LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday, 16th September, 1993
______
The President (The Hon. Max Frederick Willis) took the chair at 10.30 a.m.
The President offered the Prayers.
PUBLIC HOSPITALS (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION) BILL
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.33]: Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would preclude a motion being moved forthwith that the Order of the Day relating to the Public Hospitals (Conscientious Objection) Bill be called on forthwith.
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING [10.34]: I advise the House that recently, in the proud traditions of my party, I have advised my party room that it is my intention today or at a later date to take whatever action is necessary in this Parliament to ensure that the contingent notice given by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby be dealt with by this House. That would mean, unfortunately, that I would be obliged to vote against the contingent notice given by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. The honourable member would know, of course, that in many ways I could be described as the architect of his bill, and therefore I do not vote against his contingent notice in any sense to give the impression that I vote against the bill. In fact, I am the person responsible for its creation.
I shall do so, however, because I believe that today there is a more important public interest matter before the House by way of contingent notice. In making that statement to the House I would also like to make another matter abundantly clear. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby's contingent notice, which will be triggered at the time that the President calls for notices of motion, has an unusual element attached to it in that it will require the House to deal with the bill introduced by the honourable member for Bligh and passed by the lower House, and will require this House to deal with that legislation until the matter is resolved.
Honourable members will be aware that this is an unusual procedure and, by inference, if the Parliament accepts that procedure it will mean that this House will deal with that legislation until it is resolved, and thus exclude from this Chamber the pursuit of any Government legislation. That is a very forceful tool and one to which I had to give considerable thought before supporting. Honourable members are aware that it is the inherent right of every member of this House to speak on legislation for as long as that member may like. In that circumstance it would be possible for the contingent notice of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, if successfully passed, to cause this House to debate the bill for a considerable length of time.
I recall that when Leader of the Opposition in this House I was able to cause the House to spend about three weeks debating particular legislation to which the Opposition had taken umbrage. At the end of that debate I was proud that Mr Hallam, the Leader of the Government, congratulated the Opposition on what it had done. I am mindful of that impact. The last thing I would wish to do is to create any concern in the Government about the ability of this House to pass important and urgent legislation. In that event I have given an undertaking to my party room that if at any time during this process, should it occur, there is a need for the Government to pass legislation for the good management of this State, I will be happy to see that done and then return to debate the bill covered by the contingent notice of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby.
I have indicated to the Leader of the Australian Democrats in this House that I will support her contingent notice only on that basis, and I have her word that she will so abide by the undertaking that I give the House. I hope that, by nod or something of that nature, she will now indicate that is her understanding of the agreement between us.
The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: Yes, it is.
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: So, with great sorrow in many ways, I have to indicate to the Leader of the Call to Australia party that I will be obliged to vote against his contingent notice. It would have been most improper for me - again in the proud traditions of this Chamber - to do so without having told him beforehand. I have, therefore, officially advised him of such intention.
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [10.39]: At a crossbench meeting last night in the office of the Leader of the Government I did inform Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile that I would be voting against his bill, and I gave him reasons for so doing. I believe that my legislation, that is, the legislation that I am introducing on behalf of the honourable member for Bligh, which passed in another place, on this occasion should have precedence. I am also concerned that the Public Hospitals (Conscientious Objection) Bill, which Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile seeks to call on if his contingent notice of motion succeeds, is now to have many amendments which are to be debated in this House without any member of this House having had a prior opportunity to study them, except during debate on the floor of the House.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile's bill has been described as an anti-abortion bill. In the form in which it is written it can be described as nothing else. As I have not seen Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile's Page 3237 amendments I do not know what those amendments will be. Certainly, before I am persuaded about any amendments I would wish to have the opportunity to take advisings from the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Family Planning Association, the Nurses Association, the Doctors Reform Society and the Australian Medical Association because I believe that, as with all legislation we might debate and vote on in this House, we should inform ourselves of the views of any profession concerned with the legislation. For all those reasons I will vote against Mr Nile's contingent notice of motion.
I would like to confirm what the Hon. E. P. Pickering said. Obviously, if there is urgent Government business it is necessary to have that Government business dealt with. Nothing in what I am attempting to do will put a hold on the Government to prevent it carrying out its necessary duty of governing the State of New South Wales.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.42], in reply: In response to the statements that have been made I point out that it is my intention - and I thought we had this understanding at the crossbench meeting yesterday - that debate on my bill will be adjourned at some stage, certainly before the Committee stage, so that all members of this House can give further consideration to the bill and to the proposed amendments.
The Hon. Franca Arena: We have not seen it.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has the call.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: All members of the House know that I have never and will never do anything in this House to ambush the members, to catch them at some disadvantage. It has always been my intention to adjourn the debate on this bill. I understood at that stage we would then deal with the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby's contingent motion and that would proceed. That was the understanding the honourable member gave me yesterday but I see she has changed her mind.
The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: That is not so, Mr Nile.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: It is so. The other point is that with the bill, of which we have had notice from the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, even though it passed through the other place, Government Cabinet Ministers abstained from the vote, as did other members. That bill was debated in this House in May and was defeated. So it is not an urgent issue that this House should consider. I believe that the Public Hospitals (Conscientious Objection) Bill should take priority today in the limited amount of time we have to deal with private members' business. The other issue which is very important, and one which obviously the Australian Democrats are totally ignoring, is that I have been endeavouring to move this bill in this general direction, in the main principles, since 1991.
The Hon. Elaine Nile and I commenced with the Medical Practitioners (Conscientious Objection) Bill, then the Nurses (Conscientious Objection) Bill. We withdrew those and replaced them, after discussion and constructive comments from both sides of the House, with a new Public Hospitals (Conscientious Objection) Bill. That bill has been widely distributed. I have received many constructive suggestions. Because of debate on the previous bill some fears have been raised - I think totally unnecessarily - that it may have some effects that certainly I never intended. But the amendments to this bill will take care of the honourable members' concerns. I believe that when the House has before it the bill and proposed amendments based on the concerns of members of this House, the major objections to the bill will be removed. The bill could proceed at some future date, not today. The amended bill would then be passed by the House with the support of both sides of Parliament. That would be my desire.
The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said she would like the bill and the amendments to be placed before various legal bodies. It is the legal bodies that have proposed the amendments. The amendments have come from various medical, health and legal committees associated with the Australian Medical Association and with the Department of Health. The bill has been given microscopic examination. I am quite confident that in its final shape the amended bill will receive the support of both sides of the House. For those reasons my contingent motion should take precedence so that the Public Hospitals (Conscientious Objection) Bill can be debated up to the Committee stage. I have endeavoured to move this bill since 1991. It is now 1993. That seems to me to be a rejection, perhaps, of the ability of members of this House to move private members' bills if, after a period of two to three years, a new bill placed on the agenda takes precedence over the earlier bill.
I regard that as very unfair. This may work against other honourable members and against the Australian Democrats in due course. I believe that a bill should be allowed to proceed on its chronological precedence, bearing in mind that at some stage the bill will be put to the vote. Obviously I will accept the will of the House when we come to a vote on the Public Hospitals (Conscientious Objections) Bill, even if a majority of the members of this House vote against it. I would have to accept that as the end of that particular process and give my attention to other areas of importance in our society, which in the main are brought to my attention by concerned groups in the community seeking to rectify some area of injustice.
Obviously I am very disappointed at the statement of the Hon. E. P. Pickering. He has been a Cabinet Minister and has been a leader of this House on behalf of the Government. He is not a new boy in this House; he is probably one of the members with most experience in political and parliamentary procedure. I take it as a most serious action by him to say that he would use his vote to prevent a private members' bill being debated in this House - a bill that Page 3238 will not take the whole day but will be discussed to a certain point, at which time members can then discuss and consider the amendments in private, if they wish, in their party rooms or seek advice from professional groups. Even though the Hon E. P. Pickering is obviously speaking in his personal capacity, I see him as a member of the Government. In fact, I see him as a very senior member of the Government. Even though he is no longer a Cabinet Minister or in the Cabinet, he is still a very senior member. The Call to Australia party will have to reserve its actions and decisions on this matter in view of his statement in this House.
I realise that I am not debating the next bill but Mr Pickering has foreshadowed his support for allowing the legislation to proceed and the interjections would indicate that the Australian Democrats expect him to vote for it. This will be the breaking of a very solemn agreement that I received from the Government. I would consider that agreement as having been broken by a senior member of the Government. Therefore, Call to Australia reserves its right to review its position in regard to this matter.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Threats. More blackmail. Threats. More blackmail.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I note the interjection from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. Of course, he is overjoyed at this situation because, when the first statement was made about our dilemma concerning Clover Moore's private member's bill, the Australian Democrats boasted, saying, "Good, because we can then have the balance of power in the upper House and use that to achieve our purposes here". They have used it and they will use it in a far more ruthless way than I ever would. I believe that honourable members on both sides of this House would agree in their hearts with me about that, even if they do not agree with me publicly.
This raises a very serious situation, or crisis if you like, with the Government. The Government is in a catch 22 situation. The Labor Party cannot lose. The Labor Party wants Clover Moore's bill to be passed and will be quite happy if this affects our attitude to Government legislation and to private members' legislation - such as the Government Cleaning Service Retention Bill or the proposed State Bank retention legislation, et cetera. I understand the Labor Party is happy with the situation presented to the House by the Hon. E. P. Pickering because it is now in a situation where it cannot lose. Either way, it wins.
I would ask the Hon. E. P. Pickering to examine his conscience on this matter. This is a very serious development. The actions he takes may have very serious ramifications. I urge honourable members to support the motion for contingent notice that I have moved when it comes to the vote on the basis that, as I have said, I would move the adjournment of my bill. The Hon. Elaine Nile and I had arranged that she would move the adjournment at a certain point before the Committee stage so that the matter would be before the House and could be restored at some future date when I felt we had the agreement of the majority of honourable members to proceed with the bill. That has always been my proposal and honourable members on both sides of the House can confirm that decision. I conveyed our plan to the Government Whip and I have no intention of diverting from it.
Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 18
Mr Bull Revd F. J. Nile Mrs Chadwick Mr Ryan Mr Coleman Mr Samios Mrs Evans Mrs Sham-Ho Mrs Forsythe Mr Rowland Smith Dr Goldsmith Mr Webster Mr Hannaford Mr Moppett Tellers, Mr Mutch Miss Gardiner Mrs Nile Dr Pezzutti
Noes, 19
Dr Burgmann Mr Macdonald Ms Burnswoods Mr Manson Mr Dyer Mr O'Grady Mr Egan Mr Pickering Mr Enderbury Mrs Symonds Mrs Isaksen Mr Vaughan Mr Jones Mrs Walker Mr Kaldis Tellers, Miss Kirkby Mrs Arena Mrs Kite Mr Obeid
Pairs
Mr Gay Mr Johnson Mr Jobling Mr Shaw
Question so resolved in the negative.
Motion for suspension of standing and sessional orders negatived.
PETITIONS
Container Deposit Legislation
Petition praying that because of the detrimental effect of throw-away packaging on the environment, legislation be introduced imposing a mandatory deposit on all containers sold in New South Wales, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.
Homosexual Vilification Legislation
Petitions praying that the House support those schedules of the proposed Anti-Discrimination (Amendment) Bill that will make homosexual vilification unlawful, received from the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, the Hon. A. B. Manson, the Hon. P. F. O'Grady and the Hon. Ann Symonds.
Page 3239
Public Housing Rental and Utility Charges
Petition praying that the House prevent the imposition of additional cost to public tenants in excess of the set public housing rental charges and utility charges, received from the Hon. E. M. Obeid.
Homosexual Vilification Legislation
Petitions praying that the House reject all homosexual vilification legislation, received from the Hon. R. T. M. Bull and the Hon. J. H. Jobling.
Steel-jawed Leg Hold Traps
Petition praying that the House legislate to ban totally the manufacture, sale and use of steel-jawed leg hold traps in all areas of the State as they cause great suffering to all animals and birds, both target and non-target, caught in them, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones
Serious Traffic Offence Penalties
Petition praying that laws relating to road accident fatality or injury be re-evaluated, received from the Hon. Judith Walker.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (HOMOSEXUAL VILIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.8]: Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would preclude a motion being moved forthwith that the General Business Notice of Motion relating to the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill be called on forthwith.
Before the Government opposes my motion to seek to restore the bill to the notice paper, I wish to make some things clear. Standing Order 113 provides that no question may be proposed that is the same as a question already decided during that same session. This essentially means that a bill or motion that has already been voted upon may not be reintroduced. However, with a bill which has been negatived on the second reading and subsequently dropped from the business paper the procedure is not so straightforward. The whole essence of the motion for the second or other reading is the word "now". If the motion is negatived, the decision is that the bill be not read a second time now. This bill is still before the House and at a later time the House may agree to it being read a second time.
There are precedents in the Legislative Council of a bill having been restored and of an attempt to restore a bill to the notice paper after it had previously been defeated. An example of a successful restoration occurred in 1924 when the Local Government (Amendment) Bill, having been defeated on 27th November - noes 13, ayes 15 - was restored to the business paper on 11th December, pursuant to notice, again on division - ayes 26, noes 15 - and was then finally passed on 16th December. A more recent example was the unsuccessful attempt this session to restore the Khappinghat Nature Reserve Bill to the business paper. I will not weary the House with those details, but honourable members can refer to it in Hansard of 11th March, at page 641. They are the precedents.
I will outline the history of the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Bill. The bill was received by message from the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday, 18th May, and read a first time on that date. On 20th May I moved, pursuant to contingent notice, that the standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the order of the day for its second reading to be called on forthwith. That motion was debated and defeated on the division - ayes 19, noes 20. On 21st May I moved a similar motion, and it was debated and amended on division - ayes 32, noes 2 - to allow for the bill to be called upon at a later hour. It was subsequently called on and I then moved the second reading. At that time the question was put and defeated on division - ayes 14, noes 15. That is an interesting number; obviously many members abstained from voting.
It is clear that the bill is still technically before the House. Mr President, no matter what the Government may say to the contrary in an endeavour to convince you, the restoration of this bill would not be precluded by Standing Order 113. The only questions which were previously negatived by the House were: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would preclude the motion being moved forthwith; That the order of the day relating to the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Bill be called upon; and, That this bill be now read a second time. The first motion was subsequently agreed to, with amendments.
In order to restore the bill to the notice paper I had to give notice, which I did on Tuesday of this week. As the bill has now been successfully restored, it is possible for a motion for the second reading to be moved and for debate to ensue. This is what happened in 1924. I believe that it is proper that, as the House has decided that this bill should have precedence over the private member's bill of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, we should now proceed with it. It is certainly within the standing orders of the House to allow that.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [11.14]: I oppose the motion moved by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. There are two key issues in this regard, the major of which I will deal with if this notice is passed. The first issue relates to whether the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill should be brought on to be debated now. That is the purpose of the contingent notice. My view and that of the Government with respect to vilification have been on the record for some considerable time. As the honourable member has quite properly indicated, this bill has been before this House this session. It is within her province to bring this bill on, but the House has very clearly expressed its views in relation to it.
Page 3240
I said that other legislation would be brought forward, and on behalf of the Government I released that package of legislation for public comment. I indicated that that legislation would be more comprehensive than the bill covering the narrow issue which was before the House at that time - and it is proposed that that narrow issue be now brought back before the House. That package of information was publicly available and there was extensive public comment in relation to it. The Government has indicated that in relation to vilification, it will proceed with one part, and I will comment further about that in later debate. There are also matters to go before the Law Reform Commission.
The Government believes that nothing has changed to warrant this bill being brought back on for further debate, with precedence over any other issue that is properly before the House. The bill can be placed within the business paper, as the honourable member has done. It could quite properly be dealt with in its normal order of business. To seek to give this bill precedence - it having already been the subject of debate and having occupied the time of the House this session - is to deprive other members of the House of the opportunity to debate matters that they have put on the business paper.
I seek to delay the contingent motion being brought on now because it involves a substantive motion. I will deal with that in greater detail later. That issue is not part of this debate. Paragraph 3 of the contingent notice seeks to ensure that private members' business shall take precedence over all Government business. I foreshadow that I will be having much to say about that because this motion, for the first time that I am aware of, seeks to take from the Government the control of the House. That should be of concern to members on both sides of the House. Therefore, it is an unreasonable use of the standing orders to use the contingent notice to seek to bring on this motion, when it is not justified, out of order. It also seeks to take control of government business from the Government. Members should be concerned about that. The Government opposes the motion.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: On a point of order: I ask you, Mr President, to rule on whether the motion moved by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is in conflict with Standing Order 113 and is therefore out of order. Standing Order 113 is quite specific, stating that questions of the same substance are not to be again proposed. It states, "No question shall be proposed which is the same in substance as any question which during the same session has been resolved in the affirmative or negative". I refer to Hansard at page 2582. After a debate in which members of this House spoke for and against the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Bill, which is identical to the bill now being attempted to be restored, the bill was dealt with by this House. On 21st May, 1993, during this session of Parliament, at page 2582 of Hansard, the question was put, That this bill be now read a second time. The question was put and the House divided.
After listing the pairs Hansard shows that the question was resolved in the negative, the motion was negated. So it is quite clear that the bill has been debated before the House. It has been carefully canvassed. After consideration, its proposals were rejected by the majority of members of this House, including the Hon. E. P. Pickering. His name is shown in Hansard among the 15 noes. Mr President, another factor which you should take into consideration in ruling on this matter is the very unusual situation - I cannot recall a precedent - of the Government, as symbolised by the Cabinet, Ministers of the Crown, including the Premier, abstaining from the vote on the bill. That is, the Government did not give a direction for or against the bill but abstained from voting on it in the other place. So we might say that the bill that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is seeking to restore has some parliamentary defect in it.
To rectify that in some way the bill should be submitted to the other place, debated and voted on. If passed by the majority, it should then be brought to this House, still in accordance with our standing orders, to be debated - for and against. This raises in my mind the question of whether a petition could be sent to the Governor questioning whether he, in good conscience, could give his assent to the bill, even if it has been passed by this House, for it to become law. We would certainly pursue that course of action. It is a very serious matter. Two issues are involved: one is that the procedure is in conflict with Standing Order 113; and the other is the process by which the bill went through the other place. I seek your ruling on that point of order, Mr President.
The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: On the point of order: I think I have made it abundantly clear from the advisings that I have received that the restoration of the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill does not come within the provisions of Standing Order 113, as I pointed out at length. As I am not in this Parliament today to filibuster - as quite obviously Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is - I do not intend to go through the reasons again. I have pointed out the precedents. The precedents in Hansard are available to you, Mr President. You might have a look at them. The method by which I have reintroduced the bill has a precedent in this House and has been successful in this House. The Clerk may like to hand the precedents to you, Mr President, so that you may examine them. I think Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile's arguments are spurious and I reject them.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Further to the point of order: All members should have access to the material that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has presented. Obviously we have not had time to study it. I put to the House that in most unusual situations - I suggest that this could have occurred in some of the precedents - leave of the House was sought and no objection was taken. In this case we wish to register our very strong objection in that we do not give leave for any variation of standing orders in this matter.
Page 3241
The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: Further to the point of order: We are not requesting a variation of the standing orders or of the procedures of the House; we are requesting only that the procedures of the House be followed according to the standing orders, and, therefore, having done that, we are allowed to proceed with the motion before the House.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no substance in the point of order. This matter was clearly decided by President Flowers in 1924. It is perfectly in order for the honourable member to move for restoration.
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.25], in reply: I would like now to have the opportunity to debate this matter. I trust that the motion that I have moved to enable the amendment bill to be called on forthwith will meet with the support of the House.
Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 19
Mrs Arena Mr Macdonald Dr Burgmann Mr Obeid Ms Burnswoods Mr O'Grady Mr Dyer Mr Pickering Mr Egan Mrs Symonds Mr Enderbury Mr Vaughan Mrs Isaksen Mrs Walker Mr Kaldis Tellers, Miss Kirkby Mr Jones Mrs Kite Mr Manson
Noes, 18
Mr Bull Revd F. J. Nile Mr Coleman Dr Pezzutti Mrs Evans Mr Ryan Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios Miss Gardiner Mr Rowland Smith Dr Goldsmith Mr Webster Mr Hannaford Mr Jobling Tellers, Mr Moppett Mr Mutch Mrs Nile Mrs Sham-Ho
Pairs
Mr Johnson Mrs Chadwick Mr Shaw Mr Gay
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Motion for suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.34]: Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would preclude the moving of a motion forthwith -
That:
(1) the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill be restored to the Business Paper;
(2) so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would preclude the passing of the Bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House;
(3) consideration of the Bill take precedence of all other Government and General Business until concluded; and
(4) the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill be read a second time forthwith.
It is proper at this time that I explain my reasons for moving that the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill be read a second time forthwith in this Chamber. The first is that, at the time the bill was previously read, the Leader of the House gave every assurance to honourable members that when his anti-discrimination bill was introduced it would include a section dealing with vilification of homosexuals. I believe people accepted that assurance at that time. However, under the threats that were made against the Government by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile, he backed away from that position. He then said the provision in his bill would be removed and the matter would be referred again to the Law Reform Commission. However, that would mean a delay of many months. During that time further harassment of and further assaults on members of the homosexual community will certainly occur, and further deaths may result from those assaults. I do not intend to have those deaths on my conscience.
He also made it clear to me that it would probably be necessary for him to introduce provisions covering what he described as generic vilification. That seems to be an impossible situation, because vilification cannot be generic. Racial vilification is clearly defined, and measures against it are supported on both sides of this House. The gay and lesbian community forms a significant proportion of the population of this State. Therefore, vilification laws protecting them are necessary. I was so disturbed by the threat made by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile that I made it clear to the Leader of the Government and requested that he also make it clear to the Premier that Government legislation, apart from two bills - the privatisation of the State Bank and the privatisation of the Government Cleaning Service - could be carried in this Chamber. I made it clear that we would examine all bills on their merits, but that in relation to measures we knew about at the time, apart from those two issues, we supported what the Government was doing.
There was absolutely no danger that the Government's bills would be thwarted simply because they did not have automatic support, as they normally have had, from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile. I am aware from private conversation with the Leader of the Government that one thing he is concerned about is the third clause in my notice of motion - that consideration of the bill take precedence of all other Government and general business until concluded. That is in the hands of the Government. Today it is possible, in the time remaining, for the bill to be put to a vote. If that Page 3242 occurs, Government business can proceed without any impediment when the House returns on 12th October. Similarly, I have given an undertaking to the Leader of the Government that, if it has a legitimate need to have legislation passed in the House, I would be willing to accommodate that need.
Last night we discussed three pieces of legislation that the Government considers essential to get through this House today before it rises for the school holiday-October long weekend recess. I have agreed to that and will not thwart it in any way. The Leader of the Government is well aware of that. Similarly, I would never attempt to prevent the Government having the right to adjourn the House when it thinks fit. Therefore, when the Government wishes to adjourn the House I will not attempt to thwart it. Those assurances are given, and I put them on the record. When I told the Leader of the Government that of course he can get Government business through the House and that of course we do not need to continue this debate into the second or third week of October, he said, "There are several members on my side of the House that now wish to speak to this bill".
I know it is possible for the Government to allow a lengthy filibuster because those honourable members will have the opportunity to speak for as long as they like. The House has no control over that. But I would have thought, quite legitimately, as the Hon. P. F. O'Grady has said, that this matter has already been debated in full both inside and outside the Parliament. I cannot believe that there is any necessity for any more to be said about the merits or demerits of the bill, depending on one's personal philosophy. There is certainly no need to carry on the debate long after today and into the second or third week of October. It is in the Government's hands to call off its own speakers to allow an early division on this legislation. The Government will then know exactly what happened.
The Hon. J. F. Ryan: I will be speaking, regardless of what happens. There will be no Government pulling out.
The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: Likewise.
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: In that case it is still within the hands of the Government party room and the Leader of the Government to make quite sure that any further delay to government business is not the result of any action taken by the Opposition or by the Australian Democrats but actions taken by members of its own backbench.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [11.42]: A number of issues need to be addressed in response to the motion moved by the honourable member. The most important of those issues is the issue to which she last referred. I, therefore, will spend some time addressing that issue. As the honourable member indicated quite clearly, quite unequivocally, it is her intention to move in this House, subject to only two qualifications that she is prepared to extend to the Government, that this motion be dealt with to the exclusion of all other business, whether it be private members' business, Government business or any other business that may be brought before the House. The first is that the honourable member will allow the Government to exercise the right that has always been recognised in this House as the right of the Government to adjourn the business of the House. That, honourable members should recognise, is still subject to the control of the House, but the right of the Government to move the adjournment, at least, is a right she has acknowledged to the House.
Second, the honourable member has said on behalf of the Australian Democrats that she would not object - and no doubt that also will be in the hands of the House - to the Government seeking the leave of the House to interrupt the current business of the House to be able to bring on urgent legislation that it believes is necessary for the government of the State. That issue has been argued for by leaders on both sides and by all Government leaders in the several years that there has not been a majority of Government members in this Chamber. That has been the situation for the better part of a decade, apart from a short period when the Hon. Barrie Unsworth was Leader of the House and the Government of the day had a majority in this House. The position observed by all is that the Government has an inalienable right to control business in the House, though we recognise the right of the House to vote in relation to that matter. It has been a tradition of this House that the Government would have control of the business of this House apart from private members' day on Thursdays.
I recall many occasions on which the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has railed in this House when the Hon. Barrie Unsworth sought to take away private members' days on Thursdays. I remember the Hon. E. P. Pickering, as Leader of the Opposition, railing to protect private members' days because they were the days upon which the business of the general members of the House could be addressed. That was the one opportunity in the weekly proceedings of the House when the Government forewent the right regarded as necessary for it to control the business of the House. I know of no circumstance where the Opposition and the crossbenchers have voted to take away from the government of the day control of Government business. I know of no occasion on which that has ever occurred.
However, I do know of circumstances where the Government has agreed with the Opposition or with the crossbenchers that private members' business should be brought on in priority to Government business on Government business days - Tuesday or Wednesday or one of the other days apart from Thursday. I know that has even occurred on a Thursday afternoon after 4.15 when, under the sessional orders of the House, Government business is resumed. But I know of no occasion when the House has taken away from the Government the control of Government business. I note the Hon. Page 3243 Elisabeth Kirkby's comment on the views she expressed to me when the leader of the Call to Australia group publicly threatened to withdraw his group's support of the Government. He is entitled to make that threat, but the Government is also entitled to ignore it. The Government made its position known to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile when the Premier and I met with him. We said that it was not proper to make that threat and it would be properly ignored by the Government.
I noted with interest the strong comments made by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby in this House on her view of that threat and the comments of other honourable members concerning such a threat. This motion is an identical threat. It is not just the making of what some might describe as lurid comment in the press seeking to - I think the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby's words were - "intimidate the Government"; today in this House the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has moved to take away from the Government its control and its power to govern in this State until such time as her bill is debated and determined in this House. No other matter can be determined by this House until this is resolved, subject to the Australian Democrats giving the leave to the Government to bring business on.
There is no greater threat to the stability of Government or its control of the orderly administration of Government business in this House. As I indicated, to the best of my knowledge, I know of no other occasion on which such a threat has been manifested in this House. If the motion is carried, it will be the first time that the Government's control of business has been taken away. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby will have initiated and manifested for the first time the abrogation of the Government's right in this House to control business. My pleas to this House reiterate those made on a number of occasions by my colleague the former Leader of the House. He and many other members have argued strongly in this House that the right of the Government to control business must be manifest.
The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: It is still in your control; it has not been taken away.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby interjects and claims that the business of the House is still within my control and has not been taken away. In her contribution she said that the Government is able to retain control of the business of the House by making certain that the Government calls off its speakers. There is no greater manifestation of intimidation of the rights of members than that. So far as a number of members of the Government - and, I would have thought, the Opposition - are concerned, there is no more important question than that there be full debate on this issue. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby says that if the Government wants to exercise control in this House, it must ensure that Government members do not exercise their parliamentary right to speak in the House.
That is an interesting argument. I do not believe she genuinely holds that view. I believe she is making that comment merely for the purpose of this debate. She would be the first to come before this House and rail if any attempt were made to curtail the right of members to speak in this House. If members do not wish to speak, that is their choice. If they wish to speak, they will be given the opportunity to do so, particularly in relation to private members' bills. One may well say that my ability to try to stop members speaking in this Chamber on private members' bills is almost equivalent to the ability of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby to stop the Hon. R. S. L. Jones speaking on environmental matters in which he has an interest. The honourable member knows full well that I am right. For the first time she is clearly saying in this House that members should not be allowed to speak to private members' bills that involve significant community interest.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The gag.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I will not move the gag in relation to such matters, and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby would not want to do so. In the past she has commented on suggestions that this Chamber should seek to replicate the Legislative Assembly and impose time limits. In this Chamber there are differing views about the benefit of time limits. It has been suggested that time limits would reduce the length of debate. It has been suggested also that if speakers are given 40 minutes, each speaker will use the full 40 minutes.
The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: Exactly. That is the whole point. It is a totally different argument.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby seeks to support my view. As Leader of the Government I strongly hold the view, which has been held by all former Leaders of the Government and Leaders of the Opposition, that the Government has the right to control Government business. I recall the Hon. Barrie Unsworth and the Hon. Jack Hallam making similar comments about this issue. The approach the Leader of the Opposition takes on this issue will be interesting. If he decides to support the view that control of Government business can be taken away from the Government, the Labor Party will be tied to that decision. It is universally recognised that because of the structure of the electorate and the electoral processes, it is unlikely that any government will again control this House. In this Chamber the government of the day will always be dependent upon negotiating with whoever may be on the crossbenches in relation to the conduct and carriage of Government business.
The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: The Senate has operated under those conditions for the past 10 years, and will continue to do so for another 10 years at least.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I agree with the interjection of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. It therefore becomes all the more important to make clear the ability of the Government to govern. In the past 12 months the Labor Party has pursued only one Page 3244 principle: the principle of opportunism. On a number of occasions I have said that the Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber has been prepared to prostitute himself on different issues. It will be interesting to learn what approach he adopts on this occasion. Labor Party backbenchers must realise that if they allow their leader to take them down this track and if the Labor Party forms a government in this State, the Labor Party will have set a precedent in this Chamber, where it will not hold the balance of power, for the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition of the day.
It will not matter whether it is Government members' day or private members' day: if it is regarded as politically opportune, the control of the business of the House will be taken away from the Government. Principles and traditions will no longer exist in this Chamber. This Chamber will have only one rule -
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The jungle.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The rule of the jungle. On a number of occasions the Hon. E. P. Pickering has adverted to the days when Neville Wran first came into government. At that time the government of the day did not control this House. I recall the Hon. E. P. Pickering clearly adverting, either in this Chamber or in other forums, to the fact that Government at least was allowed to govern. It was clear that honourable members were prepared to use the forms of the House and private members' days to get decisions made, but the control of business was not taken away from the Government. This motion clearly lays down that issue. I directly challenge the Opposition. At the appropriate time I will seek to amend the motion and the Opposition will clearly have to vote in accordance with whatever principle it adopts in relation to this issue. The other reason given by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby for moving this motion was that "the Government backed off under threats from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile".
I make it unequivocally clear - as did the Premier following a meeting that he and I had with representatives of the Call to Australia party - that they were entitled to make their threats but, so far as the Government was concerned, it would not be intimidated by them. It was made very clear that I would put out for public discussion draft legislation upon which the community could express its views. That legislation was distributed extensively within the community. The Government received a number of submissions about that draft legislation. Members of the Government in the Legislative Assembly interviewed many people in the community concerning that legislation, as did I. The matter came up for discussion within the Government party room. We made it very clear to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and to members of the community that it would be the Government party members who would express and convey their views about the legislation.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to sessional orders, business is interrupted for the taking of questions.
INQUIRY INTO THE CONVICTION OF Mr ANDREW KALAJZICH
Ministerial Statement
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [12.0], by leave: Recently I read an item in the newspapers concerning the conviction of Mr Kalajzich. As that matter was before the Governor, it was not appropriate that I make any comment in relation to it. I indicated to the media, when they pursued me yesterday, that as a person who provides advice to the Governor I would on no account make public that advice, nor did I comment on the matter at any time. It was for the Governor, having received a petition from Mr Kalajzich, to seek advice and then to make a decision having regard to that advice, and to communicate that decision to Mr Kalajzich. I did not make any statement to the media, other than to indicate that that was the position.
However, I am now able to inform the House that I have received a communication from the Governor. The Governor has asked me to communicate with Mr Kalajzich concerning his petition for an inquiry under section 475 of the Crimes Act 1900, and has authorised me to make a statement concerning that matter. I am able to inform the House that Mr Kalajzich petitioned the Governor for an inquiry into his convictions for murder and conspiracy to murder his wife, Megan Kalajzich. The petition sought an inquiry under section 475 of the Crimes Act 1900.
The material provided by Mr Kalajzich's solicitors was forwarded to the Crown Solicitor, who briefed the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General, in a joint advice with Mr P. Taylor of counsel, indicated that there were questions arising as to Mr Kalajzich's guilt, justifying the Governor directing an inquiry pursuant to section 475 of the Crimes Act. As Attorney General, I concurred with the Solicitor General's advice and submitted the matter to the Governor who yesterday appointed Mr J. Slattery, A.O., Q.C., a retired Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, to undertake the inquiry. I have informed Mr Kalajzich's solicitors of this.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______
STATE WARDS
The Hon. R. D. DYER: I ask the Attorney General and Minister for Justice a question without notice. Is the Minister aware that State wards who have been charged with minor offences are often refused bail because the Department of Community Services refuses to assist these young people to find accommodation, claiming they are the responsibility of the Office of Juvenile Justice rather than of the Department of Community Services? Whose responsibility is it to ensure these young people are housed? Have discussions been held with the Minister Page 3245 for Community Services or his department to ensure that the Department of Community Services does not abrogate its responsibility for State wards? If not, will the Minister now instigate urgent meetings to ensure that State wards are not gaoled solely for welfare reasons?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I am aware of the issues to which the honourable member has adverted. No doubt the question was prompted by comments made by a magistrate in Wollongong about three or four weeks ago. That matter having been drawn to my attention I had reason to have a discussion about it with my departmental officers. I will not comment on the background to the matter or the reasons why the magistrate made the orders that he did, because they were appropriate to the circumstances of the particular case. As I understand, it was appropriate that the orders made for the detention of the person were made having regard to the best interests and welfare of that person, because of the facilities that were available.
