Minister for Police and Counter-Terrorism

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (17:03:40):

I move:

(1)That this House notes with concern that on 23 August 2023 in answer to question on notice No. 989 regarding NSW Police Force civil litigation payments asked by the Hon. Rod Roberts, MLC, the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism and Minister for the Hunter, the Hon. Yasmin Catley, MP, provided an answer that was materially and factually incorrect.

(2)That this House notes that:

(a)the question by the Hon. Rod Roberts asked, "Can the Minister advise what is the total monetary value of civil litigation payments made by the NSW Police Force for the 2022-2023 financial year?";

(b)the answer provided by the Minister stated, "As at 8 August 2023, the total amount paid for claims commenced in the 2022-2023 financial year was $9,054,086.03.";

(c)the question never requested claims commenced but the total monetary value for that financial year; and

(d)subsequent to the Hon. Rod Roberts contribution in the take note of answers debate on 13 September 2023 regarding the answer provided, Minister Catley informed the member that the figure requested in the original question is in excess of $37 million.

(3)That this House expresses concern about the inaccuracy contained in the original answer provided by Minister Catley.

(4)That this House further notes that:

(a)similar concerns were debated by the House on 2 August 2023 on a private member's motion moved by the Hon. Rod Roberts relating to the accuracy of answers provided in the Legislative Council by Ministers; and

(b)the motion was agreed to unanimously.

(5)That this House once again takes the opportunity to remind all Ministers of their responsibilities and the importance of providing factually correct answers to questions so as to not mislead the House with answers provided.

I do not wish to sound like a broken record. I acknowledge that we had a very similar debate on 2 August, but that debate and the unanimous carrying of that motion on that day fell on deaf ears as far as some Ministers of this Government are concerned. So here we are again. What I am talking about today is an answer that I was given by police Minister Yasmin Catley to a question on notice. This is not a question without notice. This is a question on notice for which the Minister had 21 days to reply and, in fact, she used the full 21 days. It was not a trick. It was not a gotcha moment. What we have here is an egregious error. The question I asked required a detailed answer, and I got details, but the details were wrong. This was not an answer that I did not like. This was not an answer that was short, curt, disrespectful or anything like that. This was a detailed answer provided by the Minister that was absolutely incorrect. It was factually and materially wrong. And to use a phrase that we have heard resurrected around this Chamber over the last couple of weeks, it was not within a bull's roar of what the answer should have been.

I ventilated this in a take-note debate the other day, and I do not wish to go over that ground, because it is clearly on the record. This is not a one-off, as far as this Minister is concerned. I believe Ms Sue Higginson will make a contribution to this debate. I will not steal her thunder, but she will tell a very similar tale. So this is not a one-off. This is a big mistake. How do I know that they were wrong? Because I have asked this same question for the last four years in a row, and every time I have asked it, previous police Ministers had no problem answering it. As I said the other day, David Elliott had no problem. Even Paul "Inspector Clouseau" Toole was able to answer it. So it certainly was not difficult. How do I know that the answer is wrong? I know we are not allowed to use props, so I will just give this email a quick wave, but it is an email from the police Minister with the new, correct answer.

Hansard

There is clearly an admission that the answer we were given was wrong. It was only rectified because last week in this House I carried on and blew up like a second-hand lawnmower. Only then did we finally get the answer that this House deserves. I may have asked the question, but the answer comes to this whole House. It goes in and is a record for the whole Parliament. If we listen to the media, there appears to be some issues in the Minister's office. I read a report on the weekend that there has been a recent change to her chief of staff, and the same article stated that the Minister had only three staff. That is pretty poor if that is the case, but that is not my problem. It is not a problem for this House either. The Westminster system states that Ministers are ultimately responsible for what happens in their departments. I know the Minister does not write these answers, but she signs off on them. She is responsible for them and she needs to pay closer attention to what is happening in her department.

