, though not a causal, factor in some of the incidents, particularly of sexual harassment. The majority of participants in the Review identified the unequal distribution of power as a key driving factor both in problematic cultural dynamics and in the patterns of harmful behaviours. This was supported by the survey findings, which identified that Members of Parliament were responsible for a disproportionate number of incidents of harmful behaviour.”

[Elizabeth Broderick & Co, “Leading for Change Independent Review of Bullying, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct in NSW Parliamentary Workplaces 2022”]

NSW Parliament, Elizabeth Broderick & Co, Leading for Change Independent Review of Bullying, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct in NSW Parliamentary Workplaces 2022, excerpts, 12 August 2022:

The Review’s findings (P.5)

EB&Co. is grateful to everyone who contributed to this Review. Their passion for serving the community of NSW; their candour about their experiences; and their suggestions for positive change have enriched the Review’s work and laid a foundation for meaningful reform.

Key themes that emerged across the Review include:

• many people who participated in this Review spoke very positively about their workplace and felt that, where issues of harmful behaviour arose, they were addressed swiftly and appropriately.

Nevertheless, other findings included:

• Bullying is a significant issue across Parliamentary workplaces in NSW. It is systemic and multi-directional, and those working in Parliamentary workplaces have low confidence in structural or cultural protections to prevent bullying or to stop it once it is occurring.

• Sexual harassment and everyday sexism occur at unacceptable rates, with prevalence of experiences particularly high for women, people who identified as having a diverse sexuality and younger people (24-35 years old).²

• Both women and men reported experiences of actual or attempted sexual assault, and prevalence was highest among people who identified as having a diverse sexuality.

• The impact of these behaviours is heightened for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and for people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

• Some offices are described as “well-known hotspots”,  characterised by high rates of staff turnover related to harmful behaviours.

• The human cost of these behaviours is high. Although resilient and committed to their roles, many Review participants described the impact of these behaviours on their mental health, their wellbeing, their relationships, and their career as ‘devastating’.

• The organisational cost is similarly high, with Parliamentary workplaces losing smart, talented and passionate individuals due to these behaviours.

• Key drivers of harmful behaviours include: the unequal distribution of power between parliamentarians and staff; the underrepresentation of women and diverse cohorts in formal decision-making roles; the unequal distribution of accountability and inconsistent behavioural expectations; and the highly pressured and political nature of the working environment. Other factors – such as long working hours, staffing conditions of engagement that render staff on tenuous contractual arrangements, and access to and consumption of alcohol in NSW Parliamentary workplaces– compound these drivers.

• Many people were not aware of the policy framework and those who were aware had limited confidence in the ability of current policies to either prevent or respond meaningfully to harmful behaviours.

• Knowledge of, and trust in, the reporting arrangements is similarly low, with particular concern relating to confidentiality and a perceived high risk of retribution or negative career impacts, for those who report harmful behaviours.

• Low reporting rates that result from this lack of trust have created a vacuum in which some individuals and offices are unaware of the prevalence of these behaviours, whilst others have remained in denial about the prevalence and impact of these behaviours.

2 The term ‘people who identified as having a diverse sexuality’ refers to people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, asexual or aromantic, undecided or other.

Lived experience of Parliamentary workplaces: culture, inclusion and harmful behaviours (PP. 48-51)

Members of NSW Parliament were more likely (18%) to indicate that they have heard about or witnessed sexual assault when compared with Ministerial Staff (4%) and Departmental Staff (3%).

During one on one interviews, EB&Co. heard from a number of people who had been sexually assaulted by MPs and/or staff working for MPs, Special Office Holders or Ministers. EB&Co. has chosen not to quote from those interviews in this report given the sensitivities of what they endured and that their experiences were ones of considerable trauma. Of those who told EB&Co. during interviews that they reported the incidents, none were provided with any meaningful support or validation of their experiences. All those who shared stories of sexual assault with the Review Team via an interview were women who had been sexually assaulted by men. This may indicate that there are additional barriers for men, especially gay and bisexual men, and for trans and gender diverse people, to share their experiences.

Location

It is apparent from the qualitative and quantitative data that these harmful behaviours occur in a wide range of locations, including:

• in Parliament House

• in electorate offices

• in work-related community settings (such as community events)

• in work-related travel locations (eg when staff and MPs are staying in the city during sitting weeks, or during Committee visits to rural and regional areas) and

• in private settings (e.g., at private residences following work functions).

The most frequent site was electorate offices, with a common thread being the unique challenges of working in an electorate office.