The Hon. R. D. Dyer is correct in saying that there have been concerns in the past that State wards have been refused bail in respect of certain offences - I cannot confirm that they were minor offences and I do not have reason to believe that is so - because of a concern regarding the placement of the particular State ward. Some of those matters may relate to abuse of the ward. There has been discussion between the Office of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Community Services to ensure that appropriate protocols have been instituted to put beyond doubt the source of responsibility for caring for those people. The State has a responsibility for State wards.
The Hon. Ann Symonds: Wards are to be privatised, are they not?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Hon. Ann Symonds interjects. She knows full well that is not so. It is an important issue that the Hon. R. D. Dyer has raised. The State has a responsibility to ensure that State wards are kept in appropriate care. From the information I have been given, I am satisfied that those issues are being properly addressed. From time to time there has been reason for concern about particular issues but I am assured that, as a result of the discussions that have transpired, those issues are unlikely to arise again.
It is regrettable that a number of State wards are before the courts. No doubt honourable members are aware of some of the traumatic circumstances surrounding the support of State wards. Having been brought into Government care and then placed in the care of others on behalf of the Government, many of them are quite traumatised and find difficulty in adjusting to home life. Many of them have never experienced home life. They are often brought to the attention of the authorities and the court because of their activities on the streets. I am fully cognisant of the issues and the honourable member will be aware that I am quite sensitive to them. I am seeking to make certain that problems do not arise.
SCHOOLS BUS SAFETY COMPETITION
The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Will the Minister inform the House of the details of the recent bus safety competition? Which schools won the competition and what will happen to the winning artwork?
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the Hon. J. F. Ryan for his question and I take this opportunity to congratulate him on what I thought was a very positive, excellent speech last night in his contribution to the Budget debate. He always looks after western Sydney and the needs and aspirations of his constituents. He has an optimistic, cheerful, positive, frame of mind which stands in stark contrast to the negative, carping, miserable approach to life exhibited by honourable members opposite.
Once again the Hon. J. F. Ryan has chosen an example of positive good news, a worthy joint initiative of the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Department of School Education. The RTA has been concerned at the number of accidents involving young children alighting from or waiting for buses. It is distressing to realise that a significant number of accidents involve young children getting on and off buses. The Department of School Education and the RTA have looked at many ways to try to set up mechanisms to involve young people, get that message across, and save young lives. A statewide poster competition for primary school children, involving both government and non-government schools, was organised and the sample of the short-listed posters is on display at the Opera House. It is inspiring to see the variety of ways in which young children have interpreted and presented the challenge that faced them, and that proved to be how to get across the message of bus safety. A decision was made about the three winners.
The Hon. Franca Arena: Who were the judges?
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Officers of the RTA, the Department of School Education and a computer company that kindly provided computers for the winning schools. That was very welcome. If honourable members travel by Sydney public buses, as I am sure many do regularly, they would be interested to know that the three winning posters have been translated into big posters and painted on the sides of buses. In addition, the name and class of the school that participated in the original poster is acknowledged. As I said, independent and Catholic schools participated in this grand initiative of the RTA and the Department of School Education.
The three winning schools were Tempe Public School, Wentworth Falls Public School and - the Hon. Beryl Evans will be interested to know - St Michaels Primary School in Dunedoo. Though it was raining and windy, it was an absolute delight to see the excited students, particularly those from country New South Wales, receive their prizes in the forecourt of the Opera House. They were able to see their posters Page 3246 translated on to the sides of buses, which I am sure was a happy event for them. I hope that, through those young children and all who participated in the competition - 14,000 students across New South Wales - that message about bus safety has permeated through the community. I am grateful to the co-operative and collaborative venture that we entered into with the RTA which clearly will benefit students of New South Wales.
CARYNIA OAKS HOSTEL
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism and Minister Assisting the Premier, representing the Minister for Community Services. Is it a fact that when the present Minister for Education was Minister for Community Services she wanted to close Carynia Oaks, Cooranbong, but was prevented from doing so because the Government refused to provide the resources for alternative accommodation for the physically or mentally disabled living in the hostel? Will the Minister now consider providing accommodation for these people on the Morisset Hospital site, and allow Carynia Oaks to be closed and placed under the control of the Department of Community Services?
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby would forgive me for stating the obvious when I say that her question relates to actions that happened four and half years ago. The honourable member is correct when she implies that I had serious reservations about Carynia Oaks. I have received numerous complaints dating back over many years. When in Opposition I received information about the nature of service at places such as Carynia Oaks, but certainly Carynia Oaks in particular. It was a matter of concern to me, and when I became Minister for Family and Community Services, as it was then called, and given it was FACS that had the regulatory and licensing function surrounding such hostels - bearing in mind that Carynia Oaks is a private hostel - I took the opportunity to ask the department to thoroughly investigate the allegations and assertions that had been made. I no longer have those records and I am speaking from memory -
[Interruption]
For anyone who cares about the conditions in some of those hostels, and I know the Hon. Ann Symonds does, this is an important matter.
The Hon. R. D. Dyer: I have visited Carynia Oaks and conditions now are not much better.
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: At the time I was assured that many of the serious allegations had been addressed, and though there were concerns about the operation, level of service and supervision, some of the serious allegations in relation to non-supervision of medication and other matters had been addressed. At that point it seemed to the department and to me that it would be better to monitor Carynia Oaks, and try to work with the owners and managers to improve the circumstances there, rather than withdraw the licence. I absolutely reject the assertion that the non-closure of Carynia Oaks was in any way influenced by resources or alternative accommodation. Carynia Oaks was investigated while there was cause for concern. I note that the Hon. R. D. Dyer believes that there still is cause for concern. He should bring that to the attention of the Minister. I personally reject the assertion that Carynia Oaks should have been closed, and that I wilfully did not do so because of budgetary considerations. That assertion is untrue.
BUILDERS GOLD LICENCE
The Hon. A. B. MANSON: Without notice, I ask whether the Minister for Planning and Housing recalls the recommendation of the Dodd inquiry into the Building Services Corporation to scrap the current gold licence system and replace it with a new registration scheme? What compensation or recognition is the Government considering for those residential builders who have spent considerable time and money in obtaining a gold licence, especially those who have completed compulsory TAFE courses?
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The Hon. A. B. Manson must have been asleep when I answered a similar question the other day from the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby.
The Hon. A. B. Manson: Hansard must have been asleep too because it is not reported in Hansard.
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: Obviously the honourable member needs to have another look in Hansard. In answer to the question from the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, I alluded to the fact that the Mant report highlighted the very serious flaws that exist in the gold licence system. In many cases the public has been misled into believing that every builder with a gold licence is of equal standard and standing. The honourable member would know that is not the case. There are various qualities among builders. Many of the problems the Building Services Corporation encountered were caused by the fact that builders who had a gold licence were not up to scratch. The issues of regulating the industry and licensing builders were explored by the Gyles royal commission and by Professor Dodd.
I announced in the House the other day that I was not prepared to accept the Dodd recommendations lock, stock and barrel and that there were some quite serious issues which needed further exploration and further consultation with the industry and the community, the consumers. The Building Services Corporation, under the new and very capable chief executive, Graham Mostyn, and the new chairman, David Say, is working through these issues, including that of licensing. I assure the Hon. A. B. Manson that there will be changes to the licensing system, but what those changes will be is yet to be determined. The BSC is also considering the issue of insurance and whether the Government should be operating an Page 3247 insurance monopoly for the industry. We believe, as has happened with workers' compensation and third party insurance, that that insurance should be privatised. That has been fully considered by a working party. We are working on a number of issues, including licensing. I hope that I have answered the honourable member's question sufficiently.
PRISONS POLICY
The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: Is the Attorney General and Minister for Justice aware of recent media reports of an offer by the Opposition to develop a bipartisan prisons policy in New South Wales? Is the Minister also aware of the outrageous allegations made against the Department of Corrective Services during this alleged offer of co-operation?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I thank the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith for her question. It is well known that she has an interest in social issues, as does the Hon. Ann Symonds. This issue is important. I was interested to read the proposal announced by the Leader of the Opposition. He organised a media event at which he said he wanted to develop a bipartisan prisons policy with the Government. I welcomed his proposal at the time and said that I would be interested to hear from him with respect to that proposal. I have heard reports that the Hon. Ann Symonds noted the offer of the Leader of the Opposition and welcomed his offer. Like me, she is looking forward to seeing that occur. I welcomed the comments of the Hon. Ann Symonds at that time in relation to the leadership of the Department of Corrective Services. Her remarks about the enlightened approach have been noted by the department and they were passed on to me.
I am still interested to hear the Opposition's prisons policy. What is it proposing? Unfortunately, it seems that the Opposition is not interested in presenting that policy to me or to the community. It has been almost two months since the Opposition announced its proposal to the media and no member of the Opposition has approached any member of my staff, to the best of my knowledge, in order to outline the policy and to try to come to some position in relation to the policy. I have welcomed the approach of the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is fair to say that his statement was nothing more than a media stunt at that time. He wanted to find a reason to say something. Either the Leader of the Opposition loves corrective services and wants to sit down with us in a co-operative way to develop a policy or he is trying to convince the world that the department is, in the words used from time to time, "deceitful, corrupt or dangerous".
The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Perhaps it is like education. The honourable member for Riverstone in another place said that he could not think of anything to change in education. Perhaps that is what they mean by bipartisan; it will change nothing.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: That is an interesting comment. When the Leader of the Opposition issued his policy statement he made a number of comments about things he would like to do. All those issues are being attended to by this Government. In fact, those issues are part of the policies of this Government. If it is the approach of the Opposition to adopt the policies of the Government, I have to say that I welcome that. At the same time, the Opposition has to be prepared to be criticised for its approach. It is about time the Leader of the Opposition talked some sense about prisons. He should do so in an informed manner, not in the loose cannon method for which the Labor Party has become well known.
The Opposition spokesman on corrective services is acknowledged to make loose canon statements, to the point that if he puts out a press release the media approaches the Government to check the facts before it publishes anything. I have noted that on very few occasions things get published because the facts are understood by the media to be wrong. That does absolutely nothing for the credibility of the shadow minister. That is probably why, since the member's media stunt, the only comments in relation to corrective services have come from the Leader of the Opposition.
I refer also to the approach taken by the Opposition in this regard. At the same time as he was claiming to want a bipartisan approach to prison policy the Leader of the Opposition attacked the prison system. He did so on totally false statements. He has said in his offer of this bipartisan approach that there will be increased prison violence and that there have been record high suicide attempts, deaths in custody and a breakdown of the work and day release schemes. Let us look at those issues. First I shall refer to violence. In the 10 years that the Labor Party was in office before the 1988 election there were 11 murders in the prisons system; there has been none since we came into Government. That is not to say that these incidents will not occur - they may occur tomorrow - but the Leader of the Opposition cannot say there has been increased violence when it is not so.
The Hon. R. J. Webster: It was a lie.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Yes, it was a lie. We are used to the Bob Carr big lie. People in the community these days refer to the Carr lie. It creates a problem if one pursues a policy and then undermines the credibility of suggestions for a bipartisan approach with statements which are totally untrue. We know that during Labor's period of office there were extensive riots in the gaols, and prison officers were taken hostage. Those sorts of things are not occurring in the prison system today.
The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: What about Yabsley's little effort? What about the property riots?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: They are not occurring today. Let us have a closer look at the claims about record high suicide attempt rates. Given Page 3248 that the prison population has increased by more than 2,000 since 1988, it is significant that the number of suicides has dropped. In Labor's final year in office there were 10 suicides in New South Wales prisons. In 1990-91, after the coalition had implemented its policies, the number of suicides had dropped to seven. In 1991-92 they had dropped to three and in this calendar year they have dropped to two.
The Hon. Franca Arena: You know, there are some people who are sick.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Exactly. The Hon. Franca Arena has hit the nail on the head. Sometimes her interjections are most apt. The Opposition has thrown up statistics suggesting increasing suicides. This is not the case. There may well be a cyclical upturn in suicides. We should compare what happens in the general community. Let us look at the statistics on deaths in custody. In the past 10 months there have been nine deaths in custody, but what the Leader of the Opposition failed to observe was that seven of them were deaths from natural causes. Unfortunately, people do die from natural causes. Suggesting that that is not so is abusing the statistics. Interestingly, the New South Wales Coroners Court released a paper two months ago which showed that suicides in the general community had increased by 13 per cent since 1990-91. But suicides in corrective services institutions have dropped dramatically. And the Opposition has had the gall to say that there has been an increase in violence, an increase in deaths in custody and an increase in suicides. The facts are to the contrary.
The record of the Government on suicides in custody has been appropriate. Because of a couple of incidents the Government has commissioned former Coroner Waller to undertake an inquiry. The report is being finalised and will be released by me when I have had the opportunity of analysing the recommendations in detail. The Leader of the Opposition also referred to escapes. Independent statistics compiled by the Department of Corrective Services show that the percentage rate of escapes by prisoners on day leave - that is what the figures refer to - in the period from 1977 to 1988, the Labor period, was 8.5 per cent per annum. From 1988 to 1992, during our administration, the rate was 0.75 per cent. Yet Bob Carr attacks us on increased escapes by prisoners on day leave. Again, Bob Carr is either ignorant or misinformed or prepared to lie to the community. Government members think it is all three.
This Government has addressed its responsibilities concerning other schemes. The Labor Party keeps on trying to take the stuffing out of the officers of the department in relation to their administration. We have improved the industrial training and education of our officers. We have allowed for industrial training, education, work release of prisoners and day and weekend leave, and we will continue those programs. Approximately 89,620 movements to and from work took place last year. Yet only 11 inmates did not return from work release. That goes to show that there is a commitment by corrective services officers to deal properly with inmates in such programs, and that their efforts are respected by the inmates. We are intent on pursuing a program of rehabilitation and sensitive administration of corrective services establishments.
The Hon. Ann Symonds: What about community colleges for women?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The honourable member will be pleased to know that we are working on a policy in relation to such issues. I look forward to announcements in relation to those policies. I also look forward to the Hon. Ann Symonds being vocal in support of me on these issues, contrary to the position taken by the relevant shadow spokesman, who continually carps and attacks the corrective services administration most inappropriately.
ABORIGINAL PRISONERS
The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Is the Attorney General and Minister for Justice aware that over the past year the Aboriginal population of New South Wales corrective services institutions has risen by 12.5 per cent, whereas the overall prison population has risen by only 2 per cent? Have the 339 recommendations of the Aboriginal deaths in custody royal commission, published in April 1991, been implemented? If not, how many have been implemented and why have the remainder not been implemented?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: If the honourable member puts the detail in the last part of her question in a question on notice I shall deal with it. As to the Aboriginal deaths in custody royal commission, I am proud to be able to say that with its record the New South Wales Government leads Australia in the implementation of the recommendations of the royal commission. Sixty-four recommendations have been identified as a responsibility of the department or a joint responsibility of the department and other groups. Forty-one of those recommendations have been implemented. Six of those recommendations are currently being further reviewed, and seventeen of them are in the process of being implemented. This Government has accepted its obligations in relation to deaths in custody.
The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Why has it not been effective? Why has the Aboriginal population in institutions risen by 12.5 per cent when the overall prison population has risen by 2 per cent?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I had better say this slowly because I know the honourable member has difficulty understanding. If they are in prison there is the possibility that they have been found by the courts to have been guilty of a crime!
The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: But the recommendations make the point that Aborigines are more likely than whites to be sent to prison for similar crimes. Obviously no change has occurred.
Page 3249
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: That is a quantum leap which the honourable member might wish to make; it may not be the fact in relation to the present position. This Government is intent on implementing the recommendations, and is doing so. The Liberal Party-National Party Government has a commitment to Aboriginal justice reform. Who was the only Attorney General in Australia to adopt the recommendation that there should be an Aboriginal justice advisory committee? The New South Wales Attorney General. I am the only Attorney General who has done that. I am happy to acknowledge on the record that the chairman of that committee is Dr Bob Bellear, a well-known member of the Labor Party. I was prepared to appoint as chairman of that committee a person who was well recognised in the Aboriginal community, without any regard for political affiliations or support.
That indicates my commitment and that of the Government to ensuring that those recommendations are implemented and that the advice is taken. The honourable member's carping serves to indicate the shallowness of her views and the hollowness of the vessel those views came out of. To put the matter into some perspective, in 1985, at the time of the inquiry, the identified Aboriginal population was 3.6 per cent of the total population. These days many more people are willing to acknowledge their Aboriginality, and the community should acknowledge that. The census from 1985 to 1993 indicates that the proportion of Aborigines in the population increased from 3.6 per cent to 9.6 per cent. That has nothing to do with breeding but a lot to do with Aborigines being willing to acknowledge their Aboriginality, yet during that same period the prison population rose by only 0.35 per cent, in real terms a decrease.
I am not happy about the number of Aborigines in prisons, and I am making certain that issues are pursued to address that. The Government is committed to dealing with these matters. For that reason the Department of Corrective Services has an Aboriginal task force dealing with the issue of Aborigines in prisons. I can assure the House that the Government does accept its responsibilities and will pursue the implementation of these recommendations in accordance with those responsibilities. In addition, I expect that the Aboriginal justice advisory committee will address further issues for me in that area. The Hon. D. F. Moppett is about to embark upon a tour for me into the Far West with members of that committee to look at those issues and to identify what more can be done with these programs. We are finding that a disproportionate number of people from that part of the State are still being incarcerated and we want to identify new initiatives. I am pleased that the Hon. D. F. Moppett has shown such commitment on these issues. He knows he has my support in relation to these matters.
POLICE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OFFENDERS IN CUSTODY
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Attorney General, in his own capacity and representing the Minister for Police, a question without notice. Is it a fact that the Victorian Supreme Court, after a lengthy hearing, has cleared the New South Wales Police Service, especially the police officers at Milton Police Station, of any blame and any negligence over the suicide attempt by, and resulting brain damage to, Angus Rigg whilst in custody in the Milton Police Station? What action is the Government taking to remove the apparent fear by police officers of such false allegations of neglect against police officers who may have prisoners in custody overnight, and especially at weekends? Are police officers therefore reluctant because of the Milton case to take similar prisoners into custody, preferring to support bail applications which may endanger the public?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I thank the honourable member for his question, in which he adverted to a matter which was the subject of significant public comment and press speculation at the time, and which has now been before a court. The court has considered all the evidence in that matter, which suggested that there had been negligence on the part of the police officers and of the Government. The court has determined that there was no such negligence. Yesterday a judge delivered an ex tempore judgment on that matter. I have not had the opportunity at this stage of reading the judge's decision in detail, which I understand is to become available today. However, I understand that two claims were made, a nervous shock claim by Caroline Rigg, the mother, and a claim by Angus Rigg himself.
The court dismissed Caroline Rigg's claim. However, after the jury indicated that it was not able to agree on a verdict on Angus Rigg's claim, the judge took control of the case and delivered a judgment dismissing the claim. I should like to extend sympathy on behalf of all honourable members to Mrs Rigg and to Angus Rigg in relation to the injuries that he has sustained as a result of that incident. I do not think any member can have other than heartfelt sympathy for both of them having to live the rest of their lives impaired or looking after a person who is significantly impaired. A lesson should be learnt by all of us from those claims. Many in the community were willing to jump to a conclusion about the police officers, and the newspapers were prepared to use innuendo.
Since that matter I have not read the comments by members of this House or of the other Chamber. I recollect, however, that an aura of innuendo remained around those police officers, that either they had direct complicity or they were grossly negligent in the way they carried out their responsibilities. The decision that Mr Justice Beach handed down clears those police officers of any wrongdoing or any inappropriate action. I understand they were even commended for their efforts in attempting to preserve the life and welfare of Mr Rigg. Out of that particular case, which attained a high profile, comes an opportunity to reflect on the commentary that followed it. I hope the members of the press reflect Page 3250 on the way they reported that matter and perhaps will adopt the attitude that they should not jump to false conclusions or seek to cast innuendo against police officers.
Police officers have a difficult job and many diverse responsibilities. Without question, every single one of them takes their duty to protect the lives and welfare of others as a total responsibility. To suggest otherwise in the current social climate is unwelcome. However, that view reflects the unfortunate impact of popular television series and casts an aura of doubt over the integrity and sense of responsibility of some officers, and for that reason we may have been too ready to jump to a false conclusion. I hope that from this most unfortunate incident some lessons are learnt that will benefit the whole community.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING MANT RECOMMENDATIONS
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Housing. Can the Minister say what the Government's response has been to the recommendations of the Mant inquiry into the Department of Housing that a Ministry of Housing be established?
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I thank the honourable member for her question. As honourable members would be aware, yesterday I gave quite a detailed response to the Mant report and I alluded to the fact that one of the recommendations was to establish a ministry. I am now in the position to give the House more details of that ministry, which is designed to provide a strategic policy framework for housing in New South Wales. The ministry will encompass not only housing but also planning and urban affairs, to reflect the Government's commitment to an integrated, holistic approach to urban development. The ministry of planning, housing and urban affairs is to be established within the housing and planning portfolios. This Government is the first in this State to seriously tackle the future of our urban environment and pressing issues of population -
The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: What about Glebe?
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister is answering the question.
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I am not sure what the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann is trumpeting about over there. Would the honourable member mind speaking a little louder and repeat what she said about Glebe?
The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Have you not heard of Tom Uren and the way in which Glebe was rebuilt by the Government?
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will answer the question asked by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I understood that Mr Uren was a member of a Federal government. I am talking about the State Government and saying that we are the first Government in this State to address this question. There is no doubt that the issues of population growth and urban expansion in Sydney have necessitated a more integrated approach to environmental planning and urban development.
[Interruption]
I must respond to the absolute arrant rubbish that is coming from the other side. The fact is that it was when the Opposition was in office for 11 years - when Bob Carr, among others, was planning Minister - that the urban sprawl began in western Sydney. It has not happened in the last six years. The Opposition created all those problems out there, yet members are yelling at me from the other side of the Chamber and suggesting that somehow the Labor Party -
The Hon. Ann Symonds: The Government has sold off all the inner city public housing.
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: Rubbish! That is the sort of nonsense I would not expect from the Hon. Ann Symonds, quite frankly. I would be very happy to provide her with details of the amount of public housing in the inner city. There is plenty.
The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Another sell-off in Glebe.
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The honourable member is talking rubbish. A more integrated approach to environmental planning and urban development is vital. This ministry will, of course, provide that framework. When John Fahey became Premier he brought planning, housing and water under one ministerial umbrella. That was another milestone in recognition of the interrelated importance of overall planning of the metropolitan area. With the creation of this new ministry the Government is drawing together some of the major policy-making players in housing and urban planning in New South Wales. An integrated approach to urban development will take into account urban design policy, public housing policy, housing demand and supply analysis, government structure and administration, the relationship between the three tiers of government in achieving urban consolidation, and existing statutory conditions - all very important elements.
The urban policy and planning functions of the ministry will broadly encompass issues that have national, State and major regional and metropolitan-wide implications and issues that have relevance to a range of housing providers. The acting director-general of the new ministry will be Gabrielle Kibble, who is currently the director of planning and the director of housing. The ministry, which will be made up of 30 people, will incorporate policy functions of the Department of Planning and the Department of Housing. Other than director-general, no new positions will be created in the ministry; other people will be moved in from the two departments I have alluded to. The positions of director-general of Page 3251 the new ministry and director of housing will be advertised in the near future. I believe the new ministry will further assist our Government in achieving the holistic, integrated approach to housing and planning that I mentioned, which, of course, will help to create a better urban environment for the future.
SEAFORTH AGED AND DISABLED HOUSING
The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I ask the Minister for Planning and Housing a question without notice. Is it a fact that Manly Council, after originally opposing the building of 29 units for the aged and disabled in Grandview Grove, Seaforth, has now approved the building of such units? Has the Minister's department received such approval? When is it going to start building these very much needed units for the aged and disabled people in the Seaforth-Manly area?
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: Yes, it is true that Manly council has given approval for the construction of those units in Seaforth. As the honourable member would know, the Department of Housing is building many hundreds of new units right across the State, particularly pensioner housing, which has the double effect of providing high quality accommodation for the increasing number of pensioners in New South Wales and, more importantly for those who are presently in public housing, of quite often freeing up larger dwellings for young people. I cannot answer the honourable member's question about when the department will be building these units, because obviously approval has only just been given. The department has a priority list of areas where the demand is greatest, and clearly that area does not fall into the category of growth area.
The Hon. Franca Arena: A lot of disabled people live there.
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: There are a lot of disabled people everywhere, though I accept what the honourable member says. I am pointing out that the Government has to allocate priorities. I suspect that the construction will not commence in the near future. Obviously the Government will have to make decisions, and it will do so.
NALBAUGH STATE FOREST LOGGING
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Minister for Planning and Housing, representing the Minister for the Environment: Why did the National Parks and Wildlife Service undermine the credibility of scientists from the Wilderness Society by telling the Federal Minister for the Environment, Ros Kelly, that the scientists "were in the wrong area" when describing the values of compartment 1402 in the Nalbaugh special prescription area? Is it a fact that whilst scientists from the Wilderness Society have thoroughly examined compartment 1402, no scientists from the parks service have bothered to undertake a thorough examination of this compartment? Is it a fact that the parks service has given the go-ahead to the logging of this compartment without fully understanding the ecological values of the compartment and in violation of the national forest policy statement signed by the Premier? Will the Minister now ask scientists from the parks service to make a thorough ground survey of compartment 1402 and to correctly inform the Minister of the ecological values of this compartment and pass this information on to the Federal Minister for the Environment and correct the misinformation given to him.
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I am not sure whether that is a question or a speech. I will endeavour to seek the information from my colleague.
SYSTEMS ABUSE REPORT
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I refer to the report commissioned by the Child Protection Council entitled "Systems Abuse" and complaints by teachers highlighting the report about a lack of trust and communication between Department of Community Services staff and the Department of Education in notifying suspected cases of physical or sexual abuse. I note that the Government has had the systems abuse report since February and ask what action will the Minister take to implement the recommendations in the report that relate to his portfolio?
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the honourable member for her question. I believe that the report she is referring to is one that other Opposition members have been talking about recently in relation to child protection. At that time it had not been thoroughly reviewed by Minister Longley. If that is the report to which the honourable member is referring, I have not had the opportunity to either read or to receive detailed advice on it from officers in my department. However, speaking in general terms I can say that there are mandatory reporting requirements of school teachers and officers of the Department of School Education. I would be astonished if other than in the most extreme circumstances proper reports were not made. With a huge work force, I could guarantee that every one of our 47,000 teachers remembers to report instantly.
I have heard of teachers reporting a little later, whereupon they have been counselled and advised that disciplinary action will be taken if they do not comply with the requirements. Given that the reporting requirements are mandatory, I would be astonished if the Department of Community Services and the Department of School Education did not have a good working relationship. No such matter has ever been brought to my attention. I look forward to reading the report and receiving the department's advice on it. It is a great joy to work with children and with the Department of School Education. I cannot help but feel a great sense of disappointment that since the Hon. Jan Burnswoods has left the department she has been quite miserable. I hope she will cheer up and start to take a far more positive view about what is Page 3252 happening in public education. She has a background as an educator and has a keen interest in the issue. I hate to see her so unhappy. I would like to think that she will become imbued with the spirit of public education. She would be a much happier person if she took a more optimistic view of the world.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.
INTERSTATE APPREHENDED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDERS
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Yesterday the Hon. Jan Burnswoods asked me a question without notice concerning the registration of interstate apprehended violence orders. In reply I wish to advise that the Crimes (Registration of Interstate Restraint Orders) Amendment Act 1992, which passed through Parliament last year, formed part of a national initiative of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General to provide national continuity of protection to victims of domestic and personal violence. Other Australian jurisdictions have legislated, or are currently legislating to ensure reciprocal recognition of interstate orders in each Australian jurisdiction. In keeping with other States, the New South Wales legislation puts the onus on the protected person, or someone on his or her behalf, to apply for registration of the interstate restraint order in New South Wales. A protected person who decides to leave his or her home State is the person who is in the best position to know this fact and to apply personally, or through someone else, for the registration of the order in the destination State.
It is important to emphasise that any person - a relative, friend or police officer, et cetera - may apply on the victim's behalf to the Local Court or the Children's Court to register the interstate order in New South Wales. For example, the victim's parents, who might reside in New South Wales, may approach the court on behalf of the victim to register the order, even before the person has reached New South Wales. An interstate computer link-up system of registration as suggested by the honourable member was not, to my knowledge, ever contemplated by the Standing Committee of Attorneys General, notwithstanding the allegation made in the question.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What about information on history of offences?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: That was not the question asked. Apart from the high costs and administrative burden of establishing and maintaining a national referral system with the need for constant updating of orders following their revocation or variation, an important feature of the New South Wales legislation was that the home State where the apprehended violence order was originally imposed should not - and I emphasise that - be notified of the registration of the order in New South Wales. It was considered that the victim's present whereabouts might have been too easily obtained by the defendant if notification to the home State were involved. This concern appears to have been borne out by the recent report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption on the unauthorised release of government information. In relation to the particular case of Andrea Patrick, to which the honourable member referred, the information sought relates to police operational matters and, as I am at present advised, the police were not aware of any existing interstate apprehended violence order at the time of the proceedings involving Mr Twite. However, I will confirm that with the Minister for Police and advise the House further should that be necessary.
[Interruption]
I have read the transcript of that case. Andrea Patrick made a considerable amount of information available to the court. She made no reference at all to any such order having been made in another State.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What about the breaches of the orders?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Andrea Patrick was in court. She was actually spoken to at length by the magistrate.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Why was the magistrate not aware of the offences?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The deceased was in court. She was able to make information available to the magistrate. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods is the person making allegations about previous domestic violence orders and about whether they should have been brought before the court. Unfortunately, the deceased did not make that information available. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods referred to a computer link-up. There was never any proposal for a computer link-up. On the contrary, the structure of the Act was aimed at making certain that no one from the State the person left would know that he or she had moved to another State and may be in New South Wales. The Act was structured in that way to protect people. Yesterday I made some strong comments about the inanity of the question.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Offensive comments.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: If they were taken by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods to be offensive, perhaps the nature of the question should be looked at. If the honourable member wants information, I am happy to provide it. The role of our officers is to assist in making facts available about particular issues. I am quite happy to do that to avoid the need for such comments. ______
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Motion by the Hon. J. P. Hannaford agreed to:
That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday, 12 October, 1993, at 2.30 p.m.
[The President left the chair at 1.7 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]
Page 3253
GOVERNMENT CLEANING SERVICE RETENTION BILL
Bill received.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Leader of the Opposition) [2.31]: I move:
That this bill be now read a first time.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [2.31]: I move:
That the question be amended by the omission of all words after "That", with a view to inserting instead:
the Bill be returned to the Legislative Assembly with the following message:
The Legislative Council declines to take into consideration any Bill which would prevent the privatisation of the Government Cleaning Service and returns the bill to the Legislative Assembly without considering the bill.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Leader of the Opposition) [2.32]: I shall not delay consideration of this motion because, obviously, the Leader of the Government has a two-pronged motive. He wants to provoke a lengthy debate on this bill in order to assist the filibuster of the debate on the motion moved by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, and the motion is in keeping with the Government's intention of destroying the jobs and the livelihood of 6,000 ordinary men and women who work for the Government Cleaning Service. The privatisation of the Government Cleaning Service identifies for the whole world the agenda of this callous Government - a government that, as indicated in the Budget handed down last week, is taking action to axe more than 10,000 jobs in New South Wales.
The fact that the Government is not even willing to consider this bill in the Legislative Council is an absolute disgrace. In all the time I have been a member of Parliament I cannot recall one previous occasion when an amendment similar to that moved by the Leader of the Government today was moved. The Government has shown what it is about. It is not interested in jobs, and it is not interested in the employees of the Government Cleaning Service. But, as I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, that is not its only motive for moving this amendment today. The Government's other motive is to assist the filibuster of the debate on the motion of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby.
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.34]: I support the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. This is a most extraordinary step for the Government to take. Within an hour and a half of my being accused of misusing the forms of this House and the Leader of the Government talking about my taking away the control or power of government, it is very interesting to have this example of the power of government. It is a ridiculous state of affairs when the House of review cannot debate legislation that was passed in another place. Are we to believe that the remarks of the Leader of the Government shortly before question time are pure hypocrisy? It is ridiculous that members in this Chamber do not at least debate the merits of the legislation that has been sent to them.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.35]: I want to put on record where Call to Australia stands at this moment on the proposed Government Cleaning Service legislation. Over some weeks we have had lengthy discussions on this issue with the Minister, with departmental staff and with the potential tenderers who are hoping to be involved in due course. I put to the Government a number of my deep concerns about the effects of the privatisation, and those matters have been taken up by the Government. A letter from the Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services gives assurances that, in the main, satisfy my concern. The letter, dated 16th September, is addressed to me. It reads as follows:
Thank you for the opportunity to present the full facts about the Government's plan to privatise Government Cleaning Service. The union and the Opposition have chosen to consciously misrepresent the details of this plan. In doing so they have needlessly scared cleaners and their families and caused great distress in the community.