Hansard

As I said, I ventilated this quite strongly last week. It is all on record. The figure in the answer provided by the Minister was around the $9 million mark. The subsequent apology and email from the Minister now puts the figure at $37 million. If we check for last week, we will see that I said the answer should be in the high 30 millions. It is not a matter of me being correct. It is a matter of me doing my research and knowing, and that is what the Minister should do as well. I look forward to contributions from other members. I have noted during proceedings today that the Hon. Susan Carter and the Hon. Sam Farraway have issues. As I said, Ms Sue Higginson is going to talk to that as well, and I look forward to those contributions.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales, and Minister for Western New South Wales) (17:08:28):

On behalf of the Government I say at the outset that we will not oppose the motion from the Hon. Rod Roberts, but I will outline our position. On 2 August 2023 the Hon. Rod Roberts asked a question on notice—No. 989—through me to the police Minister, who I represent in this place. The question, amongst other questions, was: Can the Minister advise, what is the total monetary value of civil litigation payments made by the NSW Police Force for the 2022-2023 financial year? An answer was provided to that question on 23 August 2023, which advised that, as of 8 August 2023, the total amount paid for claims commenced in the 2022-23 financial year was $9,054,086.03.

I understand that the Hon. Rod Roberts subsequently queried that figure with the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism and that the Minister sought advice from the NSW Police Force. I am also advised that the Minister verbally briefed the Hon. Rod Roberts on Thursday 14 September 2023 and that, subsequent to that briefing, on 15 September the Minister's office advised the Hon. Rod Roberts in writing that the total value of civil litigation payments made in 2022-23 for claims initiated in any year was $37,757,000.

The variation in the figures can be attributed to the NSW Police Force's interpretation of the question that the member asked, which included the total amounts paid for claims initiated in the 2022-23 financial year rather than the total amount paid out in the 2022-23 financial year regardless of when the claim was initiated. Legal proceedings relating to civil claims involving the NSW Police Force can be complex. It is not uncommon for civil matters to not be settled in the year that they are initiated.

As the House has previously been advised, payments cover civil claims brought against the NSW Police Force by way of settlement of claim or letter of demand for various actions. At no point did the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism mislead the Parliament. She instead relied on the NSW Police Force's interpretation of the question. The honourable member now has both sets of figures. I trust that he is satisfied with the detail that has been provided.

The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (17:11:27):

I speak on behalf of the Opposition to support the Hon. Rod Roberts' motion regarding the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism's response to question on notice No. 989. I borrow a quote from an unknown source, which says:

Raise your hand, if like me, you have had enough unsolicited advice about what should be done with any lemons life may or may not give you.

I am serious; the Minister's answer to the question on notice was basically to "suck lemons". It was not a good response to a serious question, just like other responses provided by Ministers to questions on notice. It is not the first time the Hon. Rod Roberts has raised this concern, but let us hope it is the last time. The prospect of the Hon. Rod Roberts getting up about this a third time sends shivers down my spine. It is not a day that I look forward to. During the debate on 2 August, which has already been mentioned, several members of the House raised concerns about the accuracy of answers provided. We accept that Ministers must try to ensure that they give as accurate answers as possible and not mislead the House. I draw to the attention of the House paragraph (5) of the Hon. Rod Roberts' motion. It states:

That this House once again takes the opportunity to remind all Ministers of their responsibilities and the importance of providing factually correct answers to questions so as to not mislead the House with answers provided.

My own experience with asking questions on notice has been less than thrilling. I thought it was just me; I am surprised that other members have had the same experience. Why speak to a motion if you cannot put your own personal mark on it? I highlight one example, but it is not the only question I have asked to which I have either been dismissed or given a motherhood statement at best, or given a smart alec response at worst. I note the debate earlier and share the Hon. Sam Farraway's pain. It is an unnecessary pain.

Time expired.

On 19 July I asked questions on notice Nos 910, 911, 912 and 913 to several Ministers, as the nature of my question crossed over different portfolios. I referred to Operation Amarok III, in which a police operation took place over four days, resulting in the arrest of over 600 domestic violence offenders. I say at the outset that I applaud the work of the police in performing their duties during this operation to address the scourge of domestic violence in New South Wales and ensure that offenders are apprehended and able to attend court so that justice can take place. Unlike with the Hon. Rod Roberts' question, the police Minister answered mine; however, other Ministers were not so forthcoming, particularly the Attorney General, the Minister for Corrections and the Minister for Women. I thought that with a police operation there would be a coordinated response— []

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (17:14:55):

I speak on behalf of The Greens in support of the motion regarding answers provided by the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism to questions on notice. The Greens have faced the exact same issue with the Minister. In July my office submitted a question on notice that said:

Can the Minister advise, what is the total amount NSW Police spent on civil claims against it in the 2022-2023 financial year, including any legal fees?