I wouldn’t be an employee in an electorate office for anything.

…….

When asked about attitudes towards alcohol consumption:

• Those working as Members of NSW Parliament were more likely to agree that ‘drinking alcohol during work hours is seen as acceptable’ (68%) when compared with all other roles (35%)

• Those working in NSW Parliamentary workplaces for more than three years were more likely to agree that ‘drinking alcohol during work hours is seen as acceptable’ (42%) when compared to those working three years or under (28%)…...

When asked about excess consumption of alcohol:

Members of NSW Parliament (38%), Members’ staff

or Special Office Holders’ staff (28%) and Ministerial

Staff (30%) were all more likely to agree that ‘excessive

drinking is common amongst people working in NSW

Parliamentary workplaces’ when compared with

Departmental Staff (8%)…..

BACKGROUND 

Terms of Reference for Broderick Review at

https://elizabethbroderick.com.au/wp-content/uploads/EBCo001_TermsOfReference_V2.0_20Oct21.pdf

Images for the 2022 Photo Album

Snapshot of former Australian prime minister & Liberal MP for Cook (far right) with his former deputy prime minister & Nationals MP for New England Barnaby Joyce (far left) belatedly swearing the Oath of Allegiance in the House of Representatives on Monday, 1 August 2022. IMAGE: Snapshot of House of Representatives video segment.

Liberal MP For Cook, Scott Morrison, takes his seat on the backbench in the House of Representatives on Monday 1 August 2022. IMAGES Mike Bowers/The Guardian

Days later.....

Sleeping on the job?
IMAGE: via @BronwynHill1

Tweet of the Month

I don’t appreciate being interrupted while speaking on serious risks of repeated covid infections.

I particularly don’t appreciate being interrupted by shouting LNP MPs who refuse to wear masks.

We all have a duty to look after each other. Here & everywhere.

Put your mask on! pic.twitter.com/u5evZ0k4Oi

— Dr Monique Ryan MP (@Mon4Kooyong) August 1, 2022

NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption released its Report On Investigation Into Pork Barrelling In NSW

 

“The former NSW premier, Gladys Berejiklian, was reported in 2020 as saying that pork barrelling was “not an illegal practice”. The former prime minister of Australia, Scott Morrison, was recently reported as saying, in relation to any federal integrity commission that may be established, that such a body should focus on identifying criminal behaviour rather than subjective questions such as whether spending in respect of marginal seats amounts to pork barrelling. Mr Morrison added, “No one is suggesting anyone has broken any laws, are they?”.

The discussion below answers such suggestions with a clear statement: pork barrelling can indeed amount to a breach of the law, including the criminal law, and in some circumstances, it can also constitute serious corrupt conduct under the ICAC Act.” [NSW ICAC Report On Investigation Into Pork Barrelling In NSW, August 2022]

NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), media release, 1 August 2022:

ICAC finds pork barrelling could be corrupt, recommends grant funding guidelines be subject to statutory regulation

The NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has found that pork barrelling could constitute corrupt conduct in certain circumstances, while recommending that any whole–of–government guidelines concerning grants funding be issued pursuant to a statutory regulation.

The Commission released its Report on investigation into pork barrelling in NSW (Operation Jersey), today, in which it defines pork barrelling as “the allocation of public funds and resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes”. In the report, the Commission finds that while individual matters should always be assessed on a case-by-case basis, a minister, for example, may engage in corrupt conduct involving pork barrelling, within the meaning of section 8 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, if the minister:

• influences a public servant to exercise decision-making powers vested in the public servant, or to fulfil an official function, such as providing an assessment of the merits of grants, in a dishonest or partial way

• applies downward pressure to influence a public servant to exercise decision-making powers vested in the public servant, or to fulfil an official function, such as providing an assessment of the merits of grants, in a manner which knowingly involves the public servant in a breach of public trust

• conducts a merit-based grants scheme in such a way as to dishonestly favour political and private advantage over merit, undermining public confidence in public administration, and benefiting political donors and/or family members

• deliberately exercises a power to approve grants in a manner that favours family members, party donors or party interests in electorates, contrary to the guidelines of a grant program which state that the grants are to be made on merit according to criteria

• exercises a power to make grants in favour of marginal electorates, when this is contrary to the purpose for which the power was given.

The report notes that those who exercise public or official powers in a manner inconsistent with the public purpose for which the powers were conferred betray public trust and so misconduct themselves. The Commission also finds that pork barrelling could satisfy section 9 of the ICAC Act. It may do so, for example, by conduct amounting to a substantial breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, or the Members’ Code of Conduct, or conduct constituting or involving the common law offence of misconduct in public office.