The Opposition and union have sought to imply that nearly 8,000 jobs are at stake. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the Government has gone to great lengths to build in a series of employee protections which are without precedent in a privatisation of this scale. Such protections and period of guaranteed employment are, in effect, more extensive than those available to other employees in both the public and private sectors.
The motivation behind the Government's sale plan is to save jobs. Were the Government Cleaning Service exposed to open competition after July 1994 it would have lost very large numbers of its current contracts to the private sector. The consequence would have been a massive loss of jobs.
Thus the Government has acted to preserve employment while also opening up cleaning to competition and achieving cost savings over a time period commensurate with natural attrition of the work force.
I would note that the public discussions to date by the union have ignored that there is an elaborate system of awards and industrial legislation designed to safeguard employees in the private sector. In particular, the Cleaning Contractors (State) Award which includes grievance procedures, the Industrial Relations Act which includes unfair dismissal provisions, and the Industrial Commission and its operation provide a comprehensive system of protection. Clearly the union has a positive role to play in this system.
On top of this the Government has layered a set of contractual protections, consultative mechanisms, reporting obligations and audit requirements. The very selection process is designed to ensure that only reputable companies with good records of personnel practices are successful. Contract incentives are also in place with the extension of the contract from 3 to 5 years dependent upon a demonstrated record of good treatment of employees and meeting contract commitments with respect to staff.
In a further attempt to meet any residual concerns you might have the Government is willing to provide you with the following undertakings:
1. It will establish a tripartite consultative committee of union, employer and CSG representatives to meet regularly so as to assist in the smooth transition of employees to the successful tenderers and the fair and equitable administration of the contract. This committee would be able to review grievances where they were not Page 3254 resolved internally or in direct discussions between the employee and/or union and employers. Issues which could not be resolved within the framework of this committee would be referred to the Industrial Commission where appropriate.
2. The Government will ensure that employees are informed of their rights under the relevant Award and Industrial Regulation. This should reduce fears among cleaners and serve to assist them in their transition to the private sector.
3. Successful tenderers will be required to ensure that an acceptable grievance procedural mechanism is in place and adhered to. This will be included as part of the sale contract. Such a mechanism must meet the principles of procedural fairness including:
-prior adequate notice of any substantial change in working conditions or where dismissal or disciplinary action is contemplated
-provision of reasons for any contemplated action by the employer
-reasonable opportunity for the affected employee to seek to complain, or justify their actions and/or to seek redress of a grievance
-provision of suitable and well defined set of graduated steps and contact people according to which a grievance should be resolved
-adequate documentation and notice of the outcomes and reasons for decisions at any stage of the grievance process
-adequate notification to an employee of their rights under the grievance procedure
-the opportunity for the employee to be represented by the Union
-normal work to continue while the grievance procedure is being followed.
Any such grievance procedure must be consistent with the requirements of the Industrial Relations Act and the existing Award.
4. The Government will require the 12 months of guaranteed employment to apply from the date the Government originally announced for the untying of GCS clients, re July 1, 1994. This will effectively guarantee employment until mid-1995.
The above measures complement those I have already announced as part of the sale. These measures, the active role of the Government in monitoring the implementation and administration of the employee protection provisions of the sale and the existing protection of the award and industrial system assure maximum opportunities for ongoing employment of staff over the entire 5 years of the contract.
Indeed, in the context of the above undertakings and protections and in view of the ongoing cleaning work requirements and the performance of GCS staff, it is clear that suggestions of large scale sackings at any time during the contract are mischievous. This will not happen and cleaners should be allowed to get on with their jobs without these unnecessary fears.
I trust that this meets your concerns and I look forward to your support in the Assembly to reject the Government Cleaning Services Retention Bill. As I indicated to you the Bill is an extremely retrograde step. It insulates GCS from all competition for ever, thereby removing any pressures for efficiency improvements while simultaneously enhancing the power of the union. It will render future management of GCS untenable and only establish GCS as a welfare organisation. This is not in the interests of taxpayers, the State or, ultimately, of cleaners themselves.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Anne Cohen, M.P. Minister
As I said, my concern was to make sure there was a guaranteed period spelt out and that over a five-year period they would have an assurance of continued employment.
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [2.45]: I do not have a philosophical opposition to the privatisation of assets where it is in the interests of taxpayers, but the Government Cleaning Service is a special case. I have met with a number of men and women cleaners, many of whom no doubt will not be able to find other jobs when they are put off in 12 months' time or so from the Government Cleaning Service. Though there is a 12-month guarantee of existing jobs, there will be no guarantee after that period. It is my belief that perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 of these people will be without jobs in 12 months' time, no matter what reassurances the Minister gives us. If Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is a true Christian, he will support the maintenance of these several thousand jobs. In many cases the cleaners are older women who will not find employment elsewhere. We will soon see whether Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is a true Christian. I do not believe he is.
The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY [2.47]: I support the procedural motion moved earlier by the Leader of the Opposition - that the bill be read a first time - and oppose the amendment moved by the Leader of the Government in this Chamber. This extraordinary procedural motion seeks to deny the right of ordinary decent, hard-working Australians who do an admirable job cleaning schoolrooms for the Department of School Education.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You are being absurd and making a political football of the issue.
The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: It is not a question of a political football. These people are decent, honest workers. They have made a profit for the Government of $17 million annually for the past two years. In the main these people are women migrants, the most vulnerable people in employment in this State and nation. The honourable member knows the employment market is depressed. He knows that these people will never get another job and that they will be denied hundreds of thousands of dollars in superannuation because of the rort the Government pulled today. This is another opportunity to deny debate on the legislation that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby gave notice of today. Earlier Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, in his huff, puff and bluster, said how he would bring the Government down. It did not take him long.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: I am sorry to disappoint you.
The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: It proves my point that the Premier did not have the guts to stand up to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and call his bluff. Honourable members know that if he had, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile's bluff would have been called. But no, the Premier once again displayed his absolute ineptitude by leading the Government into chaos. We all know how much chaos there is on the government Page 3255 benches. The Government's amendment is a stunt to ensure that debate on the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill does not proceed. It is an opportunity to ensure that decent people are skewered by the heartless Fahey Government, the so-called warm Government, the Government that boasted it would create 18,000 jobs after the last Budget. Of course, honourable members know that the Government did not create those jobs.
It is an opportunity to ensure that at the very minimum workers' wages are cut, that they lose their superannuation, and in many cases extraordinary sums of money. These workers are not rich bureaucrats with senior executive service salaries, who rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars. These are decent, ordinary Australians that the Government is seeking to throw on the scrap-heap. In many cases employees of the Government Cleaning Service are very reliant upon their jobs for their financial security and the financial security of their families. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile claims to represent the family and true family values, yet -
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Those workers have more security in their jobs than the honourable member has. They are guaranteed a job for at least one year.
The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: When the Government privatises the Government Cleaning Service the workers will automatically lose 10 per cent of their salaries. Overnight the Government will wipe off 10 per cent of their salaries. I can imagine how the honourable member would react if 10 per cent of his salary were wiped off.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Who is wiping off their salaries?
The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: You are.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That is rot. It is misrepresentation.
The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: It is not rot; it is not misrepresentation; it is absolute fact, and the honourable member knows that to be so. Unfortunately the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has a vendetta against school cleaners. She is obsessed with getting rid of them because she considers them to be an evil group, rather than decent, ordinary people who do their job, and in so doing ensure that the schools of this State are cleaned. It is exactly the same as happened in the hospital system. The Government put private cleaners into hospitals. That was a disaster. The same will occur in our education system.
The Attorney General and Minister for Justice has moved an extraordinary motion. He has done so because he is embarrassed about what is occurring in his Government and in this Chamber today. This is the bloke who stood in this Chamber and said, "Don't vote for the Clover Moore bill because I have a better one. When we introduce it we will fix it". We all know now that he was wrong; we all know now that the Premier did not have the guts to stand in the party room and take on this decision. This is another example of the Government ensuring that honest and decent decisions are not made, but rather that improper and outrageous decisions are made. The lower House has today expressed a view on this issue. Quite legitimately the Leader of the Opposition has moved that this issue be introduced into this Chamber and that it deal with the bill. But rather than go through the normal procedures, the Minister is seeking to send the bill back to the lower House so that it cannot be debated and carried in this Chamber.
We should go through the history of this issue. When the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing was the Minister for Administrative Services the unions got together with the department and achieved a 35 per cent to 40 per cent productivity improvement. The unions have participated in the reform process of industrial relations in New South Wales. They have made a hardy contribution to the Department of School Education and the consolidated revenue of this State. The Government had an agreement with the cleaners but, as with many another agreement, it has not honoured it. The Government does not honour any agreement. Its word has no worth.
The Hon. Franca Arena: See how embarrassed the Attorney General is.
The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: He cannot even look at me, because he knows what is right. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs is fleeing from the Chamber because she knows the role she has played in the destruction of these decent, honest Australians.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That is outrageous!
The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: No, it is not outrageous. Unfortunately, the Government's frontbench and backbench are missing a particular person today, the one person on the Government side of the Chamber who knows that this bill to which we are seeking to give a first reading today, and therefore debate, is a proper and rightful bill. It is a shame that he is not in the Chamber to participate in this debate.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Is this the Bob Carr broad vision?
The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: This is about people's lives. The Liberal Party is not interested in that any more. That is why the Liberal Party is destined to the dustbin of history as each day goes by. The Government does not have long to cling to office. On 25th March, 1995, the Government will be defeated. One reason for its defeat will be its actions with the Government Cleaning Service and another reason will be the homosexual anti-vilification legislation. The Government has blown away its chances of electoral success in the electorate of Bligh. The Hon. J. H. Jobling, the Government Whip, is trying to ensure that the Liberals in Bligh have a forceful voice. He has been wining and dining all Page 3256 over Sydney. But it has blown up on him because the Attorney General has not lived up to the commitments which he gave to the gay and lesbian community in December last year.
The Hon. J. H. Jobling: We are going to win Bligh.
The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: I hate to tell the honourable member that the Government will not win Bligh. This is an outrageous procedural motion to ensure that the contingent notice moved earlier today by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is not dealt with. The Government was filibustering in the debate this morning. We heard a long and boring speech from the Attorney General and Minister for Justice; Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has already caved in - so much for his threat. The Liberal Party and the Premier did not have the guts to stand up to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. The Government is history; it will go down the gurgler of history. I urge the House to reject the motion moved by the Attorney General and Minister for Justice.
The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [2.55]: It is with a mixture of sadness and rage that I speak to this motion. If there is one member of this House that I do not agree with often, but respect immensely, it is the Leader of the House, the Attorney General and Minister for Justice. I know how embarrassed he must be at this dreadful tactic he took today towards one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile claims that he likes to stand up for groups. He saw the cleaners, most of whom were women of non-English speaking background, protesting outside this building. Those people can hardly speak English; they came here 30 and 40 years ago when English classes were not available. They work their guts out for their families - their families, Mr Nile - and they work their guts out for Australia. What are we telling them now? We are telling them that we cannot even discuss the bill. Shame on the Attorney General! The Attorney General talks about democracy. This will be his shame.
New South Wales now has a Minister solely responsible for ethnic affairs. He is a little twit. He says to the ethnic community, "I am the first Minister solely for ethnic affairs; I have attended 160 functions in the few months that I have been a Minister". Tell him to go to the next function after what has happened in this Chamber. If he goes he will sit in the rotten tomatoes that people will throw at him. Does the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs think that people of the ethnic community are stupid? It is not much use putting $3.5 million extra into ethnic affairs and having a Minister attending ethnic functions when the most vulnerable members of the ethnic community are going to be treated like this. We are not even allowed to debate this bill in Parliament. It is a shame. The Leader of the House is embarrassed by it all, as is the former Leader of the House, the Hon. E. P. Pickering, who is a decent man with some conscience. I am sure that this would never have happened if he were still the Leader of the House.
How is the Government going to show its face to the ethnic community after this? The cleaners protested outside Parliament House and people knew who they were. This morning when I came to work 12 Italian women in their fifties were in front of the building. They had worked in schools for 20 years to 25 years. They are part of the school community. I remember that at the Opera House only a few weeks ago, as was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, children wrote a petition to the Minister because they wanted their cleaners to be kept at their schools. We are not talking about an inefficient service. Following a restructuring that started under the Unsworth premiership, a yearly saving of $72 million has been achieved in the service, with union and employee co-operation. The service is not inefficient.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The level of interruption is too high.
The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I would like to see the attitude of members opposite placed on the record. Let us see the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti go to the Italian community. He struts up and down like a twit, just like the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs. He pretends to be a paladin of the ethnic community but he comes into this Chamber and denigrates the ethnic community; he denigrates them all the time. The Government claims that it would save a further $30 million over the next three to five years, but this can only be achieved by reducing cleaning services. The Government will spend more than $100 million a year on consultants but our hospitals and schools are getting less and less service and becoming dirtier and dirtier. Australia will soon be like a developing country, not one of which we could be proud.
The Government is playing a dirty trick on the Chamber today. On 19th September I will have been in Parliament for 12 years. Even under a tough leader like Mr Landa, who was not a great paladin of parliamentary democracy, we did not see the Government trying to stifle democracy such as the attempt we have seen today in this Chamber. Members opposite: Shame on you! The aim of the legislation should be to safeguard jobs. It is important that we do not go down the road that Victoria has gone down. We do not want a divisive policy, putting Australian against Australian. This trick is being played on the most vulnerable members of our community.
The Hon. J. F. Ryan: I can tell that you do not want to vote on the next bill.
The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: The Hon. J. F. Ryan prides himself on coming from the western suburbs, and so he should. If he takes the train every morning he will see that the passengers are not the type of people who live at Darling Point.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: At least he travels on the train.
The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: So do I. I travel on the bus.
Page 3257
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I have not seen you get off and walk up Martin Place.
The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Be quiet. You do not know what you are talking about. You take too much gas when you do an operation. You should give more gas to your patients.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The level of interruption in this debate is far too high. If it continues I will have to take appropriate action.
The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Government cleaners have already improved their work practices. They have ensured that they become as efficient as possible. They have tendered for many jobs including jobs at Sturt University, the city office of Pacific Power and numerous State and Police Service institutions. They have been successful because they are efficient, clever, and work hard. It is a shame that today we are not allowed to deal with the legislation. I see that the Hon. J. M. Samios is in the Chamber. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho is not here. She is another member who pretends to the ethnic communities that she is concerned about issues. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs is the person who has caused the problem. She was in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate but then she picked up her books and left the Chamber as if the matter was of no concern to her. Members should be in the Chamber when such an important threat to democracy is occurring. It is an absolute disgrace. I am happy that the gallery is full of people and, for once, there are two journalists in the press gallery. I hope they will report to people in the community the threat to democracy posed by the Government today. It will use any trick at all, no matter at what cost. I cannot find the words. I am upset and -
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Flabbergasted.
The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Exactly. I thank the Hon. D. F. Moppett. I am absolutely flabbergasted at the tactics of the Government. I do not know how it can act in this way and prevent debate. What is it afraid of in the debate? As my colleague the Hon. P. F. O'Grady said, the Government does not want us to discuss the homosexual anti-vilification bill. That is what it is all about. The Government does not want democracy to work. It wants everything to be done the Government's way. Again I put on record that the Government will not get away with it. The ethnic communities will remember the Government's action for a long, long time. I will make sure that at every function I attend - I usually never play politics when I go to functions - I remind people of what the Government has done today in this Chamber to 7,500 cleaners, mostly women of non-English speaking background who, if they lose their jobs, will never work again.
The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.6]: I wish to remind the House of the nature of this matter. It appears that the debate has become somewhat emotional. The motion moved by the Attorney General and Minister for Justice - a very worried man at present, and on so many accounts - concerns the Government Cleaning Service Retention Bill. People have probably already forgotten the terms of the motion, which are:
That the question be amended by the omission of all words after "That", with a view to inserting instead:
the Bill be returned to the Legislative Assembly with the following message:
The Legislative Council declines to take into consideration any Bill which would prevent the privatisation of the Government Cleaning Service and returns the bill -
That is the Government Cleaning Service Retention Bill:
- to the Legislative Assembly without considering the bill.
Mr President, you and the constituents of New South Wales who are here today might well ask why we are so concerned with this legislation. We are concerned because it involves at least 7,500 people. Of those people, 77 per cent are female. They are aged 40 plus - 76.8 per cent - and 50 plus - 44.4 per cent. Most of the people about whom we want to introduce a bill have given service for more than 10 years - 34.5 per cent - and less than five years - 41 per cent. Their earnings would not otherwise be sought after if these people were in different circumstances. A sociological factor is that most of the 7,500 cleaning staff provide cleaning services in the areas where they are domiciled. They earn $328.20 for 30 hours a week. For broken shifts they get an extra $33.90. There is a toilet allowance of $5.90. The hourly rate quoted by tenderers can be categorised as follows. The hourly rate depends on a number of factors: the time of day that the work is done, and night shift will attract a higher rate; the percentage of part-timers and full-timers; the equipment needed to do the job; the type of industry - whether it is in an office, a retail shop or a manufacturing location; and the contract conditions.
Taking all those conditions into account, the hourly rates favoured by legitimate operators in the industry range from $18.50 to $21.50. Anything less than $18.50 per hour would be for jobs that are being quoted at or below cost only for public relations purposes. What is the background to the situation? Why does this bill need to be debated today? The Government Cleaning Service is part of the New South Wales Commercial Services Group. It employs about 7,500 and is responsible for cleaning public schools, police stations, court buildings, some TAFE colleges and some other public buildings. The Government Cleaning Service has already been restructured - a process which began under the Unsworth Labor Government. That process, undertaken with union, employee and employer co-operation, resulted in savings of $72 million before the change of government in 1988.
On 7th July, for example, the Minister for Administrative Services announced that the New South Wales Government would privatise the Government Cleaning Service. The intention was that the Government Cleaning Service was to be sold off in five geographically based groups on five-year contract Page 3258 periods. The Government alleges that it can save a further $37 million over the next three to five years, but I suggest this can be achieved only by a reduction in cleaning hours. A social impact is involved in the privatisation of the Government Cleaning Service. The most severe social impact of this privatisation is that up to 7,500 cleaning jobs are at risk. Those positions, the jobs of 7,500 workers, are at risk at a time when unemployment is already unacceptably high.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: What about the elderly?
The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: I have already covered the age categories. The staff are to be given only 12 months' security of employment, whereas the contract periods are for five years. The Government also intends to stop holiday pay, sick pay, long service leave and accrued superannuation entitlements.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That is not true.
The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti says it is not true. I can only try to imagine what he pays his cleaning lady at Lismore. I suppose she does it for two meals a day - lunch and dinner.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I do it myself.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should tell the House about his arrangements.
The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: I have flushed out the Quambone kid! What does he think? Is he trying to silence me? Yesterday he repeated ad nauseam that members are entitled to say what they like in this Chamber. I am not defaming him by calling him the Quambone kid. He should go back home and do some mulesing. Who is looking after his place? What is he paying the people out there to do his mulesing?
The PRESIDENT: Order! The level of interjection is too high. I warn honourable members.
The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: The majority of workers employed by the Government Cleaning Service are middle-aged and older women. A great proportion of them are from non-English speaking backgrounds. That is precisely why the Hon. Franca Arena was so eloquently upset when she spoke about those non-English speaking people involved. Not for one moment would the honourable member deny the same concern to people who have English as their first language. However, people of non-English speaking backgrounds are more defenceless than our own. The group is particularly vulnerable in labour market terms, and most find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find work in other areas.
So often do men and ladies - particularly ladies - take up work in the cleaning industry specifically to be able to attend to their children at 3.30 or 4 o'clock of an afternoon when they return from school. So many cleaning women in this State have chosen this occupation for the purpose of sustenance, to be able to feed their children, but in particular to be there when their children come home from school. In many cases children attend the school at which their parents are employed. Those workers normally carry out other functions such as opening and closing the school, assisting with fetes, as well as having a strong personal commitment to the future well-being of the school. These additional services will be lost once contractors from outside move in. That spirit of cleaners-, especially of those in schools, will be taken out of the equation.
The adverse effect on public schools became evident in Victoria after the Kennett Liberal Government privatised its Government Cleaning Service. Cleaning hours were slashed, and in some schools parents have had to be rostered to carry out duties previously undertaken by government employees. However, it is not only parents who have been rostered. In some Victorian schools where contractors were introduced earlier this year, children were rostered to carry out environmental duties - a great word, indeed, for cleaning. Those environmental duties included sweeping the yard, cleaning drains, and gardening. Why should the Government Cleaning Service not be privatised? The Government Cleaning Service already provides a cost competitive and efficient service. It has been actively pursuing and winning contracts in competitive tenders.
Mr Chris Raper, divisional branch secretary of the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, has been actively campaigning against privatisation and has sent out information kits. What will this attack upon the Government Cleaning Service bring about? I predict and prophesy that cleaning hours will be slashed in government buildings. I prophesy that cleaners will lose job security and entitlements such as long service leave and superannuation. Many family breadwinners will eventually find themselves on the dole, no matter what guarantees the Government talks about. I cannot understand the Leader of Call to Australia being convinced by that letter of assurance that he received and read in this Chamber today.
The Leader of Call to Australia has received quite a number of assurances from the Government in recent times. He told members only recently what he thinks of this Government which has repudiated assurances that he has received. I say to the Hon. Elaine Nile and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile that they will find this is just one more assurance that they can forget about. Madam, you cannot trust them. New South Wales job seekers once more will have their number swelled. It is nonsense to say that cleaners' jobs can be guaranteed beyond 12 months. That is a lie. The contract cleaning industry has an annual staff turnover at a rate three times the rate of the Government Cleaning Service. There will be plenty of ways they can whittle down the numbers, one of which is the offering of shifts which are impossible for workers with family responsibilities. One way of giving a person the sack is to make the hours absolutely impossible.
Page 3259
Schoolchildren are going to find their classrooms, toilets and playgrounds much less clean as dollar-motivated contractors are involved in cleaning. Peace of mind of teachers and parents about safety of children and property in schools and TAFE colleges will be shattered. People should realise the almost proprietary interest that cleaning ladies and men, particularly in the school system, have towards their schools. Police and court house administrators, who need to ensure that trustworthy people are doing the cleaning, are also concerned. Most school cleaners work a split shift, early morning and late afternoon. I adumbrated that earlier, for that is where the child caring aspect comes into play.
Government cleaners are part of the community, and more than one-third of them have worked for the service for more than 10 years, as I said earlier. The cleaners have been active as an integral part of the school community and that is why the House is so interested to have this bill discussed today. This is another example of the colossal ineptitude of the most hopeless Government that I can remember in many years of my membership of the proud Australian Labor movement. I suggest that the matter will be fought to the last breath and I have done my bit in that regard.
The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [3.21]: I hope that the honourable member opposite will be able to restrain himself from the levels of interjection that he attempted to direct towards my colleague the Hon. Franca Arena. I am very proud to support my leader and the remarks that have been made so far by my colleagues on this matter. I hesitate to speak on this matter because I feel I am consenting to a very tawdry tactic by the honourable members opposite. In one sense I am ashamed to collaborate with them in their tactic to prevent the passage of legislation through this House today. In a double whammy there has never been such a superb example of the difficulties for society that this administration promotes. This is an extraordinary piece of legislation that seeks to preserve the jobs of 7,500 low-paid workers.
This House is using this debate to prevent another piece of legislation which is urgently desired by the community from proceeding. Honourable members opposite do not have the moral fortitude to actually stand up and pass this legislation through this House. There has been such an attempt -
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Like all this bushranging that is going on.
The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: Well, you would know.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Yes, I am sitting here watching the bushrangers.
The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: I have no doubt that you have absolutely no understanding of the matters before the House today. You have no understanding at all. The trite remarks you have made about the employment of these women in the Government Cleaning Service are grossly offensive to me.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: They are very perceptive remarks; they are not trite.
The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: The honourable member does not understand the threat to the jobs that has been encapsulated in the proposals of the Government. If the honourable member does understand them and supports them, he is to be condemned. He is to be condemned for the way in which he is promoting the privatisation agenda of this Government and the furthering of the process of contracting out. Everyone knows that the Government Cleaning Service is extraordinarily efficient, as has been demonstrated by the contribution made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The service is so efficient that it has won contracts in competition with the private sector. Should the devastation of this area of work proceed, we will only increase the loss of jobs in this State -
I ask the House to consider the import of these actions today. I heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition attempt to call to account the members of the Call to Australia party. He asked them to question whether they can rely on the assurances of Government, the assurances given to them to allay their professed concern about the women in the cleaning service. It is quite obvious that we cannot trust the Government, because it is not part of their agenda to attempt to protect those people. Their agenda is not only to demolish the Government Cleaning Service but to advance their general proposals of privatisation in this State, and at the same time to dismantle the trade union movement. They get both at once this way.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Rubbish! And once the private sector is unionised it will be supported by private companies.
The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: Exactly. Do not try to deny that; that is exactly what is happening. If the trade union movement had not been so able in recent times, so far as the nurses' hours of work are concerned, they would have been up for grabs and there would have been a diminution of their conditions.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What a joke.
The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: I think that members opposite have no real understanding. My charitable view of their motivation is that they do not understand. If they did, and if they took seriously their role in government and the nature of the social contract, they would be acting to protect workers, to protect those jobs and to protect institutions which are efficient.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: We are.
The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: How are you doing that? It is absolutely bizarre to propose that. The honourable member protests with regard to the hospital cleaning service that the contracting out was running efficiently. I can tell you, my good man, that having experienced cleaning in a hospital recently, I was appalled. I will not detail it because I do not Page 3260 want to name the hospital. I will not detail the problems I encountered, which were quite distressing so far as the level of cleanliness where I was is concerned, because I do not want to cause any embarrassment to that hospital, which I value so highly. The contracting out of cleaning has led to the point where I am convinced that people are in danger of infection. It is clearly a disaster in the hospital system. I believe the Government does not understand what it is doing. This debate relates to two pieces of legislation. The Government has used tactical means to avoid debate on the vilification bill and the Government Cleaning Service Retention Bill.
[Interruption]
So far as I am concerned they both relate to violence. The violence against the homosexual community is obvious. The Government needs to take urgent action and to say to the community, "We will not tolerate the present level of violence against a group of people in the community because of their sexual preference or condition". The proposed action against the Government Cleaning Service is also an act of violence against women workers. That cannot be denied. I conclude by relating a story I recently heard of one cleaning woman, who visited a local member on the North Coast, a National Party member, to explain to him her concerns about the imminent loss of her job as a school cleaner in Ballina.
She had worked in that job for decades and, as she explained to the local member, she worked in that position because she was an unmarried mother and cleaning was an appropriate job for her at that time. It was the only job that she could get which fitted in with her need to work and to care for her child. She made another telling point about the need for the retention and protection of cleaners' jobs. She is approaching retirement. It was suggested to her that she could take redundancy and early retirement. She said, "I don't want to take early retirement and a hand-out, I want a job". That is the issue that the Government will not allow to be debated.
I am proud that Ray Gietzelt organised the cleaning service in the 1960s and gave it union protection. I firmly believe that the Government's approach to privatising the cleaning service is linked directly to a severe blow against the trade union movement. Only the large cleaning companies will obtain the contracts. What will that do to the conditions of workers in this industry? I am disgusted by the way the Government has proceeded today. I will desist from making any further comments because I believe my attitude is perfectly clear.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.32]: The reason for the Government's objection to this bill has been made perfectly plain. If honourable members wish me to do so in my introductory remarks, I will refer to the drafting of the bill, which is one of the reasons the Government strongly objects to it. Clause 5 on page 3 reads, "The Government Cleaning Service must not be privatised". That makes the Government Cleaning Service an icon and puts it above Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank, the GIO, the State Bank and Australian Airlines - all icons of the past.
The Hon. L. D. W. Coleman: Telecom is going that way.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Telecom, the whole thing. It is clear that anyone looking objectively at this bill will see it for what it is. The bill contains new definitions of "privatisation" and "privatised". I suppose they are new forms of politicalspeak. The bill does not refer to privatisation as members on this side of the House have ever understood it. It defines privatisation in a special clause, and that definition does not contain the usual understanding of the word "privatisation". The language has been bastardised to create a new definition.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Who drafted the bill? Who is responsible?
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I do not know who drafted the bill, but anyone who reads it - small as it is - will realise that it is reasonable for the Government to claim that the bill is not even worth debating. This Chamber should take grave exception to the bill. I was hoping not to have to speak to the bill at all because it is such a nonsense. However, the Opposition has determined to proceed with it, and certain matters have been raised which made my blood run cold.
[Interruption]
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition had a little sport when he asked me what I paid my cleaning lady. In the past I have retained certain services from professional cleaners, who have come to my home on contract, and I have paid them. I wonder what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pays his cleaning service. I wonder whether his cleaning service would be subject to examination. I do all the cleaning in my unit here in Sydney. As a result, I am somewhat of a whiz in maintaining a very spic and span household. As a child I was taught how to clean because my mother was a cleaner. So was my aunt. My aunt, who is also my godmother, was a cleaner in the State school system. What a wonderful job it was! I suppose the Hon. Franca Arena will call her a migrant, non-English speaking background woman - and she was! After all, she was of Italian descent. She was born in Australia.
The Hon. Franca Arena: Then she was not an immigrant, was she?
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: So we have now got to the stage where we discriminate between immigrant women and women of non-English speaking background. This is just amazing! My aunt, a woman of non-English speaking background, was a cleaner, and the Hon. Franca Arena has the hide to discriminate on the basis of whether she was an immigrant. My poor aunt of Italian descent was much less advantaged than the Hon. Franca Arena. She supported herself by working as a cleaner in the Page 3261 State school system. That job gave her the total freedom to clean the school in the morning. It gave her the opportunity, having been a manageress in the canning business in Victoria, to come home and help care for her old parents, my grandparents, who were becoming doddery at that stage. She took it as part of her responsibility in the family to care for her parents. Is there something to be degraded in that?
The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Did she have any brothers?
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: She did. Aunt Kath had five brothers and four sisters. One of her brothers, Uncle Mick, the oldest son in the family, was a single man who lived at home and helped my maiden aunt to care for her aged parents. So, yes, there was a male and a female sharing the caring. My Aunt Kath was able to go and do the work in the morning, take the middle of the day off, and go back to work in the afternoon. The reason she loved the job was because she was able to mix with a lot of interesting young people. Those interesting young people were very responsive to my Aunt Kath and she often took some of them - who were from overseas and studying in Lismore, some from Papua New Guinea and Asia -
The Hon. Ann Symonds: Where were they studying in Lismore?
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: At St Carthage's and at St Mary's - and as honourable members may know, many people from Papua and New Guinea send their children to that school. Some of those children, whilst particularly advantaged, Michael Somare's children, for example -
The Hon. Ann Symonds: They are to be commended for accepting children from Papua and New Guinea.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Exactly. My Aunt Kath was a mother to many of them because she was a friend of theirs and used to take them out on weekends to the home and entertained them. She enjoyed that work. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick in her reply today to the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, referred to the joys of working with young people in the school system - whether one is a cleaner, a teacher, a headmaster or a parent. It is something which is most rewarding. My Aunt Kath took a great deal of pride, not just in her work as a cleaner but in the way in which she dealt with many of those children who came to her for advice.
The Hon. Ann Symonds: Put this woman's name into Hansard.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My Aunt Kath Pezzutti.
The Hon. Franca Arena: Caterina Pezzutti?
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, Kathleen - the same Irish Catholics who gave me the name Brian Patrick instead of Antonio Bernardo. Let that be in the record. It is one of the objections I have had to the Irish Catholic Church for many years and I will bear it to my grave.
The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: That they would not give you a decent name?
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: That they objected to giving me the name my parents wanted me to have. My Aunt Kath said it was a wonderful job, it paid exceptionally well. It allowed her to start in the morning, have time off work in the afternoon; it allowed her freedom of access to do anything she wanted to do. She thought it was a wonderful job. But, we come to 1993. Those were the boom days of the Menzies era and beyond; the boom days when, so long as the job was done, there was full employment and they were jobs which paid pretty well. Now we are under tough times, pretty tough times.
It is interesting to note that Hon. R. S. L. Jones has left the Chamber. He knows the serve I am going to give him. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones stood up in this Chamber after the release of the report of the State development committee on contracting and tendering for goods and services. The Minister at the table at that time was the Hon. Edward Pickering. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones stood here and said that the Government should take action on contracting for goods and services, because there was $3 billion of savings to be made. He said he would be watching the next budget because, if he did not see something about that, he would no longer continue to support the Government.
They are the very words that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones used barely nine months ago - and I note he has left the Chamber. It is quite obvious to honourable members that the Government Cleaning Service's rate is 20 per cent more expensive than the going commercial rate for the work that is being done - 20 per cent more expensive. As distinct from the definition contained in this bill, "privatisation" means the sale of a Government-owned and operated business to a private owner. But that is not the definition in this bill. Quite clearly, what the Government is doing is called "contracting out". It is going out into the private sector to buy services. It is not selling the service; if it were selling the service and privatising it, it would expect to get money for it. If we corporatised the Government Cleaning Service and tried to sell it, the laughter from the community would be unbelievable. We would not find a buyer. We would have to pay someone to take it off our hands.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Aunt Kath might still be there to buy it?
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: She is in Heaven at the moment, I hope. Perhaps she is guiding the hand of the Government to move in this direction. There is a need to realise that quite a few furphies have been bandied around about this bill. There is a need for inefficiencies to be eliminated from the public sector. If the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has to pay 20 per cent more than she needs to pay for cleaning, she has less money to spend on school education.
