Legislative Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
14400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Wednesday 6 June 2001 ______ The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.00 a.m. The President offered the Prayers. FIRST HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT BILL CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (EXISTING LIFE SENTENCES) BILL Bills received. Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality. Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to: That these bills be read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages, and the second reading of the bills be set down as orders of the day for a later hour of the sitting. Bills read a first time. LEAVE OF ABSENCE Motion by the Hon. Richard Jones agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to the Hon. Alan Corbett until the adjournment of the House for the winter recess. NATIONAL PARKS LAND CLEARING Motion by the Hon. Ian Cohen agreed to: 1. That, under Standing Order 18, there be laid on the table of the House by 5.00 p.m. on Tuesday 19 June 2001, and made public without restricted access, all documents in the possession, custody and power of, (a) the Department of Land and Water Conservation, (b) the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, (c) the National Parks and Wildlife Service, (d) the Minister for the Environment, (e) TransGrid, and (f) the Minister for Energy, in relation to the recent clearing or overclearing of land in the Brindabella, Namadgi and Kosciuszko national parks, Bago State Forest, Bimberi nature reserve and associated land in the Brindabella Valley, committed by TransGrid or their contractors. 2. That an indexed list of all documents tabled under this resolution be prepared showing the date of creation of the document, a description of the document and the author of the document. 3. That anything required to be laid before the House by this resolution may be lodged with the Clerk of the House if the House is not sitting, and unless privilege is claimed, is deemed for all purposes to have been presented to or laid before the House and published by authority of the House. 4. Where a document required to be tabled under this order is considered to be privileged and should not be made public or tabled: (a) a return is to be prepared and tabled showing the date of creation of the document, a description of the document, the author of the document and reasons for the claim of privilege, 6 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14401 (b) the documents are to be delivered to the Clerk of the House by 5.00 p.m. Tuesday 19 June 2001, and: (i) made available only to members of the Legislative Council, (ii) not published or copied without an order of the House. 5. (1) Where any member of the House, by communication in writing to the Clerk, disputes the validity of a claim of privilege in relation to a particular document, the Clerk is authorised to release the disputed document to an independent legal arbiter, for evaluation and report within five days as to the validity of the claim. (2) The independent legal arbiter is to be appointed by the President and must be a Queen’s Counsel, a Senior Counsel or a retired Supreme Court judge. (3) A report from the independent arbiter is to be lodged with the Clerk of the House, and: (i) made available only to members of the Legislative Council, (ii) not published or copied without an order of the House. BILLS UNPROCLAIMED The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt tabled a list of all legislation not proclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 5 June 2000. PETITION Woy Woy Policing Petition expressing concern about the proposed loss of general duties police officers from Woy Woy Police Station and praying that the House seeks the assistance of the Minister for Police to reinstate those police officers, received from the Hon. Michael Gallacher. UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY: DISALLOWANCE OF BY-LAW The PRESIDENT: The question is, That the motion proceed forthwith. Precedence agreed to. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.09 a.m.]: I move: That under section 41 (1) of the Interpretation Act 1987, this House disallows the University of Sydney Amendment By-Law 2001 published in Government Gazette No. 93, dated 1 June 2001, pages 3042-3044. I thank the House for allowing me to move this disallowance motion and for allowing honourable members to express their views on this important matter. This Parliament passed the University of Sydney Act, which established the university. In addition, elected representatives from both the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council are members of the university's senate. I have moved this disallowance motion so that members of the Legislative Council can express their views on this matter. No matter how it is described, the objective of the by-law is to sack the highly respected and esteemed Chancellor of the University of Sydney, Dame Leonie Kramer. I have moved this motion in my own right, not at the request of any person, including Dame Leonie Kramer. I believe that an act of injustice is occurring and that the House should disallow this by- law and allow the senate—where there are obviously differences of opinion—to resolve this matter in an adult manner, calmly and fairly. This by-law should not be used as an axe over the head of the chancellor. If this disallowance motion is defeated the anti-chancellor faction in the senate will move a no confidence motion at the next two senate meetings, which will automatically sack Chancellor Dame Leonie Kramer, who was democratically elected, unopposed, in 1999. I understand that Dame Leonie Kramer has indicated that she is willing to resign in her own time—the date given to me at a briefing this morning by Mr Burrows was March 2002. The question is whether this House should pre-empt the normal transition of events that would bring about a happy resolution rather than a bloody resolution if this disallowance motion were defeated. If Dame Leonie Kramer resigns in March 2002 it will allow a transition to a new Chancellor of the University of Sydney. Honourable members who vote against this disallowance motion and who support the by-law will, in effect, take part in overturning the democratic process whereby, in open elections, Dame Leonie Kramer was 14402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6 June 2001 elected Chancellor of the University of Sydney. She was elected as deputy chancellor in 1989 and held that position until 1991. She was first elected as chancellor in 1991, she was re-elected in 1995 and she was re- elected unopposed in 1999. Members of the Australian Democrats and members of other parties who pride themselves on our democratic processes—as I hope some members of the Labor Government do—know that Dame Leonie Kramer was democratically elected as chancellor and should be allowed to complete her term of office or, if she wishes, resign at a time of her own choosing. If this disallowance motion is defeated and Dame Leonie Kramer is finally sacked it will cause massive damage to the reputation of the University of Sydney. Honourable members have already heard reports of the impact of the debate in the senate and about divisions in fund-raising efforts by various members. Corporate funding and donations and other sources of income are an important part of modern universities; it assists them to operate in a competitive environment. If the chancellor is sacked it will affect the attitude of potential students. Currently the University of Sydney is one of the few universities that is flooded with applications by students—an acknowledgment by students of the high standard and efficiency of the university, and the chancellor plays a very important part in that reputation. Dame Leonie Kramer has played an important part in that reputation for virtually her lifetime through her involvement as a staff member, as deputy chancellor and then as chancellor. If my disallowance motion is defeated, I can only imagine the climate and atmosphere at the next two senate meetings when someone moves a no confidence motion in the chancellor and it is voted on. How on earth do people who are backing this by-law think that it will calm down the environment at the university and the senate? I believe it would create even further harm and hurt not only Dame Leonie Kramer but also other members of the senate. I do not want the reputation of the university damaged. I am a former student of the university. I appreciated the university, accepting me as an adult matriculation student. I left school at 15, but I was allowed to study at the university, where I passed philosophy 1 and ancient history 1. That gave me a tremendous amount of self-confidence, and that enabled me to continue with further studies. I appreciate the University of Sydney opening up its heart and doors to me. I do not want anything done to harm the university or the reputation of Dame Leonie Kramer. Dame Leonie Kramer acts in an honorary capacity and receives no salary, as far as I know. I understand that she works virtually every day at the university. She gives her heart and soul to the university. She is an outstanding female academic in Australian history. I am sure the President and other female members of this House are aware of how difficult it was in the early 1950s and 1960s for women to achieve prominent positions in the academic world at the university.