It is a straightforward question. The Minister's answer was:

As at 14 July 2023, the total amount paid in the 2022-2023 financial year was $7,222,957.

The Minister has since informed the Hon. Rod Roberts that the figure is in the order of $37 million. The Minister has either misled the Hon. Rod Roberts—which I now understand to be the case—misled me in her response to a similar question or some $30-odd million worth of claims took place in an extremely short period of time. I also asked the Minister at the time:

How many civil claims have been made against NSW Police in the 2022-2023 financial year? Of these, how many were successful?

The Minister's response was that 461 claims were made and that "payments cover civil claims brought against the NSW Police Force by way of statement of claim or letter of demand for various tortious actions". The Minister did not answer the question on how many claims were successful. I asked the same question for the previous year, to which the Minister supplied the same response. Somehow, the number of civil claims made against the NSW Police Force was the exact same in both of those years. It is curious that those numbers were the same at 461.

It appears that there is a problem. The Minister has failed to take questions on notice seriously and provide answers with adequate transparency. The Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism appears to be unwilling or unable to deliver in a ministry that requires the highest level of transparency and accountability. Vulnerable people are dying at the hand of the NSW Police Force. We have got serious issues with a closed circuit. We are looking for transparency and accountability. When members ask the Minister questions on notice, they expect accurate answers. If the Minister or her office is struggling with some kind of difficulty, they should tell us. They should disclose that. They should do something that is honest and accurate, because questions on notice are a fundamental function of the accurate transferral of information from Ministers of the Crown to the public at large.

The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY (17:18:02):

I support the Hon. Rod Roberts' motion. As he alluded to in his contribution, my motion earlier had a common theme with his. It was not exactly the same, but there is a common theme. Whilst I have not had a lot of dealings with the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, I have had a lot of dealings with the Minister for Regional Transport and Roads through questions on notice. The House passed an order for papers that will produce hundreds of draft responses that I believe that Minister changed and did not supply accurate operational information.

I go so far as to say that there are inaccuracies in questions on notice. As a former Minister, I understand how questions on notice work. Current Ministers are not taking them seriously. Ministers should read every single question on notice that they sign. There were often times where my colleagues and I would read and challenge what a department said when providing a figure. We knew that our signature needed to go on an answer to a question on notice before it was sent back to a member of Parliament.

I offer the example where I specifically asked whether the regional transport Minister had received an engineering report. That was on question on notice No. 658, but on question on notice No. 662 I am told that, as the former Minister, I never asked for an inquiry—that I never asked for an investigation and how dare I ask the question. How do we have the engineering report if the investigation was not enacted? The point is that there are inaccuracies there. Ministers need to take questions on notice far more seriously—that is clearly a common theme within the Minns Labor government.

An order for papers was passed today. The Hon. Rod Roberts has essentially warned Ministers that they need to pull their socks up. The motion is very specific towards the police Minister. There was an order for papers that was very specific towards the regional transport and roads Minister. It is time that the Premier told his Ministers to pull their socks up and to give relevant, operational and accurate answers to members of this Parliament, no matter which side of the House they sit on.