Page 3262
The Government faced this problem with health in 1989, when we sought tenders for the cleaning and catering services in a number of institutions. One that comes to mind vividly is the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, under the Central Sydney Area Health Service. The records will show that we have an ongoing saving of $3 million each and every year from cleaning that hospital. The Central Sydney Area Health Service has probably saved anything up to $15 million in cleaning costs alone. But it gets better than that. Not only did we save that money, Central Sydney Area Health Service kept it. As the Hon. J. F. Ryan was good enough to point out to me, that money could then be spent, not on paying for cleaning services but on paying for treatment for patients.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Will the same apply to the Department of Education? Will the money be retained?
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Substantially, the answer is that as the money is retained there will be more money available for school education, for TAFE, and for many other important services. As the Government's Budget clearly shows, there is growth in school education funding, in TAFE funding, in training funding, in health funding and in community services funding. They are all important because of the increased demand due to the recession. More children are staying on at school; there are no jobs, so training has to be undertaken; there are fewer people with money, so there are more public patients in the public hospital system who have to be treated; and there are many more people in grave distress in their communities because of this recession. Therefore there is an increased need for community services to deal with the impact of that recession - namely, child protection, domestic violence, family breakdown and the like.
That is what this is all about. They want to make the Government Cleaning Service an icon, a specially protected feral bird, if you like. There is a need to expose this business of cleaning schools and other government buildings to the efficiencies of normal business practice. It was announced last year that tied arrangements between the Government Cleaning Service and its clients would cease in 1994 and it would have to be competitive if it were to survive. The Government could no longer ignore the potential savings that were available. There is a need, of course, to avoid any unnecessary pain and disruption to employees and clients, to safeguard employment and to ensure that all staff are fairly treated. There is no need for the Government to own and operate a major business that is not in any way a core business.
The Government has thought long and hard about how to achieve these objectives. The Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services has done a remarkably sensitive and successful job of this venture. The Government is taking steps to make the Government Cleaning Service more competitive and cost effective, but despite tremendous efforts by all concerned in the past five years, including the union, the Minister, the operators of the Government Cleaning Service and their clients, all available evidence to the Government is that the Government Cleaning Service remains more expensive than companies in the private sector. I dare say if I spoke to Neville Wran, he would agree.
The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: I saw him the other night. He is a friend of yours, but I do not know why.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I know, and I bet he would agree, because a small part of his business operation is cleaning. Anyone who suggests that private companies would exploit their employees would have to ask Neville Wran if he were exploiting his employees. Neville Wran would be highly offended by such a suggestion. There is a union responsible for the industrial arrangements for cleaners, in both the private and the public sectors, which operates under a good award system that has not been challenged by this or previous legislation. Any savings that would come about would probably be made at managerial level and, more importantly, through better work practices. Under present arrangements further savings will be difficult to make within the acceptable time frame. Significant productivity and work practice involvement would be required to raise productivity to private sector standards. The Government Cleaning Service does not have the same costs, or the necessary flexibility and diversity of markets that private cleaning companies have to be competitive, and it will never be competitive while it is owned by the Government.
Clearly, in the past year when the Government Cleaning Service has had to bid against competitors for work, it has won 12 per cent of tenders by value. A failure rate of 90 per cent would decimate the Government Cleaning Service were its market open to competition. The Government had to balance the need for financial responsibility against its responsibility to employees. It could not shelter the Government Cleaning Service from competition for ever. It could watch cleaners' jobs being lost little by little or take this bold step, which will ensure that no one will be sacked. That contrasts with what has happened in just about every other State, including the Labor State of South Australia. The Government has put together a responsible plan for the staff and taxpayers that will achieve all its goals over a reasonable time.
The business of the Government Cleaning Service will be transferred to companies that can best provide those cost reductions, while retaining a high level of service. The Government is confident it will achieve savings of about $37 million - not a small amount. That money will be spent in government priority areas that the Premier has announced this year. Those priority areas were also clearly enunciated in the plan and the writings of the Treasurer. It is important that honourable members be made aware of the furphy that the majority of people employed by the Government Cleaning Service are, as the Hon. Franca Arena said, core immigrant Page 3263 women of non-English speaking backgrounds. As I understand it, that simply is not true. The charge that many of these people may have non-English speaking backgrounds may be true, but imagine how wide the net would have to be cast to include my aunt, who is of non-English speaking background -
The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: Travels With my Aunt is what we are having here today.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I did make a journey with my wonderful aunt, who was filled with joie de vivre. She would put to shame many members opposite. She enjoyed life, enjoyed being a single woman, enjoyed the freedom that she had and the freedom she adopted. My Aunt Kath would be considered a woman of non-English speaking background. But if one were to think she was some poor, downtrodden immigrant of non-English speaking background she would be highly offended. The Hon. Franca Arena, who portrays immigrant women of non-English speaking background as in some way a downtrodden, second-rate group of people, fails to understand the real nature of most of our women immigrants of non-English background. It is a great put-down, and I find her statements highly offensive.
The Hon. Franca Arena: You just do not understand. You think women clean toilets because they like to.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I find nothing wrong with cleaning toilets. It was something that I did in the army for years. I move:
That this debate be now adjourned to a later hour of the sitting.
Question put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 18
Mr Bull Mr Mutch Mrs Chadwick Revd F. J. Nile Mr Coleman Dr Pezzutti Mrs Evans Mr Pickering Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho Dr Goldsmith Mr Hannaford Tellers, Mr Jobling Mrs Nile Mr Moppett Mr Ryan
Noes, 17
Mrs Arena Mr Manson Ms Burnswoods Mr Obeid Mr Dyer Mr O'Grady Mr Egan Mrs Symonds Mr Enderbury Mr Vaughan Mr Kaldis Mrs Walker Miss Kirkby Tellers, Mrs Kite Dr Burgmann Mr Macdonald Mr Jones
Pairs
Mr Gay Mrs Isaksen Mr Smith Mr Shaw Mr Webster Mr Johnson
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (HOMOSEXUAL VILIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [4.6]: Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would preclude a motion being moved forthwith that the Order of the Day relating to the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill be called on forthwith.
It is just past 4 o'clock and officially we are still on private members' business. It is still possible for other speakers to contribute to this debate. I believe it is quite proper that I call on my contingent notice to allow that to happen. The Government cannot say that I am taking control of government business. It will have ample opportunity to deal with the three urgent pieces of Government business before the House rises tonight. I have told the Government that I totally support that legislation. I know how important the proposed legislation is and that the dates contained within it make it imperative that it be passed tonight. Honourable members have many hours ahead of them to do that. Even if honourable members wanted to sit to 10.30 p.m., the Leader of the Government has the power to adjourn the House when he desires. Therefore, there can be no question that my motion will continue into the early hours of Friday morning. I believe it is proper that the House continue with the debate that was aborted by the receipt of a message from another place forwarding the Government Cleaning Service Retention Bill.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.8]: As the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has moved this motion again, I put on record my strong opposition to it on behalf of Call to Australia. Never has such a draconian notice of motion been moved in this House. It is without precedent. It seeks to take precedence over all other Government and general business. I believe a most serious step has been taken.
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING [4.9]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. I explained to the House this morning that I had, in line with the traditions of my party room, indicated to the party room that in conscience I would take whatever steps were necessary in this House in order to bring this piece of legislation to the House and to have the matter debated. In that tradition I have today crossed the floor, as the term is, on two occasions. If the matter is followed through, another couple of crossings would be involved.
Page 3264
Let me assure my colleagues that it is a long march. Having taken that action and given my history in this House, I should have liked an opportunity today to explain to the Parliament and hence to the people of New South Wales why I did so. I recognise that in a few minutes, under the standing and sessional orders of this Chamber, the debate will be concluded, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby's contingent motion will be void and my opportunity, in effect, to tell the people of New South Wales why I took this unusual step will go with it for at least another four weeks or so. So I simply indicate to the Parliament that I have a desire to explain to the House today why, as a senior member of this Government, I have crossed the floor. If the House does not accede to the second contingent motion moved by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, then I will throw myself on the mercy of the House and ask the House to grant me indulgence by consent at least to make that explanation to the House, because what I have done today is an important matter and I would like the opportunity to give it some intellectual support.
The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY [4.12]: I support the motion. The House must have an opportunity of discussing the issue. This is an historic day in this Chamber. We have just had a debate the like of which we have not heard since the Legislative Assembly sought to abolish this Chamber. The standing order that the Minister used in a previous debate was implemented on that occasion and it was implemented on this occasion. The homosexual vilification legislation should be debated and resolved in this Chamber today, and Ted Pickering should have the opportunity of putting on record why he is doing what he is doing. The Attorney General on previous occasions has said that the bill which he was to introduce would supersede what is known as the Clover Moore bill. We now know that that bill will not supersede the Clover Moore bill because the Attorney General and the Premier have been done over in their party room. This Parliament will not have an opportunity of debating the issue unless this House debates and carries the resolution.
The Liberal Government en bloc, en masse, supported the Attorney General on the last occasion to defeat the Elisabeth Kirkby-Clover Moore bill. The bill is important because it deals with an issue that goes to the very heart of a fundamental human right in this State. It is a human right that any individual, no matter what his or her sexuality or perceived sexuality may be, may walk down any street in safety. Any person has the right to be treated as a decent human being and to be respected by our community. The Parliament must ensure that the legislation is debated and carried so that we can clearly say that the sorts of activities that occur in New South Wales every day are unacceptable. We must ensure that the misrepresentations that have been circulating in the community - in some ways promoted by some members of this House and the Parliament generally - are put to rest.
The Parliament has an historic opportunity of dealing with the issue. We had a somewhat lengthy second reading debate before we rose at the end of the last session. There is an opportunity today again to put the issues on the table, to wrap them up and to proceed. One of the issues is that we should refer the matter to the Law Reform Commission so that we may have an umbrella bill to ensure that no one is vilified. The Government knows why this legislation is needed. It was in fact the Attorney General who addressed a rally in Sydney last December. The title of the rally was "All I wanted for Christmas". On that occasion the Attorney General used in his speech the term "All I want for Christmas". In 1992, for Christmas, he gave the gay and lesbian community vilification legislation.
[Debate interrupted.]
The PRESIDENT: Order! It being after 4.15 p.m., pursuant to sessional orders proceedings are now interrupted to permit the Minister to move the adjournment motion if he desires. Does the Minister so move?
[Debate resumed.]
The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: The Legislative Council should and must consider this matter today. The Attorney General has promised on previous occasions to ensure that the vilification of gay and lesbian people is put to an end. On a number of occasions he has reiterated this position. He has said both in this House and outside the House that the vilification of gay and lesbian people and of people with HIV and AIDS should be dealt with. He had a legislative program to deal with that. On 28th November at Sydney Town Hall the Attorney General said:
I want to ensure that people with HIV-AIDS who experience discrimination and homosexuals subjected to vilification will have a ground for complaint to the equal opportunity tribunal.
He went on to say:
My position and that of the Government is that we will bring forward a comprehensive package of legislation.
In this Parliament on 28th May, as recorded in Hansard, he said:
I expect it will receive the support of this Chamber when it is introduced because it addresses the more comprehensive needs -
The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: On a point of order: Mr President, I draw your attention to the sessional order of Wednesday, 31st March, which provides that at 4.15 p.m. general business is to be interrupted for government business.
[Sitting suspended from 4.17 p.m. until 4.25 p.m.]
The PRESIDENT: Order! A point of order is before me. Is there any further debate on the point of order? I uphold the point of order. Pursuant to sessional orders, after 4.15 p.m. Government business takes precedence. However, there is business of the House before the House, and that takes precedence of Government business. Therefore, I call Business of the House, Notice of Motion No. 1.
Page 3265
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (HOMOSEXUAL VILIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Leader of the Opposition) [4.25]: Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would preclude a motion being moved forthwith that the Order of the Day relating to the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill be called on forthwith.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [4.26]: Earlier today I spoke at some length on the issue dealing with Government business and the position concerning this House moving to take from the Government its control of Government business. It was a matter upon which I made some detailed comment about the statements made by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. It was a matter on which I note she has a considerable view. The sessional orders clearly provide that Government business is appropriate to be dealt with. I know that the honourable member also takes the view that certain matters that are to be dealt with today should be dealt with.
The motion now moved by the Leader of the Opposition in this House is to do that which has not occurred before, that which the Opposition itself from time to time has said it is inappropriate to do - that is to put the Government in a position where it cannot deal with the business that is before the House, and that is Government business. In effect, on a Government business day, the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to take away Government business in order to deal with a private business matter. That is a very important precedent for a leader of the Opposition in this House to set. On no occasion has the right to deal with Government business been taken from the Government. On a number of occasions the Government has acceded to private members' business being brought forward on a Government business day. I can indicate any number of precedents for that, including some that I have pursued.
However, it is clear that under sessional orders, at 4.15 p.m. Government business is to take precedence over other matters and that Government business should proceed until there is opportunity for other business to be brought before the House. The Government, therefore, strongly opposes this effort by the Opposition to undermine the historic precedents of this House. The step that has been laid out by the Opposition is one that it believes is the approach the Opposition, or the Oppositions, in this House should take. I regard that as abominable.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.31]: In this matter the Call to Australia group supports the Government in its statement and response, and will support it in division. Reference was made to the making of a statement by the Hon. E. P. Pickering. I put on record that we would be quite happy to support the making of a personal explanation by him about the reasons for his action today, at some later part of the sitting.
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [4.32]: When I moved my contingent notice of motion the House was dealing with private members' business. There was certainly no intention on my part to take control of Government business as I have been accused of. However, the contingent notice of motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition is now in operation and that, in fact, has occurred within the time for dealing with Government business. A few moments ago the Leader of the Government spoke of many occasions in the past few months while he has held that position when private members' business has taken precedence of Government business, not only on private members' days but on other days. But that was because it suited the House, which was waiting for legislation to arrive from another place, to have private members' motions debated. Legislation is taking much longer to pass through the lower House than it did before the election of the three Independents. The reason I moved my contingent notice was to allow the Hon. E. P. Pickering to make his personal explanation to the House within the terms of the debate. But the time left to him to do that before we moved to Government business was insufficient.
I am perfectly certain that by the time the Leader of the Opposition moved his contingent notice some device was needed by which the Hon. E. P. Pickering had the right to make a full explanation to the House. I am quite prepared to undertake to the Leader of the House that if the House can proceed with the motion for the suspension of standing and sessional orders up to the stage of a vote so that I may then be able to move that the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill be restored to the business paper and the clauses connected with it, after making brief remarks on my private member's bill I am prepared to adjourn further debate until the next sitting day, in accordance with the terms of the notice of motion that I gave on Tuesday.
This will permit the Government to do all the Government business it may wish to do tonight and rise at an earlier hour on the adjournment notice of the Leader of the Government. I will be very happy to do that to facilitate the continuation of my private member's bill and to give the Government the ability to deal with its urgent legislation. I fully realise the urgency. This will also give the Hon. E. P. Pickering the opportunity to make his explanation, a matter he told me he wished to do before I got into this somewhat chaotic state.
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING [4.36]: It is clear that since 4.15 p.m. the House has found itself in unusual waters. Most honourable members would understand that the normal tradition at that time would be that private members' debate would cease. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has demonstrated a power of the House that, to the best of my knowledge, has not Page 3266 been observed before. As I said earlier, my desire in supporting that was, as it were, to make a proper statement to the House as to my stand during the course of the day. I guess that even my worst enemy would not wish to see me denied that right. The dilemma that faces both the Government and the Opposition at this moment is whether the crossbench may turn from its course of handing the House to the Government for the pursuit of Government business. An assurance has been given that that will happen. However, it remains within the province of government to move the adjournment of the House following the end of Government business and I, of course, would never vote against that. In that event my opportunity to speak to the House would be forfeited. I have spoken to the Leader of the Government and have offered him a solution: that I be given the indulgence now by the House to make my personal explanation to the House. Once that has been properly cleared away the House should proceed to Government business. The matter is then in the hands of the Government. I recommend that course of action.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Leader of the Opposition) [4.38]: On the undertaking that the Hon. E. P. Pickering has given, I withdraw my motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING [4.40], by leave: It is my wish to explain precisely why I support the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby in her endeavour. However, before proceeding to do that, in view of the fact that I anticipate the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby will continue in this endeavour on Thursday after Thursday, and as I do not expect to be persuaded to change my mind in the interim, I thought it important to record what my attitude will be to similar situations in the weeks ahead. First, I recognise that this sort of motion is normally defeated by way of Government filibuster at 4.15 p.m. each Thursday. As Leader of the Government in this House, I have been instrumental in using that mechanism to put motions to the sword. I freely admit to the House that the motion moved by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby today could be described in parliamentary terms as a blunt instrument, one that goes much further than conventional motions in its effect by saying that the House will deal with this motion and only with this motion until such time as it is concluded. That could have the capacity to impinge upon the Parliament's capacity, if it approves such a motion, to deal with Government business.
I do not think the Leader of the Opposition will be offended if I tell the House that when the prospect of that occurred today he suggested to me that one way of dealing with the 4.15 p.m. problem would be to agree with the Opposition to apply the gag in this House. I am sure honourable members would know already what I said to the Leader of the Opposition when that proposition was put to me. While ever I am a member of this House I certainly will never invoke the standing order in this Chamber which provides for the gag. I also make it clear that under no circumstances will I ever vote in this House to take from the Government the capacity to decide the sitting times of the House. Earlier I indicated that had this debate gone on later this evening, there would have been a facilitation for urgent legislation. I know that three bills must be dealt with this evening, and they will be dealt with.
I was mindful of the comments of the Leader of the Government today when he quite properly drew to the attention of the House the number of occasions on which I have forcefully drawn to the attention of the House the need of the Government to retain control over Government business. I still believe that it is the Government's right to decide the order in which it brings in business, and the nature of the business is sacrosanct so far as I am concerned. Although I have been prepared to agree that the instrument of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is a blunt one, I do not believe it takes from the Government the capacity to order Government business. The worst effect it would have would be to require the Government possibly to sit a little longer to accommodate both concerns.
Having said that, I turn to why I support the blunt instrument of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. There are three reasons why I have made this decision. I will state them precisely and then speak to them. The first reason is that there is no doubt whatsoever that both this Chamber and another place were given a clear assurance by the Government of this State that it would introduce into this Parliament legislation that would cover the problem of the vilification of homosexuals. As a result of that assurance, members of this House were influenced to vote against the private member's bill dealing with the same subject that was introduced in the other place by the honourable member for Bligh. That is a fact, and I will speak more about that later. That assurance was the reason I voted against the honourable member's bill.
Second, I support the idea of the bill and, drawing from my extensive experience as a Minister for Police, I assure honourable members that there is every reason for such a bill to exist. Third, and in many ways most important, while ever I remain a member of this Chamber, holding the high regard that I do for this Chamber, I simply cannot support a situation where a minority group within the Parliament in effect attempts to hold to ransom the rest of the Parliament. Unfortunately, and I say this most advisedly, I believe that that has happened recently. I will talk more about that in a moment. Let me return to my first reason for supporting the motion of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. The facts are that in this House on 21st May the Attorney General said these words:
Honourable members would be aware that this morning I gave notice of my intention to bring forward the Government's bill, which will be available for public comment and debate during the forthcoming recess. The Government will then proceed to have its legislation debated in a sensible and considered way during the budget session. I am pleased to have been able to participate in the development of that legislation. I look forward to the opportunity of introducing the bill.
Page 3267
Later in the same debate he said:
The bill of the honourable member for Bligh simply does not go far enough. It does not address the issue of vilification of persons who are HIV positive but not homosexual. It could be described as the Eve Van Grafhorst amendment. This will be a ground of complaint under the Government's foreshadowed bill. Under the Government's legislation HIV related vilification, as well as homosexual vilification, will be an offence.
That is a clear statement, made without any qualification. In another place my dear friend Mr Photios, as he then was, spoke to his Chamber - I am told by Mr Photios, with the full approval of the Premier's Office - and also gave assurances that "the Government supports homosexual vilification legislation in principle". He went on at great length to explain why the legislation introduced by the honourable member for Bligh was deficient. That was not because it contained vilification protection only for homosexuals. He went on to point out three reasons why the honourable member for Bligh had not done her homework, as it were. He wanted vilification protection for HIV-positive heterosexuals. He wanted proper protection for persons who are wrongly perceived to be homosexual or HIV-positive. And he wanted to deal with another problem he saw in the bill of the honourable member for Bligh: that her bill provided that prosecution for serious homosexual vilification may proceed only with the consent of the Attorney General. He regarded that as unnecessary.
Not only in this Chamber, but to the wider world, the Attorney General issued a comprehensive press release, which I will not quote at length. Let me assure the House that it says, in no uncertain terms, that the Government will in fact proceed in this direction. It is now a matter of argument among some of my colleagues as to whether the Attorney General acted with the support of his party room. I do not intend to air in this Chamber matters from my party room. Let me merely say this. It is my view that when this matter came before the party room the exposition of the Attorney General's stand represented to my mind one of his finest hours. I was extraordinarily proud of the way he proposed his legislation to my party room, and it was my view that a majority of members supported it.
There is no doubt that the assurances given in this House affected the voting intentions of some members of the House. It certainly affected mine and, indeed, in this House the Attorney General himself gave me a private assurance that other legislation would be introduced to address a problem about which I was greatly concerned. Let me hasten to say that I do not raise this matter to embarrass the Attorney General. By raising it I do not suggest that in some way the Attorney General has misled the House but because, in my mind, there is not a skerrick of doubt that at the time the Attorney General gave these assurances to the community and the House he did so as a man of absolute integrity and with the confidence of the backing of his party.
There is absolutely no suggestion of any misleading. The facts are, however, that such assurances were given and, in my view, a government has an obligation to back up Ministers of the Crown who make those clear assurances to the House, for if that is not the way the Westminster system operates, we will surely have a very chaotic situation on our hands. I might say in passing that I believe that in this House I have an unsurpassed record in terms of my regard for these things. I recently made a mistake in this House, a tragic, tiny mistake, for which I forfeited not only the leadership of the House but my ministry. I think I have demonstrated my sincerity in this regard.
My second reason for supporting this initiative is that I support the thrust of the bill. One cannot be a police Minister with a record term of office in this State and not be conscious that men and women in this State are being attacked, and indeed murdered, in the streets because they are homosexual. That is a tragedy. It is a matter of extensive report by both the homosexual community and government-related investigation. I will not dwell on the matter, but if one refers to the report of the New South Wales Attorney General's committee of May 1993 entitled "Fighting the other Epidemic", one will see at page 20 the following horrifying figures.
Since 1990 there have been 13 gay-hate-related murders in New South Wales. In respect of 10 of those, offenders have been brought to trial, 19 persons have been convicted, and - and this is the horrifying part - 11 were of school age at the time they committed a gay-hate murder and are now in gaol. That is a double tragedy. I repeat that the majority of offenders were children, and one of the things I know about children is that they are impressionable to the ill-advised comments of their seniors.
Since a report appeared this week in the Sydney Morning Herald that I was considering the action I have taken today, I have been subject to comment from various people, through the mail and on the phone. I am genuinely horrified at the misconceptions that have been generated by this legislation. It is amazing what some genuine Christian people believe this legislation will do, which of course it will not. An eminently sensible person told me last night in no uncertain terms that I should not support the bill, because it would prevent a Catholic priest from refusing entry into a seminary of a homosexual male. I see nothing in the bill that goes close to doing that.
I was especially concerned when I was telephoned by a senior Christian leader this week who suggested that I ought not to take the action that I have taken, on Christian grounds. After some discussion I said to the gentleman words to the effect that the God that I have grown up to understand was, to me, a God of love and compassion. He said to me, "Yes indeed, but also a God of justice". I was immediately reminded of that old concept of an eye for an eye, the Old Testament approach to Christianity, and I was greatly saddened.
In many respects I was then reminded of the long and very sad history of humanity when, on numerous occasions during human history, terrible things have been done in the name of the God that I Page 3268 know. One thinks of the crusades, world wars I and II, with both sides praying to the same God, the terrible death toll in Northern Ireland, the segregated churches and slavery in southern America, and the burning of witches. One could go on and on. I would have thought that in this day and age we had got ourselves a little beyond that style of Christianity.
Let me make the point also that we as a Parliament were more than happy to pass anti-vilification laws directed at race discrimination - and quite properly so - and I do not think there was any concern about it. When I raised that issue with this church leader, he said to me the most horrifying thing I have heard. He said, "That is okay because there can be no choice individually with race, but homosexuals can choose their lifestyle and, if they so choose, they are not entitled to the protection of the law". I am one of the members of this House who crossed the floor to ensure that homosexuals are entitled to the protection of the law, and I do not accept the comment of that Christian leader.
Third, let me turn to the stance of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile, and let me say this to the House. As leader in this House I had, I believe, an extraordinarily sound, friendly and respectful relationship with all the crossbenchers and I doubt that any member of the crossbenches would say otherwise, even in these difficult times. That was born out of a mutual respect and regard and the fact that we all dealt with each other honestly - as I did with Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile today in the most open way.
Recently, I have read in the media statements attributed to my colleague Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile that concerned me. I will quote some of them from the daily media. These are in inverted commas, so the articles are attributing the words to my colleague. An article in the Daily Telegraph Mirror of 18th June says in part: "If the Government does not delete this offensive homosexual vilification section from their bill, then I will have to completely review support for important Government bills in the Upper House" - that comment was made by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. The Sydney Morning Herald of 19th June reported in part:
The Rev Fred Nile has threatened to stop all State Government legislation unless the Attorney-General, Mr Hannaford, drops plans to outlaw vilification of homosexuals.
The morals crusader from the Call to Australia Party said in a statement yesterday that he would withdraw support for all Government bills in the Upper House where he and his wife, Elaine, hold the balance of power.
The article continues, again in inverted commas as if directly quoting:
"If the Government does not delete this offensive homosexual vilification section from their bill, then we will have to completely review our support for important Government bills in the Upper House," Mr Nile said.
"As we hold the balance of power in the Upper House, this means the ALP and the Democrats will be free to tear Government bills to pieces and no further Fahey bills would become law in NSW."
Again, in the Sydney Morning Herald of 30th August he is quoted as saying:
Mr Nile and his wife, Elaine, through their Call to Australia (CTA) group, hold the balance of power in the Legislative Council.
In the past they have voted with the Coalition on all significant bills. However, speaking at the State Electoral Office during counting for the Hills on Saturday night, Mr Nile issued Mr Fahey with an 11th hour ultimatum: Withdraw any amendments to the anti-discrimination Act which would outlaw vilification of homosexuals or face losing CTA's support.
"If Mr Fahey continues with this legislation, or anything else like it, he certainly won't have our support," Mr Nile said.
Finally, an article published in the Daily Telegraph Mirror on 30th August stated in part:
However, instead of offering to negotiate on the detail of the legislation, the Niles are rejecting it out right.
The Niles have every right to vote against legislation they don't like. But they also have a responsibility as elected officials to act in the best interests of the people of NSW.
They do not have the right to apply a blanket ban to Government bills, holding the State to ransom over a pet peeve against homosexuals.
Their attitude has no place in a modern-day democracy.
I wish to align myself with those comments fairly and squarely. That is why I raised this defence of my stand today. I make it abundantly clear to the House that when the Attorney General and the Premier stated both outside and inside this House that they did not change their view with regard to legislation introduced into the Chamber by the Attorney General which completely satisfied the promises he made in good faith to the House, and when those honourable men say to the community that the change of mind of the Government was in no way dependent upon the threats made - and I have to take it that they were made because I have seen no suggestion of a retraction either in this House today or in the media - I accept their statements. I have no reservation whatsoever that the decision to change tack was not related to the statements made by the Call to Australia party, because they are both honourable members for whom I have a high regard. But it is a tragedy that on the streets of New South Wales almost every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks it was. There is a political perception that it was.
I have been in this game long enough to know that political perceptions are very important, because they become the reality in everyone's mind. I felt that that perception could not be allowed to continue, because it would not take long for logical people to ask what next will someone who is said to hold the balance of power say to a government that he or she wants, irrespective of the views of the rest of the Parliament, deliberate or otherwise. That perception cannot be allowed to continue. The Premier and the Attorney General have done their damnedest to kill the perception, but they have not been successful. Even today reporters irresponsibly report that we caved in. Today we showed that we did not cave in.
Page 3269
This position was not assisted when recently Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile in effect said publicly, "Well, if it is changed, all hell would let loose". I have not read today's Hansard but I got the impression this morning that when I announced what I was going to do, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said words to that effect. I have also been told that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile feels that in some way my actions today were not mine alone, that in some way I was an agent of the Government. I assure him that when I suggested to my party room colleagues that they vote with me today, none supported me. I have acted today as a person who has crossed the floor. If anyone wishes to apportion blame, it is all mine. I thank members on my side of politics for the dignified way they have treated me in the past day or two during times which everyone would recognise were very difficult for them. I thank them very much.
GLENREAGH TO DORRIGO RAILWAY (CLOSURE) BILL
Bill received and read a first time.
LEGAL PROFESSION REFORM BILL
MAINTENANCE AND CHAMPERTY ABOLITION BILL
Bills introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [5.7]: I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
The Legal Profession Reform Bill represents the most significant change to the structure and regulation of the legal profession ever undertaken in New South Wales. The reforms are a necessary response by the Government to the challenges facing the legal profession. To be effective they require a complementary commitment by the profession to review the manner in which legal services are provided. An independent and vigorous legal profession is a crucial element in a healthy democracy. Lawyers are required to interpret, apply and, where necessary, challenge the laws that govern and regulate the conduct and business of the community. Lawyers are essential to fight for and uphold the rights of the citizenry.
As officers of the Supreme Court, lawyers have responsibilities and obligations to their clients, the courts, the law and the community at large. The practice of law is also a business. Lawyers are entitled to a fair return for their skills and services, and like any other business should be encouraged to provide an efficient and affordable service. As a business it behoves all lawyers to deliver services in a manner which best assists their clients and promotes efficiency. In recognising both the professional and business components of legal service, I believe that the Legal Profession Reform Bill has met the challenge to organise professional practice so as to best meet the needs of clients, practitioners and the community. There is a wide diversity amongst clients and prospective clients of lawyers in relation to their legal needs. There is also a wide diversity of preferences amongst lawyers in relation to the manner in which they practice. It is important that the structure and regulation of the profession provide both clients and lawyers with substantial freedom of choice.
Clients must have a choice as to how they obtain legal services, including a choice between different price-service combinations. Lawyers should have the freedom to choose the manner in which they provide these services and organise their practices. Freedom of choice encourages flexibility, diversity, competition and innovation. If the structure and regulation of the profession unduly restrict this, it will adversely affect the quality, accessibility, speed and cost of legal service. At the same time it is necessary to ensure that measures are in place to provide appropriate client protection and to ensure that the legal profession is properly accountable to consumers. The purpose of the Government's reforms is to create a more competitive market for legal services, balanced with appropriate client protection.
To guide the reform process the following principles have been adopted. First, the structure of the profession must facilitate its regulation in the public interest, having regard to consumer choice and protection, while maintaining quality of service. Second, all regulatory measures must be justified, having regard to the effect they have upon the accessibility, cost, speed and quality of legal services. Third, legal practitioners, through their representative bodies, being the Bar Association and the Law Society, must be closely involved in the regulation of their profession, to ensure that the profession is properly informed, and to emphasise the profession's responsibility for maintaining its own standards. Fourth, to ensure that regulation is not only in the public interest but is seen to be in the public interest, community representation in, and external scrutiny of, the regulatory process is essential.
The development of the Government's reforms needs to be considered against the background of previous and current inquiries into the legal profession. The foremost of these was the New South Wales Law Reform Commission's reference in 1978 to inquire into and review the law and practice relating to the legal profession. The commission provided four main reports on the legal profession: general regulation and structure; complaints, discipline and professional standards; advertising and specialisation; and solicitors' trust accounts. Some of the reforms recommended by the Law Reform Commission were implemented by the Government of the day in the Legal Profession Act 1987. The more significant proposals were sidestepped and only now have been taken up by this Government.
Page 3270
It has also been necessary to examine how the structural and regulatory changes introduced in the Legal Profession Act have operated in practice. Indeed, such an examination was contemplated by the Law Reform Commission, which recommended in 1984 that the Attorney General conduct a review of the profession every five years. Other inquiries which have been considered in the process of developing the Legal Profession Reform Bill include the Lord Chancellor's review for legal services in the United Kingdom; the Victorian Law Reform Commission inquiry into access to the law; the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into the cost of justice; and the on-going Trade Practices Commission inquiry into the legal profession.
In the light of these inquiries I took the view that a further inquiry in New South Wales would serve no useful purpose. However, it clearly was appropriate to consider the various issues raised and in each case determine whether it was in the public interest that the regulation structure or practices of the legal profession be amended. In undertaking this task the Government was committed to developing reforms in a public and consultative manner. This process commenced in November last year with the release of a green paper on the structure and regulation of the legal profession. Following consideration of the responses to that paper, a government position was finalised and set out in a statement of government policy on structure and regulation of the legal profession which was released in May this year.
The reforms to the complaints and disciplinary structure flow from the reference conducted by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. In May 1992 the commission released a discussion paper entitled "Scrutiny of the Legal Profession: Complaints Against Lawyers". The final report was released in February of this year. The Government substantially accepted the recommendations in the report. The Government's position was outlined in the statement of government policy on reform of the system of complaints against lawyers released in May. The reforms to legal fees arise from a consideration of the issue by a working party on legal fees. The Government's policy was set out in a statement of government policy on reforming the system of setting and reviewing legal fees released in April of this year.
Following the release of the three statements of government policy, the Legal Profession Reform Bill was drafted and released in June for a period of consultation and consideration during the parliamentary recess. Over 15,000 copies of the bill were distributed and it elicited an exceptional response. The reforms introduced in this bill have had an extensive genesis. The issues raised are not new, although I believe the Government has been innovative in seeking to develop new structures and methods of regulating and organising legal professional practice. This has, to a great extent, been a product of the consultative process.