The Commission notes that in issuing this report, it intends to make it clear that ministers and their advisers “do not have an unfettered discretion to distribute public funds. The exercise of ministerial discretion is subject to the rule of law, which ensures that it must accord with public trust and accountability principles.”

Altogether, the Commission makes 21 recommendations to help prevent or better regulate pork barrelling. These also include that:

• the Government Sector Finance Act 2018 be amended to mirror section 71 of the Commonwealth Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 by including obligations that a minister must not approve expenditure of money unless satisfied that the expenditure would be an efficient, effective, economical and ethical use of the money and that the expenditure represents value for money

• the grant funding framework, or equivalent requirements, apply to the local government sector. This should include situations where local councils are both grantees and grantors

• clause 6 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct be amended to read, “A Minister, in the exercise or performance of their official functions, must not act dishonestly, must act in the public interest, and must not act improperly for their private benefit or for the private benefit of any other person”.

The Commission’s report follows an investigation it commenced in May 2020 into the NSW Government’s Stronger Community’s Fund. Following an inquiry by the NSW Legislative Council’s Public Accountability Committee, a performance audit by the NSW Auditor-General, an assessment by the State Archives and Records Authority and a review into grants administration in NSW (led by the Department of Premier and Cabinet in partnership with the NSW Productivity Commissioner), the Commission revised its investigation scope. It determined that it was in the public interest to examine and report on the circumstances where, it had concluded, pork barrelling could involve serious breaches of public trust and conduct that could amount to corrupt conduct.

To assist its investigation, the Commission engaged a number of experts to prepare papers and participate in a public forum held on 3 June 2022. The report represents the view of the Commission but draws on the analysis of these experts. The report is available on the Commission’s website.

Download full report

_____ENDS_____

In which it is revealed just how much wiggle room there is left to the Perrottet Government that would allow it to proceed with business-as-usual pork barrelling if it continues to support Recommendation 2 in the April 2022 Review of grants administration in NSW: Final Report. As well as its lukewarm "in principal" support for the creation of law to hold members of parliament accountable.....

Excerpts from NSW ICAC Report On Investigation Into Pork Barrelling In NSW, August 2022 which include parts of the transcript of the NSW ICAC Forum on Pork Barrelling held 3 June 2022:

At Page 6:

Also in 2020, the NSW Auditor-General announced a performance audit of the SCF, and the Public Accountability Committee (PAC) of the NSW Legislative Council established an inquiry into NSW grant programs (including the SCF). The reports issued by the Auditor-General (in February 2022) and the PAC (in March 2021 and February 2022) made numerous observations about the management of the SCF, including adverse findings. The State Archives and Records Authority (SARA) also released a report in January 2021, dealing with recordkeeping aspects of the SCF.

In November 2021, Premier the Hon Dominic Perrottet MP announced a review of grants administration in NSW. Given the existing findings and review processes concerning the SCF, the Commission decided that it was not in the public interest to continue investigative action that could have led to adverse findings against any individual. Consequently, the scope of the Commission’s investigation was revised to focus on the practice of pork barrelling more broadly and, in particular, whether it could allow, encourage or cause corrupt conduct (chapter 1).

At Page 78:

Now, in November 2021 the new Premier Dominic Perrottet stated that “Taxpayers expect the distribution of public funds will be fair and I share that expectation,” he said. He ordered a review of how grants should be administered and this was a very good sign that something might actually be done to prevent the recurrence of such abuses in the spending of public money. Now, that report was published quite recently in April. Some of its recommendations are very good, such as the creation of a new guide on grants management to better ensure documentation and critically transparency.

So that’s the first step that needs to be taken. In my view I don’t think it goes far enough. First, the obligations on ministers and their staff in relation to grants need to be imposed by law, not just in a premier’s memorandum and was proposed in that report. And this is because other accountability provisions in codes of conduct and statutes such as the ICAC Act turn on whether there has been breach of a law, not a premier’s memorandum, a law. So for example if a minister has behaved in a partial manner and his or her behaviour would cause a reasonable person to believe that it would bring the integrity of the office or parliament itself into serious disrepute, a finding of corrupt conduct can be made by ICAC if the minister’s acts also constitute breach of a law, not a premier’s memorandum, a law. [my yellow highlighting]

Similarly, clause 5 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct requires a minister not to direct or request a public service agency to act contrary to a law. Burying grants rules in a memorandum rather than in a law avoids consequences for ministers if they breach those rules or if they instruct others to do so. Another problem is the failure to address the issue of grants being made for the advantage of a political party including when they are election promises. Now, at the Commonwealth level the use of ad hoc noncompetitive grants to give effect to election promises has resulted in rules about merit and proper assessments being tossed out the window.