The reality is that constituents are coming, as I said earlier, to the Opposition and crossbench members. As I said, we all have different roles now after the election, but members of our communities are not impressed by not getting answers from a government that is only six months old. If they were impressed, they would not be coming to the Opposition and speaking to crossbench members, and we would not be moving Standing Order 52 motions. We would not be debating another motion from the Hon. Rod Roberts that is essentially a warning to the Government and its Ministers to take questions on notice seriously.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER (17:21:06):

I support the motion. I have my own tale of woe in relation to my experience of questions on notice. I was approached by a member of the public who had had a really bad experience at Deniliquin Hospital. She had turned up with a sick child only to find a notice that stated, "Sorry, no doctor today and no emergency department nurse practitioner, but we'll send photos away and we'll do our best for you." I thought, "Okay, was this a bad day at Deniliquin Hospital, or is this really an issue?" In order to find out, I asked a series of questions on notice of the Minister for Health. I asked questions about a range of rural and regional hospitals and I asked about a range of days to try to get a sense of whether or not it was a regular occurrence for emergency departments to be either not staffed at all or not staffed with people with the capacity to care for the sick adults and children being rushed in.

Frankly, the answers I received were disrespectful. The answers were, "Oh, well, you know." They were essentially like Sergeant Schultz, saying, "I know nothing and I'm not going to be bothered to find out." I accept that it can take time to find those answers. I accept that there can be resource allocation decisions in terms of the best use of scarce resources. But I am also aware that when Brad Hazzard, as Minister for Health, was asked a very similar question in 2019 in relation to Tenterfield Hospital, he was able to take that question on notice and find the answer. If we cannot say whether we have sufficient staff on at emergency departments, how can we start solving staffing issues? I think that is the real issue that arises from the questions I asked. If Ministers are not taking enough care to actually engage with those questions, and if they are not then able to understand what is happening in their portfolios, how can any sensible reform be undertaken?

I also received communications from members of the community concerned that there was no food at emergency departments. If one turned up after about three o'clock, the sandwiches had gone and there was no food. I asked questions. Is this actually happening? Is this actually an issue? Are emergency departments running out of food? If so, by what period in the day? Again, the answer I received was, "The information is not centrally available." How can we fix a problem if we do not know that it exists? How can a Minister address a problem if they will not find out what the problem is and provide the answers?

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (17:24:20):

In reply: I thank the following members for their contributions: the Hon. Tara Moriarty, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales, and Minister for Western New South Wales; the Hon. Aileen Macdonald; Ms Sue Higginson; the Hon. Sam Farraway; and the Hon. Susan Carter. I know that the Hon. Tara Moriarty is here to do a job and has been issued with some speaking notes, but I will give the Minister one tip—I gave her one the other day and I will give her another one now. Advice given free: Be extremely careful in representing the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism in relation to answers or questions that I ask about the NSW Police Force. It should be painfully obvious to everyone in this place that I know a fair bit about what goes on, and blaming the police for that mistake will not wash. I know those were the instructions the Minister was given, but she should not forget that I am also given instructions.

Why would we blame the police when two other prior police Ministers—Minister Toole and Minister Elliott—managed to answer the question on a number of occasions? There was no kerfuffle and no problem, just a straight out answer. While we consider the answering of the question, let us look at it. I asked this the other day and clearly I will have to ask it again. My question was:

Can the Minister advise, what is the total monetary value of civil litigation payments made by the NSW Police Force for the 2022‑2023 financial year?

The answer I received was that, as at 8 August 2023, the total amount paid for claims commenced in the 2022‑23 financial year was $9 million-something. Where did the word "commenced" come from? "Commenced" was never in the question. They have altered it to suit themselves, thinking, "This will be a giggle. We'll make the Minister look good. We'll wind it down. We'll put $9 million, not $37 million."

It is not even this Minister's problem—that is how silly she is. It was the previous Minister's problem. This is going back years. But they have altered the question to put an extra word in it. That is not the question that was asked. Let us be very careful. I reiterate how important and necessary it is for Ministers to answer questions correctly and provide factual information. As I have said, it is not a question of not receiving an answer that I was searching for; it was a detailed answer provided by the Minister. It was just wrong—completely factually wrong—and the answer misled Parliament.

Hansard

I know the Minister said, "Oh, Parliament wasn't misled." Parliament was only not misled because I blew up and carried on. If I had said nothing, the record in would have remained $9 million. That is not correct—that is misleading. Why should I have to correct the record of the Minister? No member of this House should have to do that. To say that she did not mislead is also incorrect. It has only been fixed up because of my actions. I note that there will be no division and the Government does not oppose the motion. I leave my contribution there.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst):

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

‍