For the benefit of honourable members I will turn now to the details of the bill. Schedule 1 to the bill contains reforms to the structure and regulation of the profession. Part 2 introduces a system for common admission. All lawyers will continue to be admitted to the Supreme Court in recognition that they are officers of the court. At present lawyers are admitted as either barristers or solicitors. The bill introduces a system of common admission whereby all lawyers will be admitted under the common title of legal practitioner.
Admission to the court will be through the Legal Practitioners Admission Board. This replaces the Solicitors Admission Board and the Barristers Admission Board and is constituted by the same membership as when those boards met jointly. The admission board is established as a body corporate and schedule 2 of the Act as amended by this bill regulates the conduct of the admission board. The admission board is empowered to make rules regulating qualifications and applications for admission. The board also has the function of assessing the fitness of applicants and must certify an applicant's good character prior to the person being eligible for admission.
One of the main consequences of common admission is that all intending legal practitioners will be required to meet certain minimum education and practical training standards. These standards will be determined by the incoming board having particular regard to the development of national minimum admission standards. These are being examined at a national level by the consultative committee of State and Territory law admitting authorities and by the profession, through the Law Council of Australia. This examination is being monitored by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and is taking place in the light of the introduction of mutual recognition legislation. I fully support the development of national admission standards as a necessary removal of barriers to a national market in legal services. The bill provides for the admission board to make transitional rules to ensure an orderly move to a single admission standard.
Part 3 of schedule 1 concerns the regulation of legal practice. The Bar Council and Law Society Council continue their present functions as licensing and regulatory authorities. A legal practitioner following admission will need to make an election as to the style of practice he or she will follow in order to make an application for a practising certificate. Proposed division 1 of part 3 makes it clear that a legal practitioner must not practise as a barrister or solicitor or hold himself or herself out as being a barrister or solicitor without being the holder of a practising certificate. New section 38D provides that a person may not hold current practising certificates at the same time as a barrister and a solicitor. The further provisions of division 1 are substantially as found in the current Act, with some minor modifications.
Page 3271
Division 1A sets the basis for practice as a barrister or solicitor. New sections 38G and 38H provide that, subject to the Act and regulation, the practice of barristers and solicitors is regulated by rules of the relevant council. The provisions in relation to rules are found in division 4, to which I shall return in a moment. New section 38F concerns client access and provides that, subject to the rules, barristers and solicitors may accept instructions directly from clients. Access is a matter to be determined by the rules of the relevant council. By electing to be governed by the Bar Council, a barrister will be required to abide by Bar Council rules. The Bar Council will be able to make rules in relation to access by solicitors, other nominated professionals and members of the public. Such rules are reviewable and may be disallowed if found not to be in the public interest. The issue of access has excited considerable attention, not the least within the Bar itself. I expect the Bar Council's attitude to direct professional access to be settled in the near future.
New section 38F also provides for a right to contract. At present solicitors have a contractual relationship with their clients. Solicitors may be sued for breach of contract and may take action to enforce the contract. Barristers have a professional rather than a contractual relationship with solicitors. As solicitors act as intermediaries between barristers and their clients, neither does the barrister have a contractual relationship with the client. The barrister therefore cannot sue or be sued on a contractual basis. The bill provides that all practitioners shall be permitted to enter into contracts for the provision of professional services, and to sue and be sued in contract.
New section 38J introduces provisions in relation to advertising. At present, solicitors are free to advertise subject to fair trading restrictions and restrictions to prevent offensive, vulgar or unprofessional, obscene or sensational advertisements. The regulation governing advertising for solicitors was amended in 1991 to remove restrictions upon solicitors advertising discount fees and areas of expertise or specialist services. These reforms have worked well and it is appropriate to extend reform in this area to cover advertising by barristers. The bill therefore provides that all lawyers shall be permitted to advertise subject only to fair trading restrictions.
New section 38K concerns specialisation and arises as a result of the proposed advertising reforms which permit lawyers to advertise specialist services, subject to being able to substantiate such claims. In addition to this form of self-designation the bill provides that the Bar Council and Law Society Council may introduce specialist accreditation schemes. The Law Society already has such a scheme in place. New clauses 38L and 38M concern rights of appearance and advocacy. In New South Wales barristers and solicitors have an unrestricted right of appearance in all courts. However, at present, bar rules provide that a barrister may not accept a brief to appear with a person who is not a barrister. I am of the view that such a restriction is inappropriate and where more than one advocate is required a barrister or solicitor should have a right to appear as a co-advocate with any other solicitor or barrister. The Bar Council and the Law Society Council will be able to make rules in relation to advocacy but only joint rules will be permitted in relation to co-advocacy.
In addition, the bill encourages joint rules to be made in relation to ethical rules to be observed by barristers and solicitors in the practice of advocacy. It is my desire that so far as possible barristers and solicitors shall be subject to the same ethical and professional standards. This is particularly necessary where areas of practice overlap, such as advocacy. The provisions on co-advocacy have attracted considerable criticism from the Bar Council. It has been put to me that the provision will be used by large city legal firms to pressure barristers into accepting a solicitor from the firm as a junior advocate in proceedings. It is suggested that this will result in additional costs to clients. I have noted this concern and will be monitoring the operation of the provision to ensure that it does not give rise to overservicing or other misuse.
New section 38N provides that a barrister or solicitor may attend upon another barrister or solicitor. The Bar Association has recently announced amendments to the bar rules governing attendance at a solicitor's office and at conferences with clients. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to specifically provide in the Legal Profession Act that all lawyers shall have the right to attend upon another lawyer. The actual circumstances of attendance is a matter to be determined between individual practitioners.
New section 38O abolishes the prerogative of the Crown to appoint Queen's Counsel and provides that executive and judicial officers have no authority to conduct a scheme for the recognition or assignment of seniority or status among legal practitioners. This provision will not prevent government officers from participating in schemes for specialist accreditation. For example, the Crown Solicitor is currently on the Law Society Specialist Accreditation Board. Similarly, it will not prevent the legal profession establishing its own schemes for recognition of status or expertise. There are complementary provisions in schedule 5 of the bill consequentially amending provisions of various Acts which currently provide for appointment of Queen's Counsel to certain positions.
New section 38P provides that a barrister is not to hold money on trust in the course of practising as a barrister. Though the bill provides that it may be permitted by regulation, this is intended to allow for any limited circumstances that may arise in the future. Generally the prohibition should remain. It represents one of the clear distinguishing features between barristers and solicitors. Division 1B of part 3 provides for indemnity insurance to be held by barristers. The insurance arrangements must be to the satisfaction of the Bar Council, and the level of insurance and type of the policy must be approved by the Attorney General. Proposed part 3A of the bill Page 3272 concerns unqualified practitioners. It substantially brings forward the provisions currently found in part 9 of the Act with an amendment to remove the restriction on sharing receipts.
New section 48F is an amended version of section 119 of the Act, which presently provides, at section 119(1), a prohibition on a solicitor sharing receipts with an unqualified person. This restriction has been deleted and the provision extended to barristers so that a barrister or solicitor may share receipts with any other person subject to the rules of the relevant professional councils. This will permit rules to be made governing equity participation in legal practices and will also allow for multidisciplinary partnerships to be developed. New section 48F retains the general prohibition of an employed lawyer sharing receipts with a non-lawyer employer. This will continue to prevent non-lawyers offering legal services through employed solicitors or barristers. However, new section 48F(2) provides for certain exceptions.
The Act presently provides, at section 119(2), that a solicitor is not in breach of the restriction on sharing receipts if, as an employed solicitor, he or she undertakes legal work for a fee on behalf of the employer when the employer is a party to proceedings. This provision will be retained and extended to permit a solicitor or barrister employed by a corporation to undertake legal work on behalf of related bodies, which includes subsidiary corporations within a group. New section 48G specifically provides the base for the establishment of multidisciplinary partnerships. Multidisciplinary partnership allows allied professional services to combine to meet clients' needs. The participants benefit from the advantages and efficiency gains that flow from shared overheads and economies of scale.
New section 48G provides that multidisciplinary partnerships will be permitted for both barristers and solicitors subject to rules of the professional councils. Multidisciplinary partnerships will be subject to all of the obligations and requirements of legal partnerships, including the need to hold insurance. Though only the legal practitioner partners are subject to the complaints system, new sections 48J and 48K extend existing provisions barring the employment of disqualified persons to provide that a solicitor or barrister may not be in partnership with such persons. The bill also provides a mechanism to seek an order of the disciplinary tribunal that a person is not fit and proper to be a partner. New section 48H gives special recognition to the role of community legal centres. Community legal centres perform an extremely important role in the provision of legal advice and services. Their position in the legal services hierarchy is well accepted, and many receive funding through the Legal Aid Commission. However, the centres are not recognised as providers of legal services by the Legal Profession Act, and their operations would appear to be, arguably at least, in breach of part 9 of the Act as it stands.
The bill therefore expressly recognises the position of community legal centres under the Act, and excepts their operations from relevant offence provisions. Community legal centres will be expressly permitted to offer legal services to the public, and clients of legal centres will be able to recover fees where a matter has been successfully litigated. Division 4 of part 2 concerns rules of practice and sets out the basis upon which rules may be made by the Bar Council and the Law Society Council. This rule-making power is based on the existing arrangements in the Legal Profession Act whereby the Bar Council and the Law Society Council are the responsible bodies for the day-to-day regulation of the profession, subject to the specific provisions of the Act.
There are a number of advantages arising from vesting regulatory responsibility in the professional bodies. First, their knowledge and experience of the profession, and of the legal system generally, are invaluable if regulation is to be sufficiently informed, well directed and fair. Second, decisions made by a regulatory authority are more likely to have the respect of the profession if it is known that practitioners played a substantial role in the decision-making process. Third, lawyers' freedom to act for clients against the Government or other powerful interests in the community might be seriously eroded if they were controlled, largely from outside the profession.
Fourth, it is important to preserve and develop the profession's sense of responsibility for maintaining its standards, rather than to relegate it to a minor role in its own regulation. The primary disadvantage is that conflict arises between the need for general regulatory bodies to act in the public interest and the professional associations' responsibility to advance the interests of their members. There is, therefore, a mechanism to allow the rules to be reviewed and disallowed when not in the public interest. New sections 57A and 57B provide that the Bar Council and the Law Society may make rules governing legal practice. Rules can only be made in accordance with the Legal Profession Act and are of no effect to the extent that they are contrary to the provisions of the Act or regulations made pursuant to the Act.
Rules are binding on practitioners, and failure to comply with a rule is capable of being found to be professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct. Rules may also contain guidelines that are not binding but directive or indicative of good practice. The bill also provides for the making of joint rules by the Bar Council and the Law Society Council. Joint rules prevail over barristers' or solicitors' rules and, because of the operation of the Interpretation Act, can only be jointly revoked. Once joint rules are made they cannot be unilaterally revoked by the Bar Council or the Law Society Council. New section 57F permits the Bar Council and the Law Society Council to gazette and give effect to the current rules, practice guidelines or rulings, which could validly be made as rules.
Page 3273
As a result of the operation of new sections 38G(2) and 38H(2), only those matters gazetted are binding on practitioners. By this I mean that any breach of rulings or guidelines of the Bar Council or the Law Society Council that is not made under the provisions of the Act may not be the ground of a complaint or taken into account in disciplinary proceedings as an indicator of appropriate standards of practice. New section 57G provides that the professional councils must undertake a review of the rules that have been gazetted or subsequently made to ensure that the rules do not impose restrictive or anti-competitive practices that are not in the public interest or the rules are not otherwise in the public interest. This test, which also arises in relation to review of the rules and disallowance of rules under new section 57H, is the means by which competition policy is applied to regulation of legal practice.
For this purpose the Government accepts two propositions. First, rules which restrict the ways in which services can be provided in the market are justified only if their benefits exceed the costs of restricting competition, that is, if they result in a net public benefit; and, second, restrictive effects of rules are justified only to the extent that they are the minimum necessary to obtain the relevant public interest. The application of competition policy to legal services will ensure maximum exposure to the market-place. This, in turn, will lead to increased productivity and greater efficiency in the delivery of legal services.
To ensure a full and objective consideration of the effect of the rules, the Legal Profession Advisory Council may, on its own motion, review a rule or rules of the Bar Council or the Law Society Council. It must also review a rule when requested by the Attorney General. New section 57I provides that the Attorney may disallow a rule on receipt of a report from the Advisory Council which indicates that the rule imposes restrictive or anti-competitive practices that are not in the public interest or the rule is not otherwise in the public interest. This represents a minor modification to the exposure draft bill to limit the Attorney General's right of disallowance to circumstances where an adverse report has been received from the Advisory Council. This was necessary to counter criticisms that the Attorney General of the day may act capriciously or oppressively in the exercise of the power to disallow.
The Legal Profession Advisory Council is already constituted under part 5 of the Legal Profession Act. The council is at present constituted by two practising barristers, three practising solicitors and four community representatives. The function of the Legal Profession Advisory Council is to make recommendations and reports to the Attorney General on any matter relating to the legal profession. The council has not, to date, operated and no members have been appointed. It is now considered appropriate to appoint members to the council and for it, in accordance with its statutory function, to play a role in reviewing the regulation of the legal profession and in offering advice on future reform.
It is also considered appropriate to increase the lay membership of the Advisory Council so that it is not dominated by lawyers. Accordingly, the bill provides for an amendment to section 58 of the Act to establish a council of 11 members, being: an independent chairperson; two barristers, of whom one is selected from a panel nominated by the Bar Council; three solicitors, of whom two are selected from a panel nominated by the Law Society Council, and five lay persons. I also note that a definition of lay members has been included in sections of the Act to provide that it means a member who is not a legal practitioner. In accordance with government policy lay members will be selected following advertisements calling for expressions of interest.
The reforms in Schedule 2 give effect, with some variations, to the recommendations contained in the report of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission entitled "Scrutiny of the Legal Profession: Complaints Against Lawyers". The reference to the commission to consider this area arose, in part, from the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the Independent members of Parliament. The memorandum contains a statement of principle that "The Government and the Independent members agree that an option of external accountability of the legal profession is desirable" and an agreement that this matter should be referred to the Law Reform Commission for prompt report.
A reference was made to the commission on 12th November, 1991. In May 1992 the commission distributed a discussion paper addressing various options for reform, which received considerable media attention and was the subject of widespread community consultation. The report containing the commission's conclusions and recommendations was presented to me early in March this year and tabled in Parliament on 18th March. The report makes 75 detailed recommendations, not all of which call for legislative implementation or relate directly to government. For example, the commission makes a number of recommendations directed towards the Bar Association and the Law Society, relating to professional education and feedback from the disciplinary system, the adoption of a "Client Care" program based on the United Kingdom model, and the development of a joint legal profession code of ethics and professional responsibility.
The commission also makes a number of recommendations in respect of matters not directly pertaining to the complaints and disciplinary system, including recommendations relating to the area of legal fees and costs, which are generally consistent with the reforms outlined in schedule 3 to the bill. The only major departure from the reforms to the disciplinary structure proposed by the commission relates to the proposal for the abolition of the Legal Profession Conduct Review Panel and the conferral of its existing appellate function on the Legal Services Commissioner. The commission's recommendations called for the maintenance of the panel in addition to the commissioner. I will return to this matter in a Page 3274 moment. The centrepiece of the commission's proposed reforms is the creation of a Legal Services Ombudsman. While the commission considered it desirable that the professional councils should continue to be involved in the investigation and processing of complaints, it also perceived a need to promote public confidence in the independence of the system as a whole, and to provide for an effective mechanism for external review of the performance of the councils.
The Legal Services Commissioner provided for the bill will perform the same functions as the Legal Services Ombudsman recommended by the Law Reform Commission. However, the title "Commissioner" is preferred in order to avoid confusion with the Government Ombudsman and to reflect the fact that some of the proposed powers of the new commissioner go beyond those normally associated with an ombudsman. Schedule 2 repeals and replaces part 10 of the Legal Profession Act. In doing so it reforms the system of handling complaints. However, it must be noted that the grounds for taking disciplinary action have not altered and the definitions of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct at new section 127 of the bill are the same as currently apply. Division 2 of schedule 3 concerns the Legal Services Commissioner. The functions of the commissioner are set out at new section 131. In line with the Law Reform Commission's recommendations, the Legal Services Commissioner will be given broad powers to perform its role.
The Legal Services Commissioner will have broad power to review the operation of the complaints system and to make reports in relation to particular cases or in relation to the operation of the system generally. One of the particular weaknesses with the existing structure identified by the commission was the lack of effective assistance given by the professional councils to persons wishing to make complaints. In some cases, defects in the scope of the original complaint may have disadvantaged the complainant - for example, by not including a claim for compensation - or may have unduly limited the scope of the subsequent investigation. Under new section 134 all complaints will be made to the commission. New section 140 provides that the commissioner may require further particulars from a complainant. By operation of new section 141 the commissioner may summarily dismiss a complaint if further particulars are not provided or the commissioner considers the complaint to be frivolous or vexatious.
The commissioner must refer all other complaints to the appropriate professional council within 21 days of receipt or, where further details are requested, within 21 days of receipt of those details. Such referral may contain a recommendation to investigate, divert to mediation, or both. New section 138 provides that complaints must be brought within three years of the conduct which gives rise to the complaint. This is a reduction from the current six-year period but it has been provided that the commissioner may allow a complaint out of time where it is just and fair to do so having regard to the delay, or where the matter concerns professional misconduct and the commissioner believes it to be in the public interest to investigate the complaint. One of the important functions of the Legal Services Commissioner will be to enhance consumer knowledge of, and access to, the complaints system. The bill provides for the use of mediation techniques to resolve consumer complaints. In many cases problems can be resolved and an appropriate resolution reached simply by promoting better communication between the parties.
Mediation should not take the place of proceedings before the tribunal in cases where a practitioner's conduct is such as to justify some sort of disciplinary action. However, even in these cases, it may be possible, on occasion, to separate the "consumer" aspect of the complaint and allow that to proceed to mediation in advance of the later disciplinary proceedings. The provisions on consumer disputes and mediation are set out at division 4 of schedule 2. Mediation is voluntary and will be encouraged by providing strict confidentiality to the mediation process. Information provided in the course of mediation will be privileged for all purposes. However, a mediator will have the power to notify the relevant council and the commissioner in cases in which he or she considers the matter should be the subject of further investigation in respect of the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.
Division 5 concerns the investigation of complaint. New section 148 provides that the Bar Council and Law Society Council will be responsible for the primary investigation of complaints. However, under new section 151 the councils may, in the public interest, determine that it is not appropriate to handle a particular complaint, for example where the complaint is made against a past or present member of a council. In such cases the council may refer the complaint back to the commissioner, who will make arrangements for the primary investigation to be conducted by a suitable, qualified, independent person. Full rights of appeal to the commissioner will lie in respect of such investigation. The decisions that a council may make are the same as presently provided in the Act, being dismissal, reprimand, or referral of the matter to the disciplinary tribunal. If a council has not determined a matter within six months of the date of referral, the complainant may appeal to the commissioner, who may exercise powers in relation to the complaint as if the complaint had been formally dismissed by the council.
New section 149 provides that the commissioner will monitor the investigatory process and may issue general guidelines to assist the councils in the handling of particular complaints. The councils are required to provide assistance to the commissioner in monitoring investigations. In addition, under new section 150 the commissioner may give the council directions in the handling of a complaint if the commissioner considers that it is in the public interest to do so, having regard to the seriousness of the Page 3275 complaint. Division 6 of schedule 2 provides for review of a council's decision not to refer a complaint to the tribunal. New section 159 provides that a decision is to be reviewed on application by the complainant or on the commissioner's own initiative. On review, the commissioner may uphold the council's decision; reinvestigate the complaint or direct the council to conduct further investigations into the complaint; refer the matter to the tribunal, or direct the council to refer the matter to the tribunal; or direct the council to refer the matter to mediation. There will be no appeal from the decision of the commissioner on review of a complaint.
As I earlier noted the Law Reform Commission recommended the retention of the Legal Profession Conduct Review Panel but this recommendation was not accepted by the Government. The commission's report itself notes that there have been a number of difficulties with the operation of the panel, and the limited nature of its powers. First, the panel's powers are limited to making a recommendation to the Attorney General, who must again then make an independent assessment of whether the complaint should proceed. Second, the panel has no independent investigatory powers or resources, and as a result has had to make decisions simply on the basis of the files supplied by the councils. This has not always proved adequate. Third, an appeal to the panel lies only in respect of a decision to dismiss a complaint. A decision by a council to reprimand a practitioner but not to refer the complaint for further action, is not appellable.
The commission makes a number of recommendations aimed at addressing these defects, including that the panel should be given the necessary resources and powers to conduct its own investigations. However, the commission does not properly justify why it is considered necessary to retain the panel in addition to the newly created Legal Services Commissioner, who will be well placed to perform the necessary review function. In my view, the retention of both an expanded panel and the Legal Services Commissioner unnecessarily adds to the complexity and cost of the system, and may lead to confusion and difficulty as to which body performs the ultimate review function in the system. In addition, I consider that there is difficulty in having a body with powers to direct that a complaint proceed, but without the discipline of the responsibility to proceed to present that complaint. It would place the Legal Services Commissioner, or the professional councils, in a very difficult situation if they are directed to proceed with a complaint in the situation where there is a lack of appropriate or admissible evidence.
It is acknowledged that as a result of the decision to abolish the panel there will be no avenue of further review from decisions of the commissioner to dismiss a complaint. However, I consider this to be appropriate. It is not intended, of course, to interfere with any prerogative relief which may be available. Division 7 of schedule 3 will provide for the constitution of the Legal Services Tribunal under the current system, the Legal Profession Standards Board, which hears complaints of unsatisfactory professional conduct, has been comparatively little used, and it is considered appropriate to merge it with the Legal Profession Disciplinary Tribunal. This will provide a more streamlined rational and efficient process. The new merged body will have available to it the full scope of orders that can be made currently by either of the existing bodies. However I do note that it is proposed to increase from $2,000 to $5,000 the level of fines that the tribunal can impose for unsatisfactory professional conduct, and from $25,000 to $50,000 for professional misconduct.
Some flexibility will continue to be available as to the procedures adopted when the tribunal is hearing complaints of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct. For example, in the latter class of cases the tribunal will not be formally bound by the rules of evidence. New section 170 provides that hearings are generally to be conducted in public, except in relation to matters of unsatisfactory professional conduct where there will be a presumption that the hearing should be held in camera. New section 170(5) makes it clear that the complainant has a right to attend the hearing, whether or not the proceedings are closed. The further provisions in the bill in relation to the powers of the tribunal and conduct of hearings mirror the current provisions of the Legal Profession Act.
Schedule 3 to the bill contains reforms relating to legal fees and other costs. Schedule 3 repeals the existing part 11 of the Act and replaces it with a new system of setting and reviewing legal fees. The overall thrust of the reforms is to move away from a system of regulated fees to reliance upon market forces to set fees with an appropriate safety net to protect consumers. There are a number of problems with the current system that support arguments in favour of deregulating fees. First, the prescribed fees for non-contentious work are maximum fees and a solicitor may charge less. However, the tendency is for the scale fee also to be the usual or standard charge. While the removal of the restriction on discount fee advertising has increased competition, there is still a marked tendency to rely on scale rates and thus the fees which may be charged may bear no relation to the market rate. Second, the present system of fixed scale costs does not encourage solicitors towards greater efficiency since there is no way that the benefits of extra skill or efficiency can be competitively passed on to the consumer through lower fees with the object of obtaining greater market share. It protects the inefficient and allows unearned bonuses for the efficient, all to the detriment of the consumer. Deregulation would encourage competition and lead to a more efficient system.
Third, the use of ad valorem scales in conveyancing fees means that in many instances the fees charged may bear no relation to the value of the work done. Though ad valorem scales are socially redistributive it is questionable whether legal fees should be used for this purpose. A deregulated system would encourage lawyers to properly assess Page 3276 the value of their work and test their ability to deliver a service at competitive rates. Fourth, though there are some advantages to consumers from a regulated system, such as the control over excessive charges and certainty, these are less than the net benefits that would result from greater competition. Indeed, the benefits of fee regulation may be overrated and it has been suggested that in some instances it protects the interests of solicitors more than consumers. It is also possible to provide certainty and protection against excessive charges in a deregulated system by having an appropriate safety net.
The proposals in this bill will allow for a market-orientated approach to determining fees for service delivery. This is consistent with the overall application of competition policy to the profession. The system will encourage solicitors to properly assess the value of their work and deliver a service at competitive rates. The safety net introduced in the bill addresses two problems: first, the lack of information in the hands of consumers; and, second, the absence of a cheap and efficient system of reviewing accounts. The bill will provide for a greater level of information in the hands of clients, proper protection against overcharging and a quick and efficient review system. The general thrust of these reforms has received wide approval, including that of bodies such as the Trade Practices Commission.
The provisions of division 2 of schedule 3 provide for barristers and solicitors to provide certain information to their clients. Fee disclosure will allow consumers to better compare legal fees and to make more informed decisions. Under new section 175 lawyers will be required to provide clients with information about the amount of the costs if known, or the basis of calculating the costs. Information also must be given about the billing arrangements. It is to be noted that the obligation to disclose operates between practitioners as well as to clients, so that under new section 176, if a solicitor seeks to instruct a barrister in a matter, the barrister must disclose the required information. New section 177 will extend disclosure to the provision of an estimate. Estimates are essentially for the purpose of providing information to clients.
Though the general duty to disclose relates to matters within the control of the practitioner, this is not the case with estimates and it is accepted that in many legal matters it is very difficult, if not impossible, to provide an assessment of the likely amount of costs that can properly take into account all the variables. Clearly, the total cost of a matter may vary significantly depending upon matters such as the client's instructions, the briefing of a barrister, the conduct of another party, the possibility of settlement and the length of the litigation. Disclosure and estimates should be given prior to the practitioner being retained or, if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as practicable after the practitioner is retained. Disclosure must be in writing. It should also be noted that the obligation to disclose is ongoing and under new section 178(4) a practitioner must notify a client of any significant increases in the estimated cost of legal services.
I note also that the obligations to disclose and provide an estimate are subject to a test of reasonableness - that is, whether in the circumstances of the giving of instructions it was reasonable for the practitioner not to disclose. This test is set out at new section 180 of the bill. New section 181 provides that regulations and rules may establish when it is or is not reasonably practicable to make a disclosure. Clearly there are circumstances where work is done immediately or urgently in which disclosure may not be necessary. It is also of less importance for work done at a low fee. These type of matters can be identified and dealt with in the rules.
The penalty for non-disclosure has changed from that set out in the exposure draft bill. As previously drafted, the bill provided that, if a practitioner unreasonably failed to disclose, two penalties may apply. First, failure to disclose is capable of being found to be professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct. Second, by virtue of there not being a cost arrangement providing the information required to be disclosed, the practitioner would be entitled only to recover benchmark costs. New sections 182(4) and 183 retain a disciplinary penalty for failure to disclose or provide an estimate. However, the benchmark scale attracted considerable criticism on a number of grounds.
First, the Trade Practices Commission indicated that there is a danger that a benchmark or default scale would become a basis from which practitioners set their fees. For example, if the benchmark fee represents on average a discount of 25 per cent, practitioners may start charging on the basis of 25 per cent above the benchmark fee. This would effectively retain all of the worst features of a regulated fee system and defeat the intention of the legislation to create a competitive market for legal services. Second, it was pointed out that it would be a difficult, if not an impossible task, to determine the cost recovery fee across the range of matters and the varied circumstances in which legal services may be provided. In addition, legal firms themselves will have varying costs structures which impact on the level of the cost recovery.
The bill has therefore been amended and new section 182 provides that in the absence of a proper disclosure there is no obligation on the client to pay the bill until it has been assessed and imposes a requirement that the practitioner is obliged to meet the full cost of assessment. Thus, in circumstances where the practitioner unreasonably failed to properly or fully disclose, the practitioner may not recover any fees without submitting the account for assessment, with the full cost of assessment being met by the practitioner. Division 3 concerns cost agreements and sets out the basis for a cost agreement. Costs agreements are not mandatory, other than for conditional cost agreements, but the existence of a cost agreement is a relevant factor in assessment.
Page 3277
It must be noted that as a result of new section 184(6) a disclosure in accordance with division 2 which is accepted by the client constitutes a valid cost agreement. New sections 186 to 189 provide for conditional cost agreements. Conditional fees provide for payment of the legal practitioner only when the client is successful. Conditional fees will not involve profit sharing, where the lawyer receives a fee proportionate to the result. In this regard the arrangements permitted under this proposal are clearly different to contingency fee arrangements which exist in the United States whereby the lawyer may receive a proportion of the amount of money awarded by the court. Conditional costs arrangements arise where a lawyer and client agree that the lawyer's fee will be paid only if the client is successful.
Under such an agreement, there may be a premium on the agreed fee to take account of the risk involved, but the fee must not vary according to the benefit received by the client. The premium allowable may be up to 25 per cent of the reasonable fee disclosed in the cost agreement. What constitutes the successful outcome must also be agreed by the parties and included as part of the conditional cost agreement. The provisions of division 4 of schedule 3 relate to matters of interest, security and bills of cost and bring forward, with minor variations, provisions currently found in part 11 of the Act. Division 5 provides for certain costs to continue to be fixed. These relate to legal costs in worker's compensation matters, fixed costs on default judgments, non-legal costs related to proceedings such as witness expenses and the maximum rate of interest which may be charged by practitioners.
New section 197 also provides for regulations to identify costs which may be payable by a third party and to fix these by regulation. This may include fees for the preparation of a mortgage which becomes payable by the mortgagor or fees for preparation of a lease payable by a lessee. Division 6 introduces a new system of assessment to replace taxation of costs. There are a number of problems with the system of taxation. The taxation process in New South Wales is overly formal, legalistic and complex. The name of the process lends itself to considerable confusion. It is unlikely that any but the most sophisticated of legal services understand the term "taxation" in this obscure usage.
The system is also adversarial, requiring an application to the court and often representation by a solicitor to seek taxation of costs. The system is unnecessarily complex and artificial with court officials spending lengthy periods going through piles of documents to determine a "winner" and loser" on the issue of what is a fair bill for service. The Legal Fees and Costs Board recently drew attention to problems with the system of taxation. The board noted that the decision-making process in taxation is unnecessarily complex and time consuming. The board also noted that taxation is carried out by court officers who often occupy the position of a taxing officer in a transitory capacity, have little or no experience in the commercial world of running a legal practice and little or no knowledge of the intricacies of the day-to-day activities of legal practice.
All of these criticisms relate to taxation of both party-party matters and solicitor-client matters. In addition, in solicitor-client matters there are also severe cost risks in seeking taxation of a solicitor's account. Section 203 of the Legal Profession Act provides that unless the taxation officer reduces the bill by at least one-sixth the applicant, being the client, must bear the full costs of the taxation process. Though there may be scope to improve the taxation system by making it more accessible, less formal and less costly, it is my view that a system reliant upon taxation by court officers will always suffer from the problems identified by the Legal Fees and Costs Board. These problems will be exacerbated when fees are deregulated. If retained, the taxation officers would have less guidance as there will not be any set scale rates to apply and they would therefore have a greater discretion in determining what is a reasonable fee. Clearly, what is needed is a faster, easier and cheaper system of review of bills of costs. It may not be possible to achieve this by reform of the taxation process which is heavily based on an adversarial approach.
The Legal Fees and Costs Board suggested that the system of taxation be replaced by a system of assessment of costs by practitioners well versed in the running of a legal practice. Such persons would be part-time assessors appointed by the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice has indicated his support for this proposal. In commenting on the recommendation of the legal fees and costs board the Chief Justice noted "I would support the proposal that, subject to appropriate rights of appeal to a judge, taxation of costs be undertaken in the first instance by assessors taken from the ranks of legal practitioners, rather than by court officials who are public servants. I think it is fair to say that legal practitioners would be far more in touch with current rates payable in the market for legal services".
The key element of the proposed assessment scheme is assessment of the fair and reasonable costs having regard to all the circumstances of the legal service. The matters for assessors to consider in determining the fair and reasonable costs are set out at new sections 208A and 208B. Assessment is available to a client as against a practitioner and, by operation of new section 200, as between practitioners. The assessor will deal mainly with documents, determining whether they show that the amounts charged are commensurate with the services received. The assessor may require the parties to lodge additional information or to appear in person to explain any matters which are not readily available, or are not clear, from the documents.
The system will introduce an emphasis on mediation. New section 205 provides that before a matter is assessed the parties must have their attention drawn to the mediation service. It is anticipated that many matters will be settled by this process. Page 3278 Subdivision 4 provides that a determination of an assessor is final and registrable as a judgment. Where there is a cost agreement in existence the assessor must apply the rate specified in the agreement for calculating the costs. New section 208C makes it clear that this restriction does not apply where the practitioner failed to disclose, as required by division 2. In addition the assessor may set aside a cost agreement or part of an agreement on grounds similar to those in the Contract Review Act. This is provided by new section 208D but applies only in relation to agreements between practitioners and clients. Agreement between practitioners will not be able to be set aside under the Legal Profession Act.
I also draw attention to new section 208Q which provides that assessors may deal with matters of overcharging. Overcharging or misrepresenting a charge for legal services is a serious matter. As well as having the amount payable under a fee agreement reduced there must be a mechanism whereby the lawyer is disciplined for such action. If an assessor when reviewing charges for legal services is of the view that the lawyer has grossly or deliberately overcharged the client the assessor shall refer the matter to the Legal Services Commissioner so that it may be investigated as a complaint of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct. The assessment system will also replace taxation in relation to party-party costs.