Any new state grant rules should explicitly provide that grants must only be allocated in the public interest and not predominantly for party political purposes. New grants rules should also contain express provisions to prevent avoidance and to ensure that election promises must still be subject to proper scrutiny and merit assessment.

At Page 128:

The second thing is that I think that we’ve got to recognise that at a Commonwealth level those statutory or the rules that have the force of law, you know, are crucial. I think we should remember that in the sports rorts affair, the main recommendation of the Australian National Audit Office there in relation to that was to bring those grants within those guidelines, and ministerial decision-making about grants within those guidelines. It was recommendation 4 and the government accepted it on the spot. So it’s a bit like saying, yep, actually we’re a bit scared now but we’re going to accept that recommendation. So actually to say that nothing was done is not accurate because, in fact, the system was pushed in the right direction. But I think the key problem is those mechanisms for transparency around when ministers decide to deviate from their official advice, making those mechanisms real so that there’s a real deterrent to poor or partisan decision making. Because we have the problem of corruption in plain sight. There’s plenty of people, I suspect that John Barilaro might have been one of them, who would say, “Yeah, we’ll just do it openly. We’ll just say, yeah, these are the reasons,” and, you know, and dare anybody to tell us that this is not in the public interest. So we’ve actually got, that’s got to work in a way that actually can be a realistic disincentive to make poor decisions while not stopping the ability to make good decisions. That’s quite a complex thing to get right at the end of the day in politics, I think.

The third thing is that the – and I would absolutely agree with what Joe just said, I think that goes to the problems maybe in the report and the problems with the codes of conduct at the moment, is this focus on public versus private. They have to more actively and explicitly deal with what we’re talking about here, that it’s not a contest between public duty and private personal gain, that it’s something more complicated than that and that the guidance on that in codes of conduct that are then properly enforced is as crucial as anything else, because it’s one of the few ways that we’ve got to actually support good decision-making culture amongst politicians and actually influence their understanding of what they’re doing. Otherwise it just turns into Whac-A-Mole, you know, what they’re currently getting away with over here they will just try and get away with over there because they believe that they’re doing the right thing. We’ve got to create a framework where it’s more clearly understood why this is not the right thing. So that’s number three. Number four is, I would go back to the electoral bribery offence and actually recast the electoral bribery offences to make it clear that pork barrelling can be electoral bribery, which is currently not, it’s currently written in the other direction so that it’s actually a clear warning in criminal law where it needs to be. You don’t need to be an expert in public trust and misconduct in public office to say giving people money to influence how they vote, or how that immediate community votes, is actually problematic in criminal law directly.

At Page 173:

Allegations of pork-barrelling have also occurred at the State level. In recent times, they have been directed at sports grants, arts grants and bushfire relief funds, amongst other funding programs.

In November 2020, the then Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, admitted that the payment of grants to local councils from the Stronger Communities Fund in the period prior to the previous election amounted to pork-barrelling, but claimed it was ‘not an illegal practice’. The Premier also later justified ‘throwing money at seats to keep them’, arguing that this was part of ‘democracy’. In response to questions about why grants were made contrary to the advice of public servants she observed that Departments were not expert at ‘winning byelections’.

It seems, however, politicians are not expert at it either and that pork-barrelling is not terribly effective, despite the strong, but misguided, belief of politicians that they can use public money to buy electoral success.

Once more NSW residents bring the issue of the Koala Extinction Crisis before state parliament......

 

Via @talkingkoala

A message from the New South Wales Legislative Assembly

9 August 2022

The ePetition "End Public Native Forest Logging" has closed for signatures and has been presented in the Legislative Assembly by Mrs Shelley Hancock.

The ePetition text in full is:

To the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly,

Public native forest logging is pushing iconic species like the koala, swift parrot and greater glider towards extinction.

The 2019/20 Black Summer bushfires burnt over 5 million hectares of forest and have left them more vulnerable to the impacts of logging. The Natural Resources Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency have recommended that in bushfire affected areas logging should cease entirely or face tighter restrictions, as current logging practices may cause irreversible damage to ecosystems and wildlife.