The current system of taxation of party-party costs creates injustice and confusion. It means that even though a successful litigant is awarded costs against the other party he or she may be out of pocket for a significant amount. This is because party-party costs are those "necessary and proper" while solicitor-client costs are "all costs save those which are of an unreasonable amount or have been unreasonably incurred". It is proposed to abolish this distinction and that, subject to the judicial discretion to vary the basis of awarding costs, the criterion for awarding costs should be those reasonably incurred. The client would then recover the full costs which he or she is required to pay other than any unreasonable costs. There is significant support for this proposal. The current system of taxation has been criticised by a number of judges over recent years. In Singleton v. Macquarie Broadcasting Holding Ltd Justice Rogers, as he then was, noted:
It seems to me wholly inappropriate that a party, forced to take legal proceedings entirely through the wrongful and inappropriate conduct of the other party, be left badly out of pocket at the successful conclusion of the proceedings, simply by reason of an inappropriate method of taxation of costs.
His Honour has made similar critical statements in other judgments. The need for reform in this area is very clear. Recently, the Legal Fees and Costs Board in a report on the system of taxation of party-party costs also drew attention to this problem. The board noted that because of the restrictive tests used in assessing party-party costs a successful litigant may recover only a limited proportion of the actual costs incurred. The board noted:
In large commercial cases, the party-party costs may well amount to only 40% of the whole of the costs; often even less. In ordinary personal injury cases, the party-party percentage is often less than 60%. This means that the successful litigant is subsidising his or her unsuccessful adversary.
These problems have been rectified in the bill at new sections 208F and 208G by providing that the costs in proceedings will be dealt with under the assessment process and on the same basis as in practitioner-client matters, being the fair and reasonable costs. Thus successful litigants should expect to receive all the legal costs they have incurred, except in the clear instances where costs in excess of that which may be determined as reasonable have been incurred with the express consent of the client.
There are various amendments to court Acts in schedule 6 of the bill which provide that courts may determine costs payable in proceedings and may order costs to be payable on the basis or assessment as set out in the bill or an indemnity basis. This also has the effect of confirming the right of courts to order costs payable on an indemnity basis. This was recently brought into doubt in relation to the District Court by a decision of the Court of Appeal in Milosevic v. Insurance Ministerial Corporation.
I turn now to schedule 4 of the Act which contains a number of consequential and miscellaneous amendments to the Legal Profession Act. There are three matters which I wish to draw to attention. First, the Act has been amended to increase coverage given by the Solicitors' Fidelity Fund. The Solicitors' Fidelity Fund is established by part 7 of the Legal Profession Act 1987. The fidelity fund is made up of contributions payable by solicitors, and, pursuant to section 67 of the Legal Profession Act, may also be supplemented by payments from the statutory interest account. The fund is also among the list of beneficiaries under the trust deed establishing the Solicitors Trust Account Fund. The object of the fund is to provide protection to members of the public from loss due to defalcation by a solicitor. At present, payments may be made out of the fund in cases where there is a "failure to account" within the meaning of section 79 of the Act.
In essence, this means a failure by a solicitor to return to a client money or other valuable property entrusted to the solicitor. Accordingly, the fund does not provide protection to the public in respect of losses arising from dishonest conduct that does not amount to a failure to account. Such conduct would include, for example, fraudulent conduct involving money which never comes into the possession of the solicitor, such as dishonestly inducing a person to pay money to a third party. Other examples might include fraudulently "witnessing" a document or giving a false certificate. The current proposals, which were originally suggested by the Law Society, aim to widen the ambit of claims that may be made on the fidelity fund to include conduct that falls outside the narrow definition of a failure to account, so as to fill the gap in the scope of protection afforded to consumers of legal services.
Page 3279
It should be emphasised that the proposals are not aimed at relieving solicitors from the consequences of their own wrongdoing. It would not be expected that the fund would pay compensation pursuant to a final judgment against the solicitor where the solicitor has assets to meet the judgment. Where the fund does make a payment, the Law Society can and does seek to recover the amount paid from the solicitor at fault. The bill also provides for a ceiling on the value of individual claims for dishonest conduct that will be met from the fund. This will be set having regard to the state of the fund and the anticipated level of claims on it. I am advised that it remains the policy of the Law Society Council that all claims are to be paid in full so long as the state of the fund permits.
The second amendment relates to costs incurred by the Bar Council and Law Society Council in relation to admission hearings. At present the Law Society Council and Bar Council may recover from the statutory interest account the costs of undertaking various regulatory functions. This includes matters such as investigating complaints and taking disciplinary action. Appearance in relation to admission is a similar function. The Law Society Council and Bar Council have a specific role in relation to admission as recognised at proposed new section 19 in schedule 1. It is consistent with other provisions of the Act that the cost of this function be met from the statutory interest account.
Third, there is a minor amendment to section 61 of the Act which will permit regulations to be made in relation to "moneys-in-transit". At present the provisions relate to controlled money which is money held by the solicitor in trust or at the direction of the client. Money in transit generally relates to cheques or other instruments drawn to a third party but which may be held by the solicitor. The clearest example is cheques held for settlement of a conveyancing transaction. The amendment will permit regulation to be made to require certain records to be kept in relation to such money.
Schedule 5 will amend a variety of Acts in relation to qualification for appointment to judicial and other offices. This will give effect to two changes. First, in certain legislation it is currently provided that only a Queen's Counsel can be appointed to certain positions. In accordance with the abolition of the prerogative to appoint Queen's Counsel such provisions have been amended to provide that the qualification for appointment is seven years standing as a legal practitioner. This will apply to appointment to such positions as Solicitor General, Crown Advocate, Director of Public Prosecutions and commissioners under the Royal Commission Act 1923 and Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983.
Second, it has been noted that many provisions for appointment to judicial or other offices distinguish between barristers and solicitors. The usual section provides that an appointee must be a barrister of five years' standing or a solicitor of seven years' standing. There is no justification for distinguishing between barristers and solicitors in this manner. Accordingly these provisions have been amended to provide for appointment of legal practitioners of seven years' standing.
Schedule 6 will make consequential amendments to other Acts. I have already drawn attention to most of these. However, it is to be noted that the Act makes a number of amendments to the Conveyancers Licensing Act. The Conveyancers Licensing Act introduced a licensing regime for conveyancers which provided for similar regulatory controls in relation to conveyancers as apply to solicitors. Accordingly, consequential amendments are required to the Conveyancers Licensing Act to retain parity. It is noted that the Conveyancers Licensing Act by application of part 10 of the Legal Profession Act already provides that conveyancers are subject to the same complaints system as for solicitors. However, it is thought appropriate to expressly provide that conveyancers will be dealt with under the proposed complaints system, including the supervisory role of the commissioner.
The Maintenance and Champerty Abolition Bill is cognate with this bill. Maintenance and champerty are common law crimes and they are at present also a basis for civil action for damages. "Maintenance" comprises the giving of assistance or encouragement to one of the parties in civil proceedings by a person who has neither an interest in the proceedings nor any other motive recognised by law as justifying the assistance or encouragement. "Champerty" is a particular form of maintenance in which legal proceedings are maintained in consideration of a promise to give the maintainer a share of the subject-matter or proceeds.
The bill will abolish these as common law crimes and as ground for action in tort. This abolition needs to be read in conjunction with the provisions of the Legal Profession Reform Bill concerning conditional fee agreements, whereby the only form of conditional or contingency arrangement will be as permitted by that bill. As I have indicated the Government will not permit contingency fees on the basis of profit sharing and an agreement to that effect would be void. In addition, I note that the Legal Profession Reform Bill preserves the possibility that maintenance and champerty may be professional misconduct by a legal practitioner except in connection with a conditional fee agreement under that bill.
I have taken some time to set out the key elements of this bill because of the significance of the reforms it introduces and so that there can be no doubt as to the Government's intention in relation to the reforms. There will be an opportunity for honourable members to consider the terms of the bill over the next three weeks. In doing so I encourage them to consider the reforms as an integrated package. The reforms are based entirely upon making the profession more responsive and accountable. It would be a great shame if the cohesiveness of these reforms were lost through unnecessary changes.
Page 3280
It is my hope that the legal profession, through the Bar Association, Law Society and individual practitioners will participate in the reform process. If the legal profession can respond to reform in a positive manner it will be to the advantage of both the profession and the community, and will enhance the image of the profession within this community. The Legal Profession Reform Bill provides a good basis for that to occur. I commend the bills.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. R. D. Dyer.
[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Beryl Evans) left the chair at 6.17 p.m. The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.]
REGISTERED CLUBS (MANAGEMENT) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier) [8.15]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Registered Clubs Act of 1976 to deal with some specific matters of public interest.
In broad terms the object of the bill is to amend the Act so as to:
remove the existing power of the Licensing Court to disqualify a club from holding a certificate of registration for a period;
empower the court to declare that a specified person is ineligible to be the secretary or a member of the governing body of a club;
add a ground of complaint that a member of the governing body of a club is not a fit and proper person to hold the position;
increase the maximum monetary penalty in complaint proceedings from 500 to 2500 penalty units; and
enact transitional provisions to require that existing registration disqualifications be remitted to the Licensing Court to decide on the basis of the new provisions (except the increase in monetary penalty).
It may be of some assistance to members if I give some background to these amendments.
The recent and somewhat unfortunate history of the Seagulls Rugby League Football Club at Tweed Heads has been ventilated in the media both in Sydney and on the far North Coast.
As a consequence of its own actions some years ago, this club is facing the prospect of closing its doors for two weeks. This flows from a determination of the Licensing Court of New South Wales.
This case had its origins in the mid 1980's and culminated in a complaint in 1988 by the Superintendent of Licences to the Licensing Court of New South Wales. This led to a decision of a licensing magistrate in 1989 to disqualify the club from holding a certificate of registration for a period of two months.
I will not go into the details of those complaints at this time because that is all past history and not all of the initial findings of the magistrate survived the subsequent court processes.
What is significant here is the amount of time and cost absorbed in the courts in coming to grips with this case.
It may assist if I quote from the decision of the Court of Appeal in this matter on 22 December 1992.
The honourable Justice P. Kirby said and I quote:
"I pause to reflect upon the protracted nature of this litigation, its costs and its delays. What began as a fairly simple concern of the superintendent about the continuing involvement of Mr Hayes in the activities of the club and the belief that the club's Buspak promotion contravened the Act, blew out into four substantial hearings, seven large appeal books and very substantial costs, public and private. One is bound to question whether there is not a more effective way than this of dealing with the legitimate public concerns about the management of a large club in country New South Wales."
Mr President, this last comment of the judge was to be a telling and guiding comment.
The 1992 hearing was not to be the end of the matter. The Court of Appeal returned the case to the Licensing Court to decide according to the law having determined that there had been an error of law to the disadvantage of the appellant club.
The Licensing Court in July 1993 redetermined the matter and disqualified the club's certificate of registration for a lesser period than before - being on this last occasion a period of two weeks.
The club has once more appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that the Licensing Court has erred at law again. The matter is scheduled for hearing before the Supreme Court on 20 September 1993.
I digress here to indicate that the current legal opinion available to me suggests that there is a real prospect that the determination of the full bench in the Seagulls matter will be set aside by the Supreme Court. That of course will be decided by that court.
So now the club is facing the prospect of at least two more court appearances, one before the Supreme Court and, possibly, back before the Licensing Court.
Mr President, I have outlined the history of this case as an example of the problems which the amendments now before the Parliament seek to overcome.
It is abundantly clear to me that the provision of the Act which allows the Licensing Court to order the temporary closure of a club is a crude weapon of control. It has the capacity to penalise the employees of a club who may be stood down during the period of the closure of the club. Employees who may have no inkling or involvement in the problems which led to the closure and who may suffer through a loss of wages.
But it is not just the employees who are disadvantaged. With the closure of a club comes the inconvenience to the members of the club and their guests.
The members of this Parliament will be well aware of the services and facilities provided by the clubs in their own electorates. They can no doubt imagine the disruption which the closure of any one of these clubs would cause.
Should there be any doubt, they might speak to the honourable member for Murwillumbah, the electorate in which the Seagulls Club is located. A member who has worked unceasingly with me in recent months to unravel the web entangling the club.
Mr President, the blunt weapon of closure of a club invites any club threatened in this way to engage in what may well be a battle for their very survival - a battle in which they must expend their energy and their resources to stave off the Page 3281 closure. They will, as did the Seagulls, use every legitimate avenue at their disposal to protect their club, their members and their community services.
I have outlined the devastating effect that closure of a club can have on the employees and members of the club and their guests. Yet despite this, those who may have been involved in the conduct which led to the closure may escape unscathed.
The amendments which I now put forward will overcome these deficiencies and injustices.
First, the power of disqualification of a club's certificate of registration for a period will be removed from the Act. No more will this be available as a sanction to the court.
I would make the point, that this power has been rarely used. There are only three cases of which I am aware where a club has been forced by a court to close for a period. Such is the impact of this penalty that even the courts seem loath to use it.
To protect the public interest there must, of course, be penalties available which are capable of sensible application.
To introduce meaningful substitutes to closing a club, I propose that there be further changes to the law.
First, the existing monetary penalty which may be imposed is $50,000.
This will be increased to $250,000. It will be expressed as a maximum monetary penalty so as to give the Licensing Court a discretion to take into account the magnitude of the wrong leading to the complaint and the significance of the penalty in relation to the size of a club and its resources.
Second, a new provision will be inserted into section 17 of the Act which will allow the court, when determining a complaint, to declare that a specified person is ineligible to be the secretary or a member of the governing body of a registered club.
This will be accompanied by a provision that a ground of complaint may include that a member of the governing body is not a fit and proper person. There is already a ground of complaint that the secretary is not a fit and proper person.
Mr President, these new provisions relating to a secretary and member of the governing body will mean that if it becomes apparent to the court during complaint proceedings against the club that it was the management of the club, or a person materially involved in the management, who were directly responsible for the wrong-doing then the court will be able to deal with those persons. They will not be able to escape unscathed.
There is a procedural fairness provision for insertion into the Act which will oblige the court to give the person an opportunity to have their case heard and to show cause why the court should not declare them ineligible for further office.
There is already a provision in section 35 of the Act which allows for a person who is a secretary or a director of a club to be called upon to show cause why they should not be removed from their position.
Incorporating a similar provision into the complaint proceedings will mean that all matters of concern can be dealt with at the same time rather than requiring separate, and costly, proceedings.
The power of the court to appoint an administrator to a club was introduced by this Government in 1990 and it will remain as an option. I am advised that this option was available to the Licensing Court in the Seagulls matter although it was not used.
Mr President, the power for the Licensing Court to cancel a club's certificate of registration will remain. This must be available as a penalty of a last resort.
However, I see this power being used primarily where it is shown before the court that a club no longer meets a genuine and substantial need, or where undue competition and economic waste will result if the club continues to operate. These are two existing grounds of complaint.
Clearly, if it is found that a club has persistently and flagrantly committed major breaches of the law, that there has been no regard paid to the proper conduct of the club in the interests of its members, or that criminal activity pervades the club, then the cancellation of a clubs certificate may be the only proper course available to the court.
The bill now before the House also includes transitional provisions that will require any existing registration disqualification to be remitted to the Licensing Court for re-determination on the basis of the new provisions which I have outlined above. An important exception to this will be that the increase in monetary penalty will not be available in current cases.
These transitional arrangements do not offend the rule of law which is already embodied in section 55 of the interpretations Act of 1987. Simply expressed, that rule says that if a statutory penalty is increased the increased penalty applies only to offences committed after the commencement of the statute.
Conversely, the rule says that a reduction in a statutory penalty extends to offences committed before the statute commences, except those where a penalty has already been imposed.
What the amendments in this bill do is to specifically apply that rule to the particular circumstances of the penalty provisions for section 17 complaints under the Registered Clubs Act.
I am satisfied that with all the amendments proposed in this bill the court will have available to it a range of sanctions which it can impose to fit the particular circumstances of a complaint against a club where it may determine that action is appropriate in the public interest.
I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN [8.16]: The Opposition supports the Registered Clubs (Management) Amendment Bill.
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.16]: The intention of the legislation is to save the Seagulls Rugby League Football Club. As the Australian Democrats support the saving of seagulls, we support the legislation.
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier) [8.17], in reply: I thank honourable members for their succinct and effusive support for the bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
ENDANGERED FAUNA (INTERIM PROTECTION) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier), on behalf of the Hon. R. J. Webster [8.18]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
Page 3282
The Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991 made a number of changes, some of which were expressed to expire on 1 December 1992 or on any earlier date on which replacement endangered species legislation was enacted. In late 1992 the Government amended this legislation to ensure the further extension of these provisions until 1 October 1993 while a comprehensive package of legislation for the protection of endangered fauna was formulated.
As honourable members will be aware, the Government introduced its Endangered and Other Threatened Species Conservation Bill 1993 into the Parliament in May 1993.
However to ensure viable and effective legislation which all members of the community can support and which can achieve the commonly accepted objectives of ecologically sustainable development, the Government has agreed to the establishment of a legislation committee to examine the range of legislative proposals which have been put forward since May 1993.
In the meantime, action must be taken to ensure the provisions of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act do not expire on 1 October 1993. The purpose of this bill is to extend the operation of those relevant provisions until October 1995.
The specific provisions on which an extension is required are as follows:
The inclusion of a defence to the offence in section 98 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 of taking or killing protected fauna (other than endangered fauna). This defence enables a person to carry out development in accordance with a development consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 or an activity for which part 5 of that Act has been complied with. The defence is necessary because the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act extended the meaning of "take or kill" fauna to "include any significant modification of the habitat of that fauna which is likely to affect its essential behaviour patterns". The Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Amendment Act 1992 extended the date on which the defence expired until 1 October 1993. This bill further extends that date until 1 October 1995.
An amendment to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 included the additional requirement for a fauna impact statement for development consent and for any environmental impact statement under part 5 of that Act. The Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991 made that requirement for all protected fauna but the Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Act 1992 limited its application to endangered fauna. The Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Amendment Act 1992 extended the date when the requirement expired until 1 October 1993. This bill further extends that date until 1 October 1995.
The other changes made by the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991 are not affected by the 1992 Amending Act or this bill. Those changes include the extension of the definition of "take or kill", the establishment of a scientific committee that recommends the listing of endangered fauna, the requirement for a fauna impact statement for a general licence or "take or kill" endangered fauna, the power to issue stop work orders to prevent development that is likely to significantly affect the environment of endangered or other protected fauna.
The Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991 imposed restrictions on the issuing of general licensed by the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife after the publication of the new schedule of endangered fauna. The Act commenced on 17 December 1991 but the new schedule was not published until 28 February 1992. A number of general licences were issued after the commencement of the Act to the Forestry Commission and others to take or kill endangered fauna in connection with existing forestry and other operations.
The Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Amendment Act 1992 extended the duration of those licences and certain other licences to which that Act applies until 1 October 1993. This bill further extends their duration until 1 October 1995.
The bill makes it clear that the licences remain subject to the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 relating to the cancellation or variation of a licence. I place that on record to assure any person who has concerns about this.
The Government is committed to ensuring that development activities can continue throughout the State and that appropriate protection is given to endangered fauna while the Parliament has the opportunity to fully consider the legislative options.
I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [8.19]: The Opposition supports the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill. This is the third time that I have risen in this House to say that the Opposition supports the extension of the legislation that we introduced a couple of years ago. At the time the Government and a lot of other people were telling us that the sky was about to fall in. The sky did not fall in last year when the Government found it necessary to extend our legislation. The sky did not fall in yesterday when in the other place the Government found that, because of its inability to deal with the important issue of protecting endangered fauna, it again had to extend our legislation. It is not a matter of surprise that the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing has not managed to find his way here tonight to move the second reading of the bill.
This is a very important bill. As the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing is not here to explain the importance of the bill, I will say a little about it. Yesterday in the other place two important things were done with respect to the protection of endangered and threatened species. The bill which the Government prepared earlier this year has received considerable criticism. Indeed, the Opposition had prepared a total of, I think, 33 amendments to meet widespread criticism from people in the community, ranging from the environmental movement, which regarded that bill as fatally flawed, to organisations such as the Forest Products Association. The Labor Party had prepared 33 amendments and then suggested - knowing that the Government really was not capable of dealing with this entire process of fixing up its flawed legislation - that the bill be referred to a legislation committee. That has been done in the other place.
A legislation committee consisting of three Government members, two Opposition members and the honourable member for Manly will now examine this legislation in detail. I hope it will arrive at a consensus position which will eventually result in a proper package of legislation to protect our endangered species. That committee is to report by Page 3283 1st March, 1994. However, a second bill was also necessary because the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991, which was originally to expire in December 1992 - as I said, last year the Government was forced to extend the bill originally introduced by the Australian Labor Party - is now to expire on 30th September. It was necessary for the Government to find some way to cope with this problem.
That legislation is now being extended, under the provisions of the bill, from 1st October, 1993, to 1st October, 1995. The two-year extension will enable the long promised comprehensive package of legislation for the protection of endangered fauna to be formulated. It is with great pleasure that I indicate the Opposition's support for the bill, which is necessary because the whole problem of protecting endangered species has not yet been solved by the Government. As long as that is the situation the interim protection legislation must continue. The environmental movement in particular has expressed concern about the proposed extension in that what exists under the legislation at the moment in effect are three-month licences which give access to resources, particularly timber resources, and if the effective three-month licences are extended for the next two years the principles of the bill might in some way be subjugated. We argue that that is not the case, although it may be the case, but we are hopeful that the provision in the bill that allows the director-general to continue licensing, issuing stop work orders and making other orders as he sees fit will ensure that no licences are issued which fail to satisfactorily protect endangered species.
The legislation also requires the Minister to table quarterly reports to the Parliament on the operations of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act. From those quarterly reports it will be possible for us to see what is happening under the legislation. I am sure all honourable members remember that when the legislation was initially presented it was forecast that it would lead to a bureaucratic impossibility, that thousands of licences would be necessary, that fauna impact statements would have to be carried out all over the place, and that the entire process would cause a jam in the National Parks and Wildlife Service and other government organisations.
Many predictions were made that the legislation would be unworkable because of the demand it would place on the National Parks and Wildlife Service. In fact, over the period in which the legislation has been in operation the service has granted 62 temporary licences to take or kill endangered fauna. Most of those temporary licences were extended under the provision of last year's amendment to 1st October this year, and 266 variations to those licences and authorities have been processed. The Forestry Commission, I guess hoping to avoid a jam, has requested variations for approximately 350 additional compartments. Clearly, the National Parks and Wildlife Service has been capable of handling the issues associated with external monitoring of the Forestry Commission. When the legislation was introduced there was a great outcry accusing the Opposition of threatening jobs and alleging that all sorts of jobs in the timber industry would be lost. Of course, that has not happened and never looked like happening. It was also suggested that the Forestry Commission would be under threat and in great difficulty.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Have you any idea of the value of the timber industry?
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I have a very clear idea of the value of the timber industry. I would point out for perhaps the third time that this legislation has consistently been drafted and organised by Australian Labor Party members - as were the 33 amendments I mentioned - to achieve a reasonable balance between the protection of endangered species, the protection of the environment, and the need to maintain not only jobs in the timber industry but the timber industry itself. Over and over again we have pointed out that it is possible to provide enough logs to keep timber mills occupied by logging areas which are not environmentally sensitive.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: They have access to only 6 per cent of the forest areas.
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: The Forestry Commission's main problems have been bad management, bad planning, bad environmental practices and bad work practices in general. Some members of the National Party have been known to become rabid on this issue. One of them is seeking to interject here tonight. Despite all the fears of the National Party, the Forestry Commission - and I would hope all of us - has to accept that the time has long gone by when any agency of government in this State can expect to act, in this case, as the body milling timber and also as the regulator. The days have long gone by when the same body can act as both the proponent of development or forestry activities and also the regulator.
The strength of the bill is that it leaves the Forestry Commission free to carry out its proper activities - better, I hope, than it has done in the past. The bill will ensure that the Forestry Commission is subject to external regulation and licensing, as is almost every other body in this State. If members of the National Party cannot accept the necessity for that provision, I despair of their ever understanding environmental issues or matters of government. The Forestry Commission has to understand the concepts of external licensing and scrutiny. Both concepts are here to stay, and both are extremely important if public confidence in the process is to remain in place. I again urge members to support the bill. We still have a long way to go in New South Wales before we can complete the process of protecting endangered species. Over the past two years the Opposition has shown the way and has pulled the Government's chestnuts out of the fire. We hope that the Page 3284 Government's deeply flawed legislation will be improved by a process of amendment over the next six months by the legislation committee of the other place, so that some time next year we will be able to celebrate the protection of endangered fauna and other species in New South Wales.
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.33]: This legislation has been necessitated by the failure to pass the Endangered and Threatened Species (Conservation) Bill, which has been referred to a legislation committee. It is hoped that a large number of amendments will be made to that bill. Dr Peter Macdonald's species conservation bill is also in the offing. This legislation amends the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act to extend its operation to 1st October, 1995. I do not intend to repeat what has been said by other members in debate. However, Australia has the worst mammal protection rates in the world, with 20 species, or 8 per cent of total Australian mammal fauna, lost since the arrival of Europeans just over 200 years ago.
In 1973 Dr Harry Frith, one-time chief of the Division of Wildlife Research of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, published the most authoritative work on the status of wildlife in Australia. Dr Frith listed 37 marsupial species, or 26 per cent of our entire marsupial fauna, as either extinct or threatened. Only 20 years later, in 1993, the "Action Plan for Australian Marsupials and Monotremes", produced by the Commonwealth Government, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and the World Wide Fund for Nature, listed 70 species, or 49 per cent of all of our marsupials, as either extinct or threatened. Therefore, nearly half of Australia's marsupial fauna are either extinct or threatened. This is the worst record of any country in the world.
Of all the Australian States, New South Wales has the worst extinction record. We have the worst animal and mammal extinction record in Australia. We have lost 40 native animal species, 27 of them mammals. We are also second only to Western Australia in plant extinctions, with 15 gone so far, yet some of the rednecks in this place want to increase this State's extinction rate. Another 50 mammal species are considered endangered, vulnerable or rare in New South Wales. In a country that has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world, New South Wales appears to have one of the worst regional extinction rates for mammals, compared to any other nationally internal region in the world. We have nothing to be proud of in our treatment of our wildlife.
Wildlife in this State is still being lost mainly through clearance of habitat and destruction of forests. I have raised in this House compartment 1402, which this very day is being logged. Under the national forest policy signed by the Premier, that compartment should never have been logged. That logging is going ahead despite pressure from Canberra and from most conservation groups in this State. The New South Wales Government, however, does not care at all that such a small area, one of the most valuable habitats in the whole State, will be destroyed. That is absolutely shameful. Rednecks continue to cry foul about any need to preserve what they regard as useless species. Our animals and birds have no value to the rednecks, who can see value only in timber resources which they want to woodchip and send to Japan for next to no return. That is outrageous. The Australian Democrats support the proposed legislation. We hope that over the next two and a half years prior to the next State election the Government - and I know some Ministers have a fond regard for wildlife - will introduce legislation that is much better than existing legislation to adequately protect our endangered species.
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK (Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier) [8.35], in reply: I thank honourable members for their effusive support for the bill and recognition of its importance, given that the present legislation expires shortly. I thank them for their understanding and support. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (HOMOSEXUAL VILIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [8.37]: Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would preclude a motion being moved forthwith that the Order of the Day relating to the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill be called on forthwith.
We have moved contingent notices of motion on many occasions today, and perhaps members of the press gallery realise that it is necessary to do so over and over again because of restrictions imposed upon us by the standing orders. I have moved for suspension of standing and sessional orders to permit continuation of the debate on the bill, and to permit the Leader of the House, the Attorney General, to continue his remarks, as he was interrupted earlier this afternoon. I understand that following his remarks I will have a right of reply, and after that further debate on the bill can continue.
Motion for suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.
Motion
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [8.40]: I move:
That the Order of the Day relating to the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill be called on forthwith.
Page 3285
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [8.40]: Just before 12 o'clock today I was saying that the Government takes a very strong view on the four issues the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby proposes to move for debate. The Government is very concerned, as I indicated at length on at least two occasions today, about the proposal to remove the control of Government business from the hands of the Government. When question time intervened I was commenting on the Government's position having regard to the threats made by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I shall now complete my remarks so that they are on the record. I clearly indicated that the Government would consider the draft bill, that it would be for Government members to make a decision on that package of legislation and that they had made very clear their view of the community's attitude towards the introduction of a piece of legislation that was directly of a sectional interest rather than of a community interest.
The Government members, however, recognised the point that I have made strongly that there is a need to address hate-related violence and all issues addressing that. Government members were quite cognisant of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission Discussion Paper No. 30, "Review Of The Anti-Discrimination Act 1977", and in particular of item 5.31 at page 156, under the heading "Vilification". In the discussion paper the Law Reform Commission has put out for debate questions under the heading, "Issues for consideration":
Question 174
(a) Should the offence of vilification be extended to some or all grounds?
(b) If so, should it be drafted on the model of the racial vilification provisions?
(c) Alternatively should there be one offence of vilification applicable to all grounds.
That is, all grounds under the Act. Honourable members would be aware that the Act covers sexually-related issues of discrimination. Homosexual and racial discrimination are covered under the Act. This Government is now moving to provide for disability discrimination under the Act, and that will also cover HIV and AIDS. I expect to introduce to the House within the next few weeks an age discrimination package of legislation. The Law Reform Commission proposes to look at all those issues under the Act and determine whether the Act should include a generic vilification provision. Very strong representations were made to the Government, across the board, that these issues should be dealt with on a generic basis and not on an issue-related basis. A large number of the submissions were to the effect that the issues should be dealt with by the Law Reform Commission.
If we were to deal on a generic basis with sexually-related issues, the Anti-Discrimination Board could potentially become a censorship board. The Hon. Ann Symonds has an interest in sexual vilification. The Berlei advertisements, for instance, would be clearly seen as sexual vilification. The Anti-Discrimination Board is most concerned that it might have to become a censorship organisation in relation to those types of matters and deal with magazines and other publications. There is no doubt that if this framework of legislation in its current wording were applied to that area, those are the issues that would directly confront the Anti-Discrimination Board. This style of wording in the legislation could not work in that area.
Therefore, there is a need for the Law Reform Commission to examine these issues to see if a workable package can be designed to cover disability, age and other discrimination. That issue confronted the Government when it considered the representations made on this package of legislation. That is why I announced that the Government intended to ask the Law Reform Commission to deal with the issue on the generic basis and not on a sectional issue-related basis. The Government took the view, however, that HIV-AIDS vilification was an appropriate issue that could go ahead at this stage because it was not sectional but was an issue throughout the whole community and could not arguably be treated as a sectional issue. That is the Government's position, and I want to make that clear to honourable members. The Government is not operating under any threats.
Having put that on the record I also wish to inform the House that I have had discussions with the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and made clear to her the Government's strong opposition to items (1), (2), (3) and (4) of her motion. But rather than have honourable members continue to debate most of those issues in relation to suspension, the Government is supportive of allowing the suspension to go ahead so that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby can move and speak to the substantive motion. As I understand it the honourable member proposes then to adjourn the substantive motion to the next private members' day, on which honourable members will be able to start to debate the substantive motion. If that substantive motion is then carried by the House, the House will be able to move to the third phase, which is the second reading debate. I wish to make it clear to the House that the Government strongly opposes that bill and will strongly oppose the move to carry the motion of the honourable member that would allow it to be debated.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.47]: The Leader of the Government in this House has put on record his response to the broad issue. Though we are not debating the bill, I have been referred to in a number of speeches on homosexual vilification. I put it on record that it may have been far wiser for the Government to have dealt with each of these issues in separate bills. It is not a good policy to have omnibus-type legislation when the issues are different. The proposed legislation contains complicated issues that should be dealt with separately. Maybe later Page 3286 tonight the House may have agreed to support the different issues as separate bills. I believe, and my supporters, legal advisers and church leaders believe, that the proposed legislation will have no direct bearing on violence against homosexuals. The bill will not have the slightest impact on skinhead gangs in Sydney, the violent groups who are attacking homosexuals. The bill may have exactly the opposite effect: to increase and provoke attacks. That is the position of the Call to Australia group. We believe the legislation deals with complicated issues. I believe the movers of the legislation understand that. The Hon. P. F. O'Grady understands it far better than most honourable members of this House and obviously far better than the Hon. E. P. Pickering.
This legislation is philosophical; it seeks to make a statement. I am pleased that the editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald, which usually opposes me - the late Professor Fred Hollows always called it the "Sydney Morning Homosexual" because it was so pro-homosexual - supported my claim that the legislation was an attack on free speech. So also did the Council for Civil Liberties and, to my surprise, the Free Speech Committee. In this debate I have been falsely accused of supporting hateful attitudes, or hate-homosexual attitudes, and violence against homosexuals. I have never supported violence against homosexuals or any other person. I have sought to do all I can to defuse the situation in New South Wales. Whether people believe that is a matter for them. I object to the way I have been verballed on this issue, particularly by newspaper headlines and by some speakers in their contributions to the debate.
It has been claimed that because I oppose this legislation I support hate-gay attitudes. I have put to Mr Fahey, the Premier, a number of proposals to reduce violence against homosexuals. He said he would look at the proposals; he did not accept them on the spot. The proposals were, first, to examine all penalties for offences involving violence; second, to take a dramatic leap forward, if you like, and double the penalties for offences involving violence; third, to increase police patrols in areas where homosexuals are bashed; and, fourth, to declare certain areas off-bounds to gangs such as skinhead gangs. Such gangs are fairly easily identified. They are usually up to no good and are looking for an easy target. The Premier thought that proposal was a little draconian and that it would be impossible to implement. However, I believe some type of preventive police action is necessary to remove potential bashing gangs from areas where large numbers of homosexuals live or engage in their activities in gay bars, gay hotels and so on. Those areas have become fairly easily identified in Oxford Street, Newtown and other parts of New South Wales.