Logging of public native forests is tax-payer subsidised. Forestry Corporation’s Hardwood Division has been operating at a significant loss for the past decade. In 2020/21 it ran at a loss of $20 million, with predictions that it will face losses of $15 million until 2024.

Reports also show our state forests can generate far more income through their protection than from logging, through recreation, tourism and carbon abatement.

The Western Australian and Victorian Governments have already committed to ending this industry and have developed transition plans to support affected workers and businesses.

The petitioners ask the Legislative Assembly to:

1. Develop a plan to transition the native forestry industry to 100% sustainable plantations by 2024.

2. In the interim, place a moratorium on public native forest logging until the regulatory framework reflects the recommendations of the leaked NRC report.

3. Immediately protect high-conservation value forests through gazettal in the National Parks estate.

4. Ban use of native forest materials as biomass fuel.

The ePetition received 21046 signatures and has been sent to the NSW Government for a response.

You will receive an email with a link to the response when it is received.

As the ePetition received more than 20,000 signatures, it will also be debated in the Legislative Assembly at 4pm on 15/09/2022.

You can watch the debate on the webcast at https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/pages/la-webcast-page.aspx

Ms. Taneska Frank’s e-petition was signed by a total of 21,046 NSW residents by the end of the petition period on 2 August 2022.

Via @talkingkoala

New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Select Committee on the Response to Major Flooding across New South Wales in 2022. Report no. 1 (9 August 2022).

In February-March 2022 and again in April the seven local government areas in the Northern Rivers region experienced heavy rainfall events, with some local rainfall exceeding historical records that had been kept since the late 1800s. These rainfall events were exacerbated by at least one large East-Coast Low stormfront.

The flood which occurred while often expected, was at times unpredictable in its behaviour, record breaking in its spread, highly destructive and, in the case of Lismore City local government area calamitous.

The 100 kilometre wide coastal zone of New South Wales experienced natural disaster on a scale that would have been hard to imagine before climate change began to widen our experience.

Post-flooding, a state parliamentary select committee was established to inquire into and report on the response to major flooding across New South Wales in 2022. Terms of reference were referred to the committee by the NSW Legislative Council on 23 March 2022 and Report No.1 was published on 9 August 2022.

Set out below is the full report in scrollable form.

However, right now I would note eight of the twenty-one findings of the report. I am sure that many Northern Rivers residents will recognise concerns which local communities have raised repeatedly across the years in times of flood.

Especially once state government decided emergency service headquarters, coordination functions and staff/volunteer numbers were to be either downsized or moved further south and away from north-east New South Wales.

Finding 1

That the NSW State Emergency Service and Resilience NSW failed as lead agencies to provide adequate leadership and effective coordination during the major flooding of February-March 2022.

Finding 2

That NSW Government agencies lacked coordination, created confusion and responded poorly in the February-March 2022 floods, resulting in the North Coast community being let down in their greatest time of need.

Finding 3

That demarcation disputes and a lack of integration between NSW Government agencies slowed the roll-out of support and assistance to those affected by the February-March 2022 floods.

Finding 4

That NSW Government agencies and the Bureau of Meteorology were not prepared for, nor did they comprehend the scale of the February-March 2022 floods, and some agencies were criticised for treating it as a nine to five business operation.

Finding 5

That the centralisation of the NSW State Emergency Service and a shortage of volunteers significantly hindered the ability of the agency to lead the response to the major flooding of February-March 2022.

.......

Finding 7

That the NSW State Emergency Service failed in its public communication of flood warnings and evacuation information during the February-March 2022 floods, by issuing out of date, inaccurate and confusing messages.

Finding 8

That NSW Government agencies and telecommunications providers failed to ensure that communities affected by the February-March 2022 floods had adequate emergency communications capabilities.

Finding 9

That, notwithstanding the role of the NSW State Emergency Service to perform rescues, individual members of the community had no other option but to ignore government advice and save lives, which was only possible due to local and historical knowledge and local communication, given information from the NSW State Emergency Service and the Bureau of Meteorology was incorrect and out of date.

NSW Parliament, Legislative Council, Inquiry Report No 1 - Response to Major Flooding Across New South Wale... by clarencegirl on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/586199870/NSW-Parliament-Legislative-Council-Inquiry-Report-No-1-Response-to-Major-Flooding-Across-New-South-Wales-in-2022

Chair's Foreword

Major flooding in NSW in February-March 2022 was a catastrophic disaster, causing widespread devastation and damage – particularly in the Northern Rivers and Hawkesbury regions. Tragically, lives were lost, thousands of homes were damaged or destroyed, and significant local infrastructure was damaged.