Finally, I proposed a type of stalking law. I do not think anyone has taken up that proposal literally, but I know the Labor Party has talked about it. Such a law is not aimed at protecting one group in society - homosexuals - or anyone else. However, it could be used to protect women, children, members of Parliament, judges, et cetera. A stalking law would be preventive and could be used when certain activity is taking place, when a person feels threatened, or when complaints have been made and the police have said nothing can be done until an offence is committed. That offence may result in a fatality, and little can be done when the victim is dead. I believe there should be a preventive type of stalking law.
I have put those proposals to the Premier. If members of the Government or the Opposition want to check with the Premier, they will find that those proposals played a strong part in the discussions that the Hon. Elaine Nile and I had with the Premier and the Attorney General. The Attorney General is in the House and can verify what I am saying. I believe those proposals confirm what I said earlier and confirm my credentials on this issue. In no way do I support or encourage the bashing of homosexuals. I am totally opposed to any hate-type attitudes. When one votes against this bill, one is labelled as supporting hate-gay attitudes.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Is that not right with you?
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: That is a total misrepresentation of my position. It is a disgrace, but that is part of what happens in our society. Every morning Alan Jones on 2UE has been running a vendetta against me. He described me as someone who is brain dead, encourages acts of violence and is happy to see violence. I have transcripts of his statements. I do not think I have ever read statements that contain such a vitriolic but unjustified attack on one person - me.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It is true.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: He is very unhappy. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones keeps interjecting and saying, "It is true". He knows it is a lie, but he is prepared to use the political forms of this House to accuse me of certain attitudes when he knows the accusations are false.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You are the biggest hypocrite in New South Wales; you are the most hated man in New South Wales.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I am not surprised that people like the Hon. R. S. L. Jones stimulate and encourage that opinion. He is doing it right now in this House. He is misrepresenting me, and I will not be cowed into silence by false accusations.
The Hon. P. F. O'Grady: Nor will I.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: That is what I am saying. I have never tried to stop the Hon. P. F. O'Grady from speaking. When the bill was introduced, it was claimed that it would gag me. The Hon. P. F. O'Grady must admit that the honourable Page 3287 member for Bligh stated that the aim of her bill was to gag Fred Nile and Bruce Ruxton - a dearth of free speech.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You are not a man of God at all.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I stand for purity, love and family life. That is my record. Those who know me can find nothing wrong with it. The motion has a weakness in the paragraph that refers to the bill taking precedence over all Government and general business until concluded. The Call to Australia group will strongly oppose that paragraph when the motion is debated at another time. I believe the proposal by the Australian Democrats is draconian. Having regard to the attitude revealed in this House on other occasions by both members of the Australian Democrats - that they would like to run the House - that does not surprise me. Since 1991 the Hon. Elaine Nile and I have held the balance of power in this House. We have exercised great moderation and have not abused that power. When we have had opportunities to do so and have been enticed to do so by the Labor Party, we have rejected its encouragement. By inserting such a draconian proposal in the third paragraph of a four-paragraph motion, the Australian Democrats are seeking to run the House. The Call to Australia group places on record its strong opposition to that paragraph.
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [8.57], in reply: Several remarks have been made during the debate, which commenced more than nine hours ago, and I will try to deal with them as best I can. In fact, it was more than nine hours ago that the Leader of the Government in this House accused me of trying to take control of Government business, and that has occurred, of course, on a private members' day. I believe I have amply shown my good faith by allowing the passage of Government business. The only reason it has been necessary for me and other members of the House to move so many contingent notices of motion is the constraints under which we operate because of the standing orders of this House.
A few moments ago Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile made certain claims about the way I had been behaving. He knows as well as I do the constraints under which we operate. Those constraints certainly make it near to impossible for private members' business to be debated and voted on. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is not the only member of this House who has had a private members' bill lie on the table of the House for more than two years. I have two such bills. I included in my motion the paragraph stating that consideration of the bill should take precedence of all other Government and general business until concluded for one reason. If I had not done that, the motion would have been debated one Thursday and then dropped to the bottom of the notice paper. The notice paper already contains 40 other private members' motions or bills and it may be six, nine or 18 months before the bill is debated again. This is an impossibility when one is dealing with such a serious matter as the vilification of the gay and lesbian community and has the figures on the violence they suffer.
According to the New South Wales anti-violence project, since 1987 there have been 20 gay murders. A recently completed project survey shows that from November 1991 to June 1993 184 incidents of violence against gays and lesbians were reported. Ninety-seven of those were physical attacks, and 40 of them were serious. The incidence of verbal abuse reported in the same period increased by 58.3 per cent. Those are appalling figures. Honourable members should note that only those people who came forward to report the violence were counted. In view of that, when this bill came before the House, and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile opposed it, they issued what I believed was a very grave threat. They threatened to abstain from voting on any bill opposed by the Australian Labor Party if the Premier did not remove the anti-vilification provisions from the Attorney General's bill.
The threat was bizarre because, first, it acknowledged what we all knew and that is that the Call to Australia group tends to give automatic support to the Government, except in respect of measures it designates as moral issues. Past experience has shown that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile confine a moral issue almost entirely to sexual activity, or the result thereof, conveniently ignoring the moral issues inherent in industrial relations, the economy, social services and almost any other piece of legislation. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile threatened to go to the opposite extreme by imposing a blanket ban on Government legislation, which he would reject, not because it was bad law but simply because the Australian Labor Party was voting against it. That is a refusal to consider the merits of legislation that many people in the community who make representations to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile find terribly frustrating.
I know that because they come to me and to my colleague the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and say they have been to see Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and have not been able to get from him either a reply to letters or any firm consideration of their problems. I was very disturbed - and I will repeat this - that the Premier and the Leader of the Government in this House gave in to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, because his threat would not have worked. The Australian Democrats gave an undertaking that if Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile carried out his threat, we would consider each piece of legislation on its merits - except for two, and I mentioned those. We said we would oppose the sale of the State Bank and the privatisation of the Government Cleaning Service.
It would not have meant the end of Government bills being passed in the upper House. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile called Mr Fahey's bluff and, Page 3288 regrettably, for reasons that I simply do not understand, the Premier caved in. The Premier caved in to a man who misuses the word of God to support his own bigoted point of view. In fact, the Government has given in to a man who was destined to political irrelevance until it chose to give him credence. It allowed itself to be dictated to by a man whose views are highly objectionable to the majority of Christians. That includes me as a Christian and also includes many members of the Uniting Church, the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church, and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile knows that very well.
I was appalled by the capitulation of the Premier and the Attorney General, mainly because of the numerous undertakings that the Attorney General had given to introduce legislation to outlaw homosexual vilification. It was only last November that he told the gay and lesbian community at a rally outside the Sydney Town Hall, "I want a package of legislation designed to combat HIV-AIDS related discrimination and homosexual vilification to go before State Parliament in the new year". Even when the bill that I intend to restore in this House, the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Bill, was being debated the Attorney General accused the honourable member for Bligh of politicising the issue and chided her for being premature in her introduction of the bill in another place.
In May when I introduced the bill of the honourable member for Bligh in the upper House, the Government would not support it and the only reason it gave was that the Attorney General was so committed to the principle of prohibiting homosexual vilification that he had a comprehensive human rights package. Those were his words, and they appear on page 2571 of Hansard of 21st May. He said that the legislation would not only outlaw homosexual vilification but also HIV-AIDS related discrimination. I believe there is no excuse for not supporting the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill if the Government is truly committed to prohibiting homosexual vilification because further amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act could come at a later date
A few moments ago, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile explained the suggestions that he put forward to the Premier when he and the Hon. Elaine Nile had a discussion with the Premier about the matter. He talked about increasing the penalties for violence, but that is presupposing that people who commit violent acts are caught, charged, appear before the court and are found guilty. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile apparently suggested to the Premier that there could be off-bounds areas. I do not know whether he is suggesting that there are to be off-bounds areas for the homosexual community, that they are to be put in a ghetto and in only one part of Sydney, or whether there are off-bounds areas -
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: There would be off-bounds areas for the straights, the skinhead gangs.
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile says now by way of interjection that they are for the skinhead gangs, but I do not know how the police are going to enforce that. I believe it would be impossible to implement. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile talked about the possibility of introducing a stalking law. Again, that puts the police in an impossible situation. I simply do not see how they can possibly police such a proposed law. Therefore, I do not believe that these are very suitable alternatives; nor do I believe that any reasonable government would take them up. Of course, it is to the credit of both the Premier and the Attorney General that they have not given any public undertaking to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile to take up those suggestions.
I wish to place this on the record. It has been argued that homosexual vilification provisions will give homosexuals rights that others in the community do not have. It is clear that the majority of members of the community are not singled out for attack on the grounds of their sexuality. That is why I believe that the compromise of having a general vilification law is completely inadequate. In fact, if it is taken to the extreme, proponents of this line of thought could argue that there is no need for the Anti-Discrimination Act and that protection could be provided by way of other general statutes. That is an argument I reject, since discrimination is a very distinct phenomenon with very specific causes and remedies. I was fully in support of the legislation introduced in another place by the honourable member for Bligh, and that is why I agreed to introduce her bill in this place. That was before I went to Vienna for the human rights conference in June.
When I was in Vienna I visited the city museum where an entire gallery of exhibits proved to me how it was possible for the holocaust and the attempted extermination of the Jewish race by Hitler's Nazi regime to have occurred. The museum has considerable memorabilia of the 1930s, including posters depicting Jews in gorilla suits appearing as less than human, as animals, as greedy, blood-sucking money lenders. There were other bits of memorabilia such as mugs and walking sticks with large Semitic noses for handles. There was every sort of so-called funny postcard with racist and offensive remarks about the Jewish race and the Jewish religion. This was free speech in Germany in the early 1930s. It was fair game to use that sort of material and those sorts of caricatures of posters against the Jewish race.
Is it any wonder that a majority of the German people believed it was not offensive to behave in a violent manner against Jews? In contrast to all this offensive material an adjoining gallery was devoted to pictures, portraits and photographs of the extremely literate, intelligent, highly eminent members of the Jewish race who lived in Vienna. If they were composers there were scores of their works. If they were writers, their manuscripts were on show. If they were painters, there were examples of their Page 3289 paintings and if they were sculptors there were examples of their works. This showed that the offensive and belittling caricatures were totally false and in stark contrast to the high level of artistic and scientific development and the high level of citizenship of the Jewish people living in Vienna at that time.
If I believed in the necessity for anti-vilification laws before I went to Vienna, after visiting that museum and seeing those exhibits my determination to fight for anti-vilification laws trebled; it was increased thirtyfold. That is why I have been fighting to have this essential bill restored to the notice paper. I do not know what will happen to the Attorney General's bill. He has agreed with Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to take out all reference to the vilification of homosexuals. I do not know what he is going to do about HIV AIDS discrimination, which I am sure will be opposed also by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. Therefore, we will face months of uncertainty, during which time more murders of members of the gay community in Sydney could be committed and almost certainly there will be more gay bashings. It is useless for honourable members to say that the laws against violent assaults on the individual will deal with that. The perpetrator has to be caught and charged and has to appear before the courts, where the charge has to be upheld, the perpetrator found guilty and some suitable penalty imposed.
I ask honourable members: What use is that if members of the gay community are kneecapped and made cripples? What good is it to them if they are made to lie on the pavement and a gang of skinheads or some young hoons jump across their knees or smash their faces in with an iron bar? It does not help them. I believe that we should proceed with this legislation. There will be ample time in the next three weeks to discuss further modification, but in order to prevent it disappearing into oblivion like the majority of private members' bills I was compelled by the standing orders of this House to move that consideration of the bill take precedence over all other Government business and general business until concluded. Otherwise, it will not be concluded by the time of the next scheduled State election in 1995. I commend my motion to all honourable members.
Motion agreed to.
Restoration
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [9.11]: I move:
That
(1) the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill be restored to the business paper;
(2) so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would preclude the passing of the bill through all of its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House;
(3) consideration of the bill take precedence of all other Government and General Business until concluded; and
(4) the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill be read a second time forthwith.
In view of the undertaking that I gave earlier to the Leader of the Government in this House, I do not intend to move to a full second reading speech, but I do have one or two remarks that should properly be put on the record. The guiding principle behind the bill is that by prohibiting vilification against a minority group we can cut down on hate-related violence, given that hate-related violence can occur only in an environment where members of a minority are vilified and seen as legitimate targets. This principle has already been evidenced in the racial vilification laws that were passed in the Parliament in 1989 in response to a growing tide of racial violence. According to comments made in the Bulletin of 4th September, only 10 days ago, by the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board, Mr Steve Mark, violence against racial minorities has fallen since these laws have been in place. I believe that this would happen also if anti-homosexual vilification laws were in place. If it has worked with racial vilification it will work also with the vilification of the homosexual community.
The bill defines homosexual vilification as "a public act designed to incite hatred toward, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group". The definition refers only to serious abuse in public. There is a distinction between disagreement and the serious act of vilification - it is a question of degree. Exemptions are to be provided for fair media reporting of any act of vilification, and the communication, distribution or dissemination of material in parliamentary, court or tribunal proceedings or any other government inquiry. All of these are to be given absolute privilege in Australian defamation proceedings.
It must also be pointed out that any public act done reasonably and in good faith for academic, artistic, scientific, research or other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of any act or matter, is covered in the bill. I believe that that is giving a fair opportunity, making it perfectly clear that what would be required before the provisions of the bill can be enforced will be a serious act of vilification. It would not prevent Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, or any other person, from making pronouncements according to his version of the Christian faith, which I am delighted to say is not held by the majority of Christians.
I do not intend to labour this point further. Earlier I gave an undertaking to the Attorney General and Minister for Justice that if we reached this point in the proceedings today I would adjourn this debate. That is what I intend to do. We will be rising for three weeks after tonight's proceedings. We will have the opportunity to discuss the implications of the motion I have moved, particularly the provision that the bill take precedence over all other Government Page 3290 business and general business until concluded. I realise what a serious provision that is, but I am bound to do that if I am ever to be allowed to take this bill through to a vote. If I do not do that, the bill will wither on the vine, like so many other valuable private members' bills, and will never be voted upon. I believe that this matter is too serious to be allowed to languish in that way.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby.
ESTIMATES COMMITTEES
Message
The President reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:
Mr PRESIDENT
The Legislative Assembly desires to acquaint the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution -
That, in accordance with the Sessional Order on Estimates Committees:
(1) The following Estimates Committees are appointed:
1. The Legislature Estimates Committee;
2. Premier and Minister for Economic Development Estimates Committee;
3. Treasurer and Arts Estimates Committee;
4. Agriculture and Fisheries and Mines Estimates Committee;
5. Attorney General and Justice Estimates Committee;
6. Chief Secretary and Administrative Services Estimates Committee;
7. Community Services and Aboriginal Affairs Estimates Committee;
8. Consumer Affairs Estimates Committee;
9. Education and Youth Affairs and Tourism Estimates Committee;
10. Environment Estimates Committee;
11. Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Estimates Committee;
12. Health Estimates Committee;
13. Industrial Relations and Employment and Status of Women Estimates Committee;
14. Police and Emergency Services Estimates Committee;
15. Energy and Local Government and Co-operatives Estimates Committee;
16. Land and Water Conservation Estimates Committee;
17. Planning and Housing Estimates Committee;
18. Public Works and Ports Estimates Committee;
19. Sport, Recreation and Racing Estimates Committee;
20. Transport and Roads Estimates Committee; and
21. Small Business and Regional Development Estimates Committee;
(2) The clauses and items of the Appropriation Bill and the Parliamentary Appropriation Bill set out in Schedule 1 to this motion be referred to the Estimates Committees as set out in that Schedule.
(3) The Committees shall have power to send for and examine persons, papers, records and things and to report from time to time.
(4) The quorum of an Estimates Committee shall be eight Members provided that the Committees meet as Joint Committees at all times.
(5) The Chairman of an Estimates Committee shall exercise a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, a casting vote.
(6) A Chairman may from time to time appoint another Member to act as Deputy Chairman and the Member so appointed shall act as Chairman when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.
In the event of absence of both the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman, a Member of the Committee shall be elected by the Members present to act as Chairman for that meeting.
(7) The proceedings of the Committees shall be open to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Committees.
(8) The Legislative Assembly membership of the Committees (5 Government Members, 3 Opposition Members and 1 Independent Member) be notified to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly by the Government and Opposition Whips. The Government Whip shall nominate the Independent Member.
(9) The Clerk of the Legislative Assembly shall arrange the places for meetings of the Committees and to notify, formally, the Members of the Committees of the times and places for said meetings.
(10) The Chairmen of the Estimates Committees be as follows -
The Legislature Estimates Committee - Mr Jeffery
Premier and Minister for Economic Development Estimates Committee - Mr Yabsley
Treasurer and Arts Estimates Committee - Mr Zammit
Agriculture and Fisheries and Mines Estimates Committee -Mr Small
Attorney General and Justice Estimates Committee - Mr Kerr
Chief Secretary and Administrative Services Estimates Committee - Mr Kinross
Community Services and Aboriginal Affairs Estimates Committee - Mr Rixon
Consumer Affairs Estimates Committee - Mr Bull
Education and Youth Affairs and Tourism Estimates Committee - Mr O'Doherty
Environment Estimates Committee - Mr Ryan
Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Estimates Committee - Mr Samios
Health Estimates Committee - Mr Glachan
Industrial Relations and Employment and Status of Women Estimates Committee - Mrs Forsythe
Police and Emergency Services Estimates Committee - Mr Mutch
Page 3291
Energy and Local Government and Co-operatives Estimates Committee - Mr Turner
Land and Water Conservation Estimates Committee - Mr Cochran
Planning and Housing Estimates Committee - Mr D. L. Page
Public Works and Ports Estimates Committee - Mr Beck
Sport, Recreation and Racing Estimates Committee - Mr Petch
Transport and Roads Estimates Committee - Mr Merton
Small Business and Regional Development Estimates Committee - Mr Fraser
(11) In an Estimates Committee -
(a) the responsible Minister shall be present at all times;
(b) the Chairman shall call over the estimates for each ministry and declare the proposed expenditure open for examination;
(c) the question shall be proposed for each organisational unit "That the Vote be recommended";
(d) the proceedings of a Committee shall be recorded by Hansard.
(e) the Clerk shall prepare minutes of meetings which shall be signed by the Clerk and the Chairman.
(12) During the conduct of the Estimates Committees questions be limited to a maximum of one minute and replies be limited to a maximum of five minutes.
(13) When each area of Estimates in the first Schedule is commenced the period set aside shall be equally apportioned between Government and non-Government Members. The Chairman of the Committee shall permit non-Government Members to question the Minister for the first twenty minutes: Government Members for the next twenty minutes and so on in rotation until the expiration of the allocated time.
(14) When consideration of the Estimates of each ministry is commenced, the Chairman of the Committee shall permit three questions from Government Members and then three questions from non-Government Members with such questions alternating in groups of three until time for consideration of the area of Estimates is expired.
(15) Advisers who are present at an Estimates Committee to assist Ministers and the Presiding Officers (in the case of the Estimates of The Legislature) may address a Committee or answer questions if referred to them by a Minister or the Presiding Officers as the case may be.
(16) The proceedings of a Committee shall be regarded as proceedings of the Parliament.
(17) The Report of each Estimates Committee shall state whether the Votes of each organisational unit in the Estimates and the corresponding clauses and schedules in the Appropriation Bill are recommended or otherwise.
The failure of an Estimates Committee to report on any part of the votes shall be deemed to be a report recommending the proposed expenditure.
(18) Upon conclusion of its deliberations and after the question on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill and the Parliamentary Appropriation Bill has been agreed to, the Chairman of each Estimates Committee, or a Member deputed by the Chairman, shall present the Committee's Report to the Speaker in the House.
The Reports shall be set down for consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the Appropriation Bill and the Parliamentary Appropriation Bill respectively.
Consideration of a Report in the Committee of the Whole House shall be deemed to be consideration of those clauses and schedules of the Appropriation Bill and the Parliamentary Appropriation Bill referred to that Estimates Committee.
(19) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Standing or Sessional Orders, Ministers may indicate to Estimates Committees that information supplementary to a response given to the Estimates Committee in reply to a question asked by a Member of that Committee may be lodged with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. Such information shall be regarded as part of the proceedings of the Parliament (and published as an annexure to the Questions and Answers Paper of the Legislative Assembly). Answers to questions taken on notice are to be answered by 16 November, 1993.
Procedure in Committee of the Whole House
(20) In a Committee of the Whole House -
(a) the Chairman shall put the Question in respect of each Committee Report, "That the Report of the (name of the Committee) be adopted";
(b) a Member may speak for a maximum of five minutes on each such Question and the Minister in reply may speak for a maximum of fifteen minutes;
(c) those clauses and schedules of the Appropriation Bill and the Parliamentary Appropriation Bill not referred to an Estimates Committee shall be considered as one question, "That the remaining clauses and schedules of the Bill be agreed to".
(21) At the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the Whole House, the Chairman shall report to the Speaker that the Committee has or has not adopted the Reports from the Estimates Committees.
(22) The times and dates for consideration of the Estimates by the Estimates Committees and Committee of the Whole be as set out in the Schedule 2 to this motion.
(23) The Committees have the power to sit during the sitting or any adjournment of the House.
(24) A message informing the Legislative Council of the terms of the resolution and requesting its nomination of five of its Members to participate on each Committee (of whom two shall be Government Members, two shall be Opposition Members and one shall be a non-Government Member nominated by the Leader of the Government) and requesting arrangements for the publication in the Questions and Answers Paper of the Legislative Council of supplementary information to Estimates Committees shall forthwith be transmitted to the Legislative Council.
And requests the Legislative Council to adopt a resolution in similar terms.
Legislative Assembly K. R. Rozzoli 16 September 1993 Speaker
Page 3292
SCHEDULE 1 BUDGET ESTIMATES COMMITTEES MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIO ALLOCATIONS
APPROPRIATION BILL REFERENCES
Estimate Committee Recurrent Capital No. Items Items
1 Legislature
The Legislature - subject to a separate Appropriation Bill
2 Premier and Economic Development
Cabinet Office 6.1.01 6.2.01 Parliamentary Counsel's Office 6.1.02 6.2.02 Premier's Department 6.1.03 6.2.03 Independent Commission Against Corruption 6.1.04 6.2.04 Ombudsman's Office 6.1.05 ... State Electoral Office 6.1.06 ... Government Pricing Tribunal 6.1.07 ...
4 Agriculture and Fisheries
Rural Assistance Authority 7.1.01 7.2.01 Department of Agriculture 7.1.02 7.2.02 New South Wales Fisheries 7.1.03 7.2.04
4 Mines
Department of Mineral Resources 7.1.04 7.2.03 Coal Compensation Board 7.1.05 7.2.05
5 Attorney General
Attorney General's Department 8.1.01 8.2.01 Judicial Commission 8.1.02 8.2.02 Legal Aid Commission 8.1.03 ... Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 8.1.04 8.2.03
5 Justice
Department of Courts Administration 8.1.05 8.2.04 Department of Corrective Services 8.1.06 8.2.05 Office of Juvenile Justice 8.1.07 8.2.06
6 Chief Secretary and Administrative Services
Chief Secretary's Department 9.1.01 9.2.01 Casino Control Authority 9.1.02 ... Office of the Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services 9.1.03 9.2.02
7 Community Services
Department of Community Services 10.1.01 10.2.01 Social Policy Directorate 10.1.02 ...
7 Aboriginal Affairs
Office of Aboriginal Affairs 10.1.03 ...
8 Consumer Affairs
Department of Consumer Affairs 11.1.01 11.2.01 HomeFund Commissioner's Office 11.1.02 11.2.02
9 Education, Training and Youth Affairs
Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs 12.1.01 12.2.01 Department of School Education 12.1.02 12.2.02 New South Wales Technical and Further Education Commission 12.1.03 12.2.03
Page 3293
9 Tourism
Tourism Commission 12.1.04 ...
15 Local Government and Co-operatives
Department of Local Government and Co-operatives 13.1.02 13.2.01
15 Energy
Office of Energy 13.1.01 ...
10 Environment
Environment Protection Authority 14.1.01 14.2.01 National Parks and Wildlife Service 14.1.02 14.2.02 Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust 14.1.03 14.2.03 Urban Parks Agency 14.1.04 14.2.04
12 Health
Department of Health 15.1.01 15.2.01
13 Industrial Relations and Employment
Department of Industrial Relations, Employment, Training and Further Education 16.1.01 16.2.01
13 Status of Women
Ministry for the Status and Advancement of Women 16.1.02 16.2.02
16 Land and Water Conservation
Department of Conservation and Land Management 17.1.01 17.2.01 Department of Water Resources 17.1.02 17.2.02
11 Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs
Ethnic Affairs Commission 18.1.01 18.2.01
17 Planning and Housing
Department of Planning 19.1.01 19.2.01 Homebush Bay Development Corporation 19.1.02 19.2.02 Community Service Obligations to Other Government Bodies under the Control of the Minister 19.1.03 ...
14 Police and Emergency Services
Ministry for Police and Emergency Services 20.1.01 ... The Police Service of New South Wales 20.1.02 20.2.01 New South Wales Crime Commission 20.1.03 20.2.02 New South Wales Fire Brigades 20.1.04 ... Department of Bush Fire Services 20.1.05 ... State Emergency Services 20.1.06 20.2.03
18 Public Works and Ports
Office of the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Ports 21.1.01 ...
21 Small Business and Regional Development
Department of Business and Regional Development 22.1.01 22.2.01
19 Sport, Recreation and Racing
Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing 23.1.01 23.2.01
20 Transport
Department of Transport 24.1.01 24.2.01
Page 3294
20 Roads
Roads and Traffic Authority 24.1.02 24.2.02
3 Treasurer
Treasury 25.1.01 25.2.01 Crown Transactions 25.1.02 25.2.02 Advance to the Treasurer 25.1.03 ...
3 Arts
Ministry for the Arts 25.1.04 25.2.03 State Library 25.1.05 25.2.04 Australian Museum 25.1.06 25.2.05 Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences 25.1.07 25.2.06 Historic Houses Trust 25.1.08 25.2.07 Art Gallery of New South Wales 25.1.09 25.2.08 Archives Authority of New South Wales 25.1.10 25.2.09 New South Wales Film and Television Office 25.1.11 ...
SCHEDULE 2
--- Monday, 18 October 1993 ---
COMMITTEE NO. 20 9.30 am - 12.30 pm Transport and Roads (Hon Bruce Baird, MP)
COMMITTEE NO. 17 9.30 am - 12.30 pm Planning and Housing (Hon Robert Webster, MLC)
COMMITTEE NO. 18 2.00 pm - 4.30 pm Public Works and Ports (Hon Ian Armstrong, MP)
COMMITTEE NO. 6 2.00 pm - 4.30 pm Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services (Hon Anne Cohen, MP)
COMMITTEE NO. 8 7.00 pm - 9.00 pm Consumer Affairs (Hon Wendy Machin, MP)
COMMITTEE NO. 11 7.00 pm - 9.00 pm Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs (Hon Michael Photios, MP)
--- Tuesday, 19 October 1993 ---
COMMITTEE NO. 4 9.30 am - 12.30 pm Agriculture and Fisheries and Mines (Hon Ian Causley, MP)
COMMITTEE NO. 13 9.30 am - 12.30 pm Industrial Relations and Employment and Minister for Status of Women (Hon Kerry Chikarovski, MP)
COMMITTEE NO. 10 2.00 pm - 4.30 pm Environment (Hon Chris Hartcher, MP)
COMMITTEE NO. 7 2.00 pm - 4.30 pm Community Services and Aboriginal Affairs (Hon James Longley, MP)
COMMITTEE NO. 19 7.00 pm - 9.00 pm Sport, Recreation and Racing (Hon Chris Downy, MP)
COMMITTEE NO. 21 7.00 pm - 9.00 pm Small Business and Regional Development (Hon Raymond Chappell, MP)
--- Wednesday, 20 October 1993 ---
COMMITTEE NO. 9 9.30 am - 12.30 pm Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Tourism (Hon Virginia Chadwick, MLC)
COMMITTEE NO. 14 9.30 am - 12.30 pm Police and Emergency Services (Hon Terry Griffiths, MP)
COMMITTEE NO. 2 2.00 pm - 4.30 pm Premier and Minister for Economic Development (Hon John Fahey, MP)
COMMITTEE NO. 3 2.00 pm - 4.30 pm Treasurer and Arts (Hon Peter Collins, MP)
COMMITTEE NO. 1 7.00 pm - 9.00 pm Legislature (Hon Kevin Rozzoli, MP and Hon Max Willis, MLC)
--- Thursday, 21 October 1993 ---
COMMITTEE NO. 5 9.30 am - 12.30 pm Attorney General and Justice (Hon John Hannaford, MLC)
COMMITTEE NO. 12 9.30 am - 12.30 pm Health (Hon Ronald Phillips, MP)
COMMITTEE NO. 15 2.00 pm - 4.30 pm Energy and Local Government and Co-operatives (Hon Garry West, MP)
COMMITTEE NO. 16 2.00 pm - 4.30 pm Land and Water Conservation (Hon George Souris, MP)
Page 3295
MOTOR ACCIDENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Bill received and read a first time.
Suspension of certain standing orders agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [9.25]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL FLAG
The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [9.25]: Friday, 3rd September, was the birthday of the Australian national flag. I had the great honour of representing the Premier and Minister for Economic Development at the function in Martin Place to celebrate that special occasion. For any country the national flag is a symbol of the nation, a symbol behind which its people can unite. For Australia, our flag has never been more important as the symbol of our unity. For more than 90 years the flag has represented us as a people. It carries Australia's symbols, our history, our present and our future. It is indeed something of which we can be very proud. I commend all of those involved with this special event held on the birthday of the Australian national flag. I particularly congratulate the Australian National Flag Association, its president, John Vaughan, and all its officebearers on the splendid job being done not only to celebrate National Flag Day but to educate our young people in what our flag means to us. The association has prepared a splendid video which, with the sponsorship and support of the Returned Services League, is being placed in schools around New South Wales and Australia.
I also wish to congratulate the other participants in the ceremony. Our master of ceremonies was Mr David Field. Senator Bill O'Chee, our Federal parliamentary colleague, was the special guest of honour. There was also a brilliant presentation from the Lane Cove primary school choir, an eisteddfod winning choir in our city of Sydney. It performed brilliantly. We can be proud of our citizens of the future. They gave us a splendid choral presentation. The honour guard was provided by the Scots College military cadets. It was a most impressive occasion, which was capped off by the Australian Army Band of Sydney playing a special medley. It was a very special occasion for me. I was delighted and honoured to be able to represent the Premier at this function. I wish the Australian National Flag Association and all the people associated with this most important cause all the very best for the future.
SOUTH SYDNEY CHILD AND YOUTH SERVICES
The Hon. R. D. DYER [9.29]: I wish to raise two matters relating to the area generally known as South Sydney, comprising the suburbs of Redfern and Waterloo. This area is characterised by a large proportion of single parent and low income families living in small units of high rise public housing. Many families have moved to this area far away from their original support of family and friends and, in addition, many residents were born overseas. More than 30 per cent of the population is of non-English speaking background, a factor that can further contribute to social isolation. The House will appreciate that caring for children on one's own - with a limited income and in a confined living space - can be very stressful and place families at risk of child abuse.
The New South Wales Child Protection Council has found that the provision of occasional care services decreases this risk. This form of child care provides both a much needed break for the parent and the opportunity for children to play and learn through social interaction. All long day child care services in this area are operating at full capacity with long waiting lists, but it needs to be recognised that such centres are not accessible to the non-working residents of the area, whose needs are for short-term respite from caring for their young children. In 1988 an application was submitted for a 25-place purpose built occasional care centre. In April this year the State Government allocated funding for five occasional care places in the South Sydney area. The community has applied for these places.
I attended a public meeting in Redfern on Saturday, 7th August, to listen to the community's concerns. Afterwards I made personal representations to both the State Minister for Community Services, the Hon. Jim Longley, and the Federal Minister for Family Services, Senator the Hon. Rosemary Crowley. In recognition of the community's needs a pilot occasional care project has been established in South Sydney Council's early childhood centre in Redfern Park. The project has been funded by one-off donations from the council and the Mercy Foundation and it operates on Thursdays - but that will be only until later this year when the funding will run out. This pilot project provides occasional care for 10 children at two three-hour sessions and has operated at full or near full capacity throughout. I must stress the acute social need that exists in the Redfern-Waterloo areas. I call on the Government to act urgently in regard to the very evident need for an occasional care centre before the current pilot project comes to an end.
The other matter I wish to raise relates to an organisation known as South Sydney Youth Services, which has offered a range of support services and activities for young people from the Redfern-Waterloo areas for more than 8 years. I have been told that as a result of the staff of the Department of Community Services being reduced by this Government by more than 1,000 officers since 1988, increasing numbers of people who previously would have been assisted by that department now seek assistance from community based services such as South Sydney Youth Services. Page 3296 Despite a growing demand for assistance this service has received no additional core funding other than consumer price index adjustments to meet the growing need. The service has no complaint against local DOCS officers but points out that their position is untenable in that only two community program officers are responsible for approximately 250 different programs, resulting in a regular staff turnover.
South Sydney Youth Services deals with young people coming from large Department of Housing estates containing many lone parents, de-institutionalised psychiatric patients, HIV-AIDS sufferers and drug and alcohol affected people. The result is that many of the young people are either living in or leaving dysfunctional families. The grant last financial year under the community service grants program for the detached youth worker project amounted to $33,271, and for this financial year the amount approved is $34,736. This does not cover the cost of employing a youth worker on a full-time basis, despite the well established quality of the project and the overwhelming need for this service in South Sydney.