Five months later, families are homeless with some still living in tents, businesses are still waiting for long-promised assistance, and there are still unresolved policy matters involving buy-backs and land swaps – to name just a few of the myriad remaining pressing problems.

This inquiry was set up to consider the NSW Government's preparedness, coordination, and response to the flooding events. While this report outlines many of the failures of the NSW Government, it also seeks to ensure that the Government is better prepared and coordinated when the next natural disaster of this nature inevitably occurs.

A considerable focus of this inquiry was on the performance of the NSW State Emergency Service (SES), as the leading agency for emergency response, and Resilience NSW as the leading agency in recovery.

Ultimately, the committee found that these two organisations failed to provide leadership and effective coordination in the community’s greatest time of need. Demarcation disputes and a lack of integration slowed the roll-out of support and assistance to flood-affected communities.

The State Government’s failure to implement a streamlined grants process also meant that applicants were repeatedly interviewed, and had to re-live their experiences, leading to further frustration and trauma as part of the support process.

With respect to the NSW SES, it is clear that the centralisation of this organisation, and a shortage of volunteers, significantly hindered the ability of the agency to lead the emergency response. In many cases, flood warnings and evacuation information were out of date, inaccurate and confusing. Further still, many community members felt that they had no choice but to conduct their own rescues in dangerous conditions as many calls for assistance to 000 and the NSW SES went unanswered.

Put simply, the community was forced to save themselves; neighbour saving neighbour. While this is an admirable testament to these communities, it is both unreasonable and undesirable as a matter of public policy. For these reasons, the NSW Government should consider restructuring the SES to ensure that it better harnesses local knowledge and networks, coordinates more closely with other rescue agencies, and increases resources, including by driving volunteer recruitment.

Resilience NSW demonstrated some of the biggest failures of the NSW Government's response to the floods. Witnesses repeatedly expressed frustration and were confused about the role of Resilience NSW, particularly in the recovery phase following the floods. The committee found that the NSW Government failed to comprehend the scale of the floods and treated the disaster response as a “nine to five” business operation – when it was one of the greatest natural disasters in generations.

The agency failed to engage or coordinate with community groups leading flood recovery efforts in their communities. This was despite Resilience NSW having been established almost two years ago.

Accordingly, the NSW Government must consider the viability of Resilience NSW unless it can ensure that the agency's role is clear after reviewing policies, objectives, and funding; and that the organisation and its policies are apt to actually meet community disaster response needs.

It is this chair’s view that the NSW Government should abolish Resilience NSW.

Our focus is now on the enormous task of clean-up, restoration and reconstruction. Many flood affected individuals, families and businesses still need assistance. The NSW Government must work with much greater urgency to secure temporary housing options as many continue to live in tents and cars near their homes.

The committee also calls on the government to finalise its long term housing options and ensure that it considers investing in supporting relocations, land swaps, and providing fair compensation for landowners who wish to relocate from severely flood-impacted areas.The committee also made practical recommendations such as providing satellite phones and satellite terminals to community hubs in flood-prone areas.

The committee has noted evidence that – following the appointment of NSW Police Force Deputy Commissioner, Mal Lanyon, to the role of Northern NSW Recovery Coordinator – recovery efforts significantly improved, and that he provided much-needed leadership. The Committee has accordingly recommended a senior police officer with 'combat' experience should lead recovery efforts in future natural disasters as a matter of policy.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the flood-affected communities and individuals who took the time to share their stories with us. It is the committee’s wish that this report will help to improve the NSW Government's response to future natural disasters to minimise adverse effects on local communities.

In total, the committee made 21 findings and 37 recommendations. The committee received almost 90 submissions and almost 120 responses to its online questionnaire. It held six public hearings. This included ones in Ballina; Lismore; Murwillumbah; Windsor; and two at Parliament House.

Significantly, the Committee held four public forums. We hope they were regarded as valuable by flood-stricken communities, given that they allowed 75 flood-affected individuals to speak directly under parliamentary privilege to the committee.

Furthermore, I wish to acknowledge the political leaders – at all three levels of government – who put aside their differences to support their communities. They all cooperated with this inquiry, providing forthright and honest views. This was appreciated.

Finally, I would like to thank my committee colleagues for their collaboration, and the secretariat — particularly Tina Higgins, Shaza Barbar, Stephen Fujiwara and Andrew Ratchford, as well as Hansard staff for their professional assistance on this important Inquiry.

The Hon Walt Secord MLC

Committee Chair