A request was made by the service in a formal submission to the department on 18th May this year for an additional amount of $16,729, which would enable the service to employ the youth worker for 35 hours per week, plus a proportionate increase to travel and telephone costs, et cetera. By way of contrast, the Office of Juvenile Justice currently funds a full-time youth worker, including resources and administration costs, for $52,000 plus $3,000 for subprogram costs. Having regard to the self-evident needs of the South Sydney area and the high degree of social disadvantage that does exist, I request the Government to give early and sympathetic consideration to the modest request for additional funding made by South Sydney youth services.
POST-SCHOOL OPTION PROGRAM FOR THE INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [9.34]: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the Western Australian post-school options program for young people with disabilities. Honourable members should be aware that in New South Wales more than 60 per cent of young people with intellectual disability and with high support needs leave school with no post-school options. This situation is caused by a shortage of services for such people and a lack of vocational training and employment options. It is also worsened by the fact that young people with an intellectual disability must leave school at the end of the year in which they turn 18. According to the Council for Intellectual Disability all this leads to the following effects:
- young people are marooned at home with no opportunity to practise and enhance skills acquired at school.
- they have little or no chance of recreational activities or of peer interaction because of their forced confinement at home.
- parents or other family members are often required to forgo employment and other activities to remain at home with the family members with intellectual disability.
- families face intolerable stress and imminent breakdown.
The Western Australian post-schools options program was established in 1990 by the Western Australian and Federal governments in response to a similar situation. The program is open to school-leavers with a permanent physical, intellectual, sensory or psychiatric disability who receive the child disability allowance and or are eligible for the disability support pension. Applicants must be at least 16 and in the last year of school. Priority is considered on the basis of the level of support required, reasons for leaving school and place of residence. Priority is given to young people with high support needs living in the family home. Young persons and their families choose a post-school option - either integrated employment in an open or competitive situation or supported. The other option they can choose is for community access skills. All services are community based with the exception of a small number of participants who have significant medical conditions. Funding for the individual is portable.
The program has led to new models of supported employment being implemented. These include co-worker support, where a non-disabled employee is paid to provide support and training; expanded enclave models, where an enclave exists alongside other young people placed in different positions in a company; and individually supported jobs, with one-on-one support. The outcomes of the program, which I believe are very important, include increased self esteem, independence and an enhanced quality of life. In 1992, 82 per cent of school-leavers accessing the program chose employment options. A further 6 per cent chose mixed employment and community access programs. To date, the program has helped approximately 617 clients.
Funding comes from three sources: the departments of health, housing, local government and community services; the Authority for Intellectually Handicapped Persons; and the Western Australian Lotteries Commission. Last year, $1.9 million was allocated for 1992 school-leavers, an average of approximately $10,800 for each participant. The program is being fine-tuned so that there is better co-ordination with schools, guaranteed funding, and program evaluation. I call on the New South Wales Government to examine the Western Australian program and the possibility of helping young people with disabilities in this State by introducing a similar program in New South Wales.
SHELLHARBOUR MARINA PROPOSAL
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.38]: For the past 10 years Shellharbour Council has promoted several plans to build a boat harbour marina at south Shellharbour Beach about 20 kilometres south of Wollongong. The plans varied in detail but they all entailed construction of parallel groynes or breakwaters out to sea, destruction of a third of South Page 3297 Shellharbour Beach, destruction of a 19 hectare wetland and the financing of the scheme by selling off 180 hectares of council owned land, including the present municipal golf course. In October 1992 the then preferred developer, the South Australian firm Delfin Pty Limited, withdrew from consideration because it could not see a market for 2,500 building lots. In December 1992 Shellharbour Council appointed the Sydney firm of Walker Corporation as the preferred developer. Council kept secret what was contained in the firm's proposal. An application under the Freedom of Information Act was refused. A local group, the Preserve South Shellharbour Beach committee, produced 10,000 copies of a leaflet alleging that ratepayers would be required to pay for the marina. In reply the mayor spent $1,300 of the ratepayers' money for a full-page advertisement in the local newspaper, Lake Times, of 30th June.
Grossly exaggerating the number of jobs the project will create, the advertisement did make certain admissions: 200 metres of the beach will be destroyed; the wetland will be destroyed; the golf course will be destroyed and rebuilt 3 kilometres away on an inferior hilly site owned by the Illawarra Electricity Authority; 3,000 building lots on land now owned by council and land to be purchased from the Illawarra Electricity Authority will be sold to provide finance; the boat harbour to accommodate 350 to 400 boats will be built over five years; the developer will get half the commercial sites near the harbour and half the profits from sales of land over a further six to seven years. More details were revealed in a briefing given by the developer to Shellharbour councillors on 14th September. The developer will advance $10 million to be repaid from the sale of land. He will be paid 2.5 per cent management fee on land sales. The boat harbour and the new golf course will cost $36 million. After these are built the council and the developer will share $65 million profit whilst land sales continue. Neither council nor the developer sees any harm in destruction of a State Environmental Planning Policy wetland. [Time expired.]
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at 9.40 p.m. until Tuesday, 12th October, 1993, at 2.30 p.m.
Page 3298
QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE
The following questions upon notice and answers were circulated in Questions and Answers:
NORTH WEST SECTOR DEVELOPMENT
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing the Minister for the Environment -
(1) Did the recent CSIRO/Macquarie University pilot study into air pollution in the Western Sydney Basin Area reveal serious risks to public health? (2) Will the recently approved Rouse Hill sewerage treatment plant result in up to 100,000 additional car and truck movements in this area? (3) Have some 20,000 homesites been recently released in the Parklea area as part of the North West Sector Program? (4) Will these actions aggravate the already serious air pollution problems in the area? (5) Have any plans been made for the provision of non-road based public transport in the North West Sector? (6) Have any plans been made for the funding of non-road public transport in the North West Sector? (7) Will $30,000-$50,000 have to be provided by the taxpayer for the infrastructure costs of each homesite over 7 to 10 years? (8) Why are developers not obliged to cover all the costs of their developments? (9) Will the Minister call a moratorium on further work in the North West Sector until air pollution, public health and road infrastructure needs of the citizens of New South Wales are met?
Answer -
(1) The answer to this question lies within the domain of the Minister for Health. (2) and (3) It would be more appropriate for these matters to be responded to by the Minister for Planning. (4) The EPA advises that currently available information does not indicate that there is a serious air pollution problem in the area. (5) to (9) It would be more appropriate for these matters to be responded to by the Minister for Planning.
ILLAWARRA ESCARPMENT INSECT INFESTATION
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs -
(1) Is there an infestation of the Illawarra escarpment forest by psyllid insect? (2) Has there been a loss of small bird species caused by feral and domestic cats in this area? (3) If so, is there evidence to suggest that the insect infestation has been caused by the loss of small bird (4) Does the Minister intend introducing legislation for the registration and desexing of cats?
Answer -
(1) This question should be directed to the Forestry Commission. (2) This question should be directed to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. (3) This question should be directed to either the Forestry Commission or the National Parks and Wildlife Service. (4) I am considering a range of options for control of cats to minimise their impact on the urban and rural environment.
LOOK-AT-ME-NOW HEADLAND SEWAGE OUTFALL
Mr Jones the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing -
(1) Did the Deputy Director General of CALM write to the Manager of the Northern Regional Office of the Department of Planning on 1 September 1992, telling him that the proposed rezoning of part of portion 237 on Look-At-Me-Now Headland for the sewage outfall from open space 6 (a) to open space 6 (d) was inappropriate and that the Department did not support the rezoning because the easements were still dedicated for the purpose of public recreation? (2) Did CALM then write to the Manager on 16 September 1992 contradicting this view? (3) Can the Minister inform the House whether or not the easements in question on Look-At-Me-Now Headland proposed for the sewage works are still dedicated for the purpose of public recreation or not? (4) Will the rezoning go ahead or not?
Answer -
(1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) I am not in a position to advise on the existence of or status of any easements on the land. This question should be referred to my colleague, the Hon G B West, MP, Minister for Conservation and Land Management. (4) I approved the rezoning of this site on 15 October 1992. The amendment took effect when published in the Government Gazette of 30 October 1992.
KANGAROO MEAT TRADE
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs -
(1) Did the original appendix H of the Woodward Royal Commission Report into the Australian Meat Industry September 1982 list the names of individuals and companies involved in the Kangaroo Meat substitution racket which brought our beef industry exports to the United States of America to a halt? (2) Are any of these companies and individuals currently involved with the kangaroo meat trade?
Page 3299 (3) Will any of these companies and individuals be involved in the proposed kangaroo meat for human consumption trade?
Answer -
(1) The Appendix H gave a list of persons who introduced pet meat into the human chain in large quantities. This was both horse and kangaroo meat. (2) None of the companies or individuals listed in Appendix H is currently involved with the kangaroo meat trade in New South Wales, but almost all of them are currently operating in the abattoir meat industry in Victoria. (3) The regulations for the production of kangaroo meat for human consumption in New South Wales are by far the most stringent in Australia. Presently only one operator is meeting the shooters' vehicles licensing, field chiller licensing and processing plant for human consumption licensing provisions introduced in New South Wales. This operator was not named in Appendix H of the Royal Commission and none of the other kangaroo meat operators in New South Wales who are presently producing pet meat was named.
ALBURY LOCAL ENVIRONMENT PLAN No. 85
Mr Jones to ask the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing -
(1) Does the Albury Local Environment Plan No.85 permit dwelling houses without the consent of the Albury City Council in residential zones?
Answer -
(1) Albury Local Environmental Plan No.85 was made on 30 July 1992. One of the effects of that plan was to amend the provisions relating to dwelling houses in residential zones under the Albury and Hume Designated Area Local Environmental Plan No.1, where that Cplan applies to the City of Albury. It allows dwelling houses to be erected without development consent in the Residential zones known as 2(a1), 2(a2), 2(b) and 2(c). In respect of the 2(e) Residential (Restricted) zone, it enables dwelling houses to be erected without consent if there is a Development Control Plan in force for that land. These amendments were made to bring the provisions in that area of the City formerly administered by the Albury Wodonga Development Corporation into line with the residential provisions in the rest of the city and generally in residential zones throughout New South Wales. A person wishing to build a dwelling would, nonetheless, need to submit a Building Application to Albury City Council for its approval.
GIPPS ROAD, MOUNT KEIRA, REZONING
Mr Jones to ask the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing -
(1) Did Wollongong City Council resolve to re-zone 12.37 hectares (Lot 2, D.P.789 097) in Gipps Road, Mt. Keira to Environmental Protection 7(e) Escarpment in March 1990? (2) If so: (a) Did the Director of Planning write to the Town clerk of Wollongong City Council shortly after this resolution? (b) Does the proposal to re-zone the land to Environmental Protection 7(e) Escarpment have the support of the National Parks and Wildlife Service? (c) Does the proposal have the support of the National Trust? (3) Had this land previously been zoned as suitable for residential use since 1968? (4) Have certain areas along the Illawarra escarpment been identified as being unsuitable for urban purposes since the 1960's? (5) If so, why have they been identified as unsuitable? (6) Has a preliminary terrain assessment established that most of the Gipps Road land is of doubtful stability? (7) Did the Wollongong City Council take this terrain assessment into consideration when proposing to re-zone the Land Environmental Protection 7(e) Escarpment? (8) Has BHP approached the Department of Planning seeking the intervention of the Department with regard to this matter?
Answer -
(1) Yes. On 12 March 1990, the Wollongong City Council resolved to prepare a local environmental plan (LEP) to rezone this land as Environmental Protection 7(e) (Escarpment) under the principal environmental planning instrument, Wollongong LEP No. 38. (2) (a) The Director of Planning wrote to the Town Clerk/General Manager of Wollongong City Council on 11 April 1990, requesting that the Council consider what part of the land is suitable for residential development and what part should not be developed because of environmental constraints. The Director also requested the Council not to exercise the Section 69 delegation in this instance, but provide its assessment to the Department when submitting the plan for the Minister's approval. (b) The National Parks and Wildlife Service wrote to Wollongong City Council indicating support to the proposal to rezone this land as 7(e) on 26 April 1990, following public exhibition of the draft local environment plan. (c) The National Trust of Australia New South Wales Branch wrote to the Director of Planning on 27 November 1990 expressing support to the proposal to rezone the land as 7(e). (3) The land was zoned as Residential 2(a) in the Illawarra Planning Scheme in 1968 and subsequently zoned as Residential 2(a) in Wollongong LEP No.38 in 1984. The land is currently zoned as Residential 2(a) under Wollongong LEP 1990. (4) Certain areas along the Illawarra Escarpment have been identified as unsuitable for urban purposes since the gazettal of the Illawarra Planning Scheme in 1968 which generally included the escarpment areas in a non-urbane zone.
Page 3300 (5) Escarpment lands were generally identified as unsuitable for urban purposes due to a number of factors such as steepness, instability, poor drainage or susceptibility to erosion. (6) A preliminary terrain assessment was prepared by consultants for BHP. It identified that parts of the land were considered to be unstable, some areas were considered to be potentially unstable, and some areas which were considered to be stable. (7) The Council did not have the benefit of this terrain assessment when proposing to rezone this land as Environmental Protection 7(e) Escarpment. The resolution to prepare the draft LEP (12 March 1990) predated the preliminary terrain assessment which was received from BHP by the Council on 4 April 1990. Council has not made a submission to the Department of Planning under Section 68 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, requesting the proposed rezoning of this land for an environmental protection zone. (8) BHP wrote to the Director of Planning on 2 April 1990, expressing concern at the proposal to rezone this land as Environmental Protection 7(e) (Escarpment) and requesting that a Commission of Inquiry under Section 119 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act be convened to consider the zoning of this land. The Director advised BHP on 11 April 1990, that a Commission of Inquiry was not considered appropriate at that stage. The Director also advised that Council had been requested to provide information as to the suitability of parts of this land for residential development and for environmental protection, when it submitted its request for the draft plan to be made.
KEIRAVILLE-MOUNT KEIRA REZONING
Mr Jones to ask the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing -
(1) Did the Department of Planning allow Wollongong Council to re-zone a 12 hectare parcel of land owned in Keiraville/Mount Keira by BHP from 2a residential to 7a environmental protection? (2) If not, why not? (3) Does the site host regionally rare and endangered species of plants? (4) Are there concerns about the potential for drainage and erosion problems if development occurs? (5) Did the Department of Planning overrule the wishes of the Council and residents? (6) If so, why?
Answer -
(1) The Department of Planning is aware of only one 12 hectare parcel of land in this locality owned by BHP which fits this description and has assumed reference is being made in this instance to Lot 2, D.P. 789097. Wollongong City Council has not made a submission to the Department of Planning under section 68 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, to request the rezoning of this land from residential to environmental protection. (2) This question is not relevant in view of the answer to question (1). (3) The Wollongong City Council has advised the Department of Planning that a report was prepared by a recognised ecological and environmental consultant. This report states that "no rare or threatened plant species are located in the study area". (4) All lands close to or within the Illawarra escarpment which comprise steeper slopes raise concern about the potential for drainage or erosion problems. A preliminary geotechnical report has been prepared by geotechnical consultants for this site. This report identified water courses, and some land which is poorly drained and not suited for development. (5) This question is not relevant in view of the answer to question (1). (6) This question is not relevant in view of the answer to question (1).
BELLINGER RIVER WATER AUGMENTATION SCHEME
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Co-operatives -
(1) Has the Coffs Harbour City Council requested Government action to ensure there is no legal challenge to the Bellinger River water augmentation scheme? (2) Has the Coffs Harbour City Council sought an assurance from the Minister that the Government will not interfere in either the EIS process or the legal process?
Answer -
(1) The Council has advised me of the differences between it and Bellingen Shire Council over the proposed Bellinger River water supply scheme, and has sought my assistance in resolving the conflict by direct intervention or the conduct of an inquiry in accordance with the provisions of s.654 of the Local Government Act. I have not been approached on any other basis. However, the water and sewerage provisions of the Local Government Act are administered by the Minister for Public Works. (2) No such assurances have been sought or given.
PUBLIC HOUSING LAWNING POLICY
Mr Jones to ask the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing -
(1) Are many dwellings constructed by the Department of Housing surrounded almost entirely by lawns? (2) Do these lawns require enormous amounts of water to ensure their survival? (3) How much water on average, is used for the purposes of keeping lawns alive? (4) Does the Department of Housing or Landcom have a landscaping policy or requirement with regard to lawns? (5)(6) If so, does the policy state how much of a housing site is to be dedicated for lawn areas?
Page 3301 (7) Will the Minister direct the Department to ensure that lawn areas are kept to a minimum and that mulched native garden beds predominate in all future developments designed by the Department?
Answer -
(1) Yes. Past and present public rental housing policy is directed to production of good quality, affordable housing stock. Most cottages and medium density housing developments are turfed and planted with trees and shrubs before completion. This provides for low cost, low maintenance, reduced stormwater runoff and a range of open space uses. Recent public rental housing projects, however, provide higher levels of landscape design. This is recognised as essential for denser, multi-unit sites to meet complex functional needs such as privacy and security, a range of access requirements, stormwater retention, tenant needs for "territory", and the functional and presentation aspects of common open space. (2) It is important to provide adequate water for newly planted trees, shrubs and lawns to ensure their successful establishment. Species are carefully selected for every site, as the Department must address a wide range of climatic and environmental conditions across the State. Once established, water requirements diminish, particularly when trees canopies provide ground shade and shelter. (3) The Department's standard specification, "Maintenance of Lawns and Grounds at Department of Housing Projects", for landscape maintenance throughout the State, specifies watering requirements as follows: "Watering, by hoses with sprinklers, is to be undertaken to lawns, gardens and shrubs only where directed as a special site requirement". It is not standard practice to water lawns after the end of the landscape establishment period, following construction of the project (generally 13 weeks). During the establishment period, the standard specification requires "a minimum of 50 mm of natural rainfall or its applied equivalent, or a combination of both, during each period of one week". (4) Landscape policies are currently being reviewed by the Department in light of recent environmental legislative changes. These may require landscape designs, prepared by qualified Landscape Architects, to integrate lawns into an external area design. Lawn grass species specified will be appropriate to the area, and investigation is being carried out into the use for lawns of native grass species, with low maintenance and water requirements. (5) Landscaped area is largely controlled by Council requirements for "landscaped open space" and dwelling densities allowed for on the site. Competing demands for ground space, particularly in urban multi-unit sites, reduce grassed areas in most current urban developments. (6) Whenever possible, site design accommodates a balance of grass, trees and mulched garden beds to meet a range of functional needs. The Department continues to explore the potential for use of native plant material, including grass, and places a strong emphasis on the use of native, indigenous tree species.
KHAPPINGHAT NATURE RESERVE MINING
Mr Jones to ask the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing -
(1) Did the National Parks and Wildlife Service strongly state throughout proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry into the proposed Khappinghat Nature Reserve that there should be no mining allowed in the reserve including the formerly mined area? (2) Did the National Parks and Wildlife Service report to the Cabinet on the Commission of Inquiry Report? (3) Did the National Parks and Wildlife Service continue to recommend against mining in the proposed Khappinghat Nature Reserve including the formerly mined area? (4) What were the reasons given for continuing to recommend against mining? (5) Did the National Parks and Wildlife Service report to Cabinet contain criticisms of the Commissioner's report? (6) What were these criticisms? (7) Did the Cabinet alter the National Parks and Wildlife Service report? (8) If so in what regard and why? (9) Were any of the National Parks and Wildlife Service recommendations altered? (10) If so, who in the Cabinet office was responsible for this alteration being made? (11) Will the Minister table a full copy of the report as forwarded to Cabinet by National Parks and Wildlife Service and as returned to the National Parks and Wildlife Service by Cabinet? (12) Would this document have contributed to the debate in another place?
Answer -
(1-12) These questions should be referred to my colleague, The Hon CP Hartcher, MP, Minister for the Environment.
GREEN POINT LAND ACQUISITION
Mr Jones to ask the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing -
(1) Did the Minister state in an answer in the Legislative Council's Questions and Answers Paper on 28 April 1992, that "A firm commitment of $1 million has been made toward the acquisition costs of foreshore land at Green Point, Lake Macquarie by the Lake Macquarie City Council"? (2) Was this money to have come from the Open Space and Heritage Fund? (3) Has this "firm commitment" now been withdrawn? (4) If so, why? (5) Will this land at Green Point be acquired? (6) If so, how? (7) If not, why not?
Page 3302
Answer -
(1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) Lake Macquarie City Council declined the Government's conditional offer. (5-7) Lake Macquarie City Council has recently been advised that the Government does not have funds available to assist with the acquisition of Green Point. Should the Council wish to prepare a draft local environmental plan committing the Council to acquiring the land as open space, the Council will need to adequately demonstrate its capacity to fund acquisition and ongoing maintenance.
DEPARTMENTAL OFFICE REFURBISHMENTS
Mr Egan asked the Ministers listed below -
* (i) The Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Vice President of the Executive Council - * (iii) The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister for Employment and Training - * (iv) The Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Vice President of the Executive Council representing the Premier and Treasurer - * (v) The Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Vice President of the Executive Council representing the Minister for Finance, Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs - * (vi) The Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Vice President of the Executive Council representing the Minister for Police - * (viii) The Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads - * (ix) The Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs - * (xii) The Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing -
In relation to each Department or Authority within your portfolio, how much was spent on office fit-outs or refurbishment in 1991/92 and what is the estimated expenditure in 1992/93?
Answer -
(i) The Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Vice President of the Executive Council -
WorkCover In 1991/92, WorkCover Authority spent $1,118,000 in office fitouts and refurbishment. Over $1 million of this amount was due to the relocation to Kent Street. In 1992/93, it is estimated that $156,000 will be spent.
Department of Industrial Relations, Employment, Training and Further Education for 1991/92 was: Department of Industrial Relations, Employment, Training and Further Education for 1991/1992 was: -Capital expenditure $667,000 -Non Capital expenditure $53,848 $720,848 (2) The estimated expenditure within the Portfolio for the Department of Industrial Relations, Employment, Training & Further Education for 1992/93 is: -Capital expenditure $1,007,000 -Non Capital expenditure $750,000 $1,757,000 The increase from 1991/92 to 1992/93 is due to a large number of Departmental leases falling due over the same period, coupled with office relocations under the Department's regionalisation program.
(iii) The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training -
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (1) The Actual Expenditure 1991/92 for office fit-outs or refurbishment was $4,660,249.86. (2) The Estimated Expenditure 1992/93 for office fit-outs or refurbishment is $2,510,000. These totals include expenditure on relocations or fit-outs in all 10 of the Department's regional offices and refurbishment of the 3 sites making up the State Office. Specific areas of expenditure include the distance education facilities at Ryde, amalgamation of the in-service library, facilities for quality assurance staff, data cabling and an education resource centre.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND YOUTH AFFAIRS (1) The Actual Expenditure 1991/92 for office fit-outs or refurbishment was $159,000. (2) The Estimated Total 1992/93 for office fit-outs or refurbishment is $392,000. These figures include the relocation of the Office of Youth Affairs and the Music Examinations Advisory Board following the restructure of the Ministry.
BOARD OF STUDIES (1) The Actual Expenditure 1991/92 for office fit-outs or refurbishment was $26,227. (2) The Estimated Total 1992/93 for office fit-outs or refurbishment is $95,440. These figures include the refurbishment of the Board of Studies offices at North Sydney.
NEW SOUTH WALES TAFE COMMISSION (1) The Actual Expenditure 1991/92 for office fit-outs or refurbishment was $3,986,000. (2) The Estimated Expenditure 1992/93 for office fit-outs or refurbishment is $1,011,000.
Page 3303 In relation to TAFE expenditure, part of this relates to the relocation of the TAFE Commission head office to 601 Pacific Highway, St Leonards and Herbert St, St Leonards. It should be noted that the relocation involves TAFE receiving a substantial rent free incentive which means that the cost of fit-out for these premises is not only covered but in fact a surplus will result. Similarly, in relation to the Open Training and Education Network (OTEN) lease in the TNT Tower in Redfern, the lease incentive more than covers the full cost of the fit-out.
(iv) The Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Vice President of the Executive Council representing the Premier, and the Treasurer -
Agency Expenditure Nature of Estimated Nature of 1991/92 Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure 1992/93 Auditor General's Nil $180,000 Fitout costs for relocation of part of the Office. Office The move resulted in a rental saving. Election Funding Nil Nil Authority Government Nil Nil Actuary's Office Government Nil $14,745 Fitout costs following transfer from temporary Pricing Tribunal to permanent accommodation (amount equals 10% of costs - owner paid 90%) Independent $5,000 Site works on Nil Commission computer room Against Corruption Office of Nil $3,520 Workstation for reception area Aboriginal Affairs Office of the Nil $2,925 Painting the Office Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment Office of the Nil $430 Relocation of workstation Ombudsman Parliamentary $3,824 Ergonomic $29,480 Ergonomic furniture, fitouts and repainting Counsel's Office furniture and repainting Premier's $77,000 Fitout costs, $76,778 Fitout costs incurred to accommodate Department including administrative changes and to modify old and partitioning, unsatisfactory accommodation in the State office Office Block. equipment, carpet and painting State Electoral Nil $30,000 Fitout costs for modular office design Office The Cabinet Office Nil $22,000 Fitout costs incurred to accommodate administrative changes and to modify old and unsatisfactory accommodation in the State Office Block. $161,000 Fitout of Amount shown Page 3304 Ministerial under the The Treasury - Office and Minister for Office of Financial associated Finance (refer to Management relocation of Question No. Departmental 150 (v). staff The Treasury - $740,208 Ergonomic Amount shown Office of State workstations for under the Revenue majority of staff Minister for (total 620) and Finance (refer to office Question No. refurbish-me nt 150 (v). at Parramatta Head Office Building Industry Nil $131,834 Fitout and "make good" costs following Task Force alterations to office. Reduced accommodation (from 3 1/2 to 2 floors) will result in rental saving. Note: The Attorney General now has responsibility for the BITF. TOTALS: $987,032 $491,712
(v) The Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Vice President of the Executive Council representing the Minister for Finance, Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -
(1) Premier and Treasurer's Administration:
TOTAL OFM OSR $901,208 Expenditure 1991/92 $161,000 $740,208
(2) Minister for Finance's Administration:
TOTAL OFM OSR $1,540,000 Estimated $284,000 $1,256,000 expenditure 1992/93
(vi) The Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Vice President of the Executive Council representing the Minister for Police -
(1) Police Service Approximately $445,000 New South Wales Crime Commission $130,000. $100,000 of this amount was used for relocation and refurbishment of the Commission's Telephone Interception Unit. These funds came from the Commonwealth and represented the Commission's share of money seized in a joint drug trafficking operation between the Commission and the Australian Federal Police. (2) Police Service $837,000 New South Wales Crime Commission $5,500
(viii) The Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads -
Public Works 1991/92 $12,535,000 Public Works 1992/93 $10,121,000
During 1991/92 a total of $10.9 million was spent by Public Works Department on fit-out costs associated with the McKell Building. The project was approved to commence during that year at an estimated total cost of $21.351 million, with the balance of funds proposed to be spent during 1992/93 and 1993/94. These funds have been provided through the Capital Works Budget as a cash contribution to the McKell Page 3305 Building fit-out in lieu of a 30 month rent free period negotiated by Public Works on a commercial basis. In addition to the McKell fit-out, Public Works spent $1.635 million on a number of minor rationalisation projects (mainly in the country), following restructure of the Department. The rationalisation projects which mainly resulted in the amalgamation of a number of offices have been undertaken, in order to improve efficiency, reduce rental costs, and to present a single co-ordinated office for the Department in each location. Rationalisation projects other than the McKell project have been funded from proceeds generated from the sale of government surplus assets. During 1992/93 it is estimated that Public Works will spend an additional $8.327 million on the McKell Building project, and a further $1.794 million on minor office rationalisation projects.
(ix) The Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs -
Department\Authority Type of Spending Amount New South Wales Agriculture Office fit-outs or refurbishment in 1991/92 including rentalised $1,100,100.00 annual component of relocation fit-out over 6 years (subject to CPI) - $285,700.00 $530,600.00 Estimated expenditure for 1992/93 including rentalised annual component of relocation fit-out over 6 years (subject to CPI) - $287,800.00 New South Wales Dairy Office fit-outs or refurbishment in 1991/92 $26,885.00 Corporation Estimated expenditure for 1992/93 $12,870.00 New South Wales Meat Nil Nil Industry Authority Rural Assistance Authority Office fit-outs or refurbishment in 1991/92 $13,000.00 Estimated expenditure for 1992/93 $106,000.00 (Note in respect of 1992/93, approximately 70% of this amount represents work contracted in 1991/92.)
(xii) The Minister for Planning asked the Minister for Housing representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing -
Sydney Market Authority Office fit-outs or refurbishment in 1991/92 $2,080.00 Estimated expenditure for 1992/93 $3,000.00 Sport, Recreation and Racing Tamworth Regional Office, Department of Sport, Recreation and 1991/92 (Actual 1991\1992) Racing (Relocation) Actual $ - Refurbishment $57,936.00 - Fit-out** $110,273.00 State Sports Centre Trust Totalizator Agency Board $24.954.00 - Administrative Centres - Ultimo & Granville $542,400.00 - Sales Outlets - Branches/Agencies $1,748,400.00 Harness Racing Authority $3,950.00 (Estimated 1992/93) Total ------** Fit-out costs met by the Property Services Group $2,377,640.00 Mount Druitt Regional Office, Department of Sport, Recreation and ------Racing 1992/93 Totalizer Agency Board $45,000.00 - Administrative Centres - Ultimo & Granville $943,000.00 - Sales Outlets - Branches\Agencies $3,460,000.00 Harness Racing Authority $103,439.00 Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust $100,000.00 Total: ------$4,651,439.00 ------
Page 3306
EASTERN CREEK RACEWAY CAPITAL WORKS
Mr Egan asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing -
(1) How much has been allocated for 1992/93 capital works at Eastern Creek Raceway? (2) On what projects will this money be spent?
Answer -
(1) An allocation of $670,000 in the 1992/93 Budget to be funded by the Raceway from its own sources had been made to provide for a variety of minor works, many of which will improve general maintenance and overall safety at the circuit. (2) Projects to be undertaken include: -purchase of concrete wall units; -protection fencing; -security systems; -provision of 'Air Fence' units -entry and exit curbs -specialised equipment; -circuit drainage.
SCHOOL COUNSELLOR TRAINING PROGRAM
Ms Kirkby asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training -
(1) How many school counsellors graduated from Universities in 1990, 1991 and 1992 under the Department's school counsellor training program? (2) How many of these people have now been appointed to permanent district appointments? (3) What is the estimated cost of training a school counsellor? (4) How many school counsellors were employed in permanent district appointments in 1990, 1991 and 1992? (5) How many school counsellors were employed in permanent mobile appointments in 1990, 1991 and 1992? (6) Out of the graduates of the counsellor training program in 1992, how many have now been appointed to permanent district positions and how many are still working in a mobile capacity? (7) What is the average number of students per counsellor in each of the ten DOSE Regions? (8) What is the average number of counsellors per DGO in each of the ten DOSE Regions? (9) What is the Department's program for lowering the counsellor-student ratio to one counsellor per thousand students? (10) What is the Department's program for allocating counsellors differentially to areas of special need? (11) Since 1983 what has been the total expenditure on school counsellor training? (12) By how much has the number of school counsellors working in a permanent capacity in New South Wales schools increased since 1983?
Answer -
(1) Number of graduates as follows:
Year No. of Graduates 1990 47 1991 43 1992 37
(2) All of these people were employed permanently on completion of training.
(3) (a) Where sponsored on full salary to study full-time for one year:
Average salary $33,264.0 0 Replacement salary $27,580.0 0 Tests and allowance $1,300.00 TOTAL $62,144.0 0 (est.)
(b) Where sponsored for part-time external study over two years:
Average salary per year $33,264.0 0 Tuition fees and test materials (average per year) $8,650.00 TOTAL $41,914.0 0 (est.)
(4) The number of permanent employees in permanent placements from 1990-92 was 1,322. (5) The number of permanent employees in temporary placements from 1990-92 was 41. (6) As at the end of March 1993, all 37 counsellors who qualified in 1992 were permanently employed. Eight had been placed permanently, 27 temporarily, and two were still in classroom positions. (7) 1:1567. Note that when the present government came to office in 1988, the counsellor/student ratio was 1:1648. (8) The ratio of district guidance officers to counsellors is 1:9 in the metropolitan area and 1:6 in the country. The average across the ten regions is 1:6.9. (9) There is no program, no resource, and no need Page 3307 to lower the counsellor/student ration to 1:1000 nor, at least in the short term, would there be a suitable supply of applicants for retraining. (10) The number of counsellors appointed to regions is based on the total number of students. The region allocates some of its counsellor positions to areas of special need (e.g. language disorder, severe behaviour disorder). The remainder provide a negotiated service to schools e.g. in the Hunter Region, a counsellor typically works two days per week in one high school and three days per week across four primary schools. District guidance officers typically convene a weekly team meeting of counsellors at which referrals are analysed, interventions are planned and tasks are allocated. In addition to the establishment positions for counsellors, some Commonwealth funded and other special programs provide an additional 18.6 specialist counsellor positions e.g. new arrivals programs 8.6, NESB 5 and special education 4. (11) Since 1983, 387 counsellors have been trained, at a cost of $21.78 million. (12) 14.
REGISTERED CLUBS TAXATION
Mr O'Grady asked the Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Vice President of the Executive Council representing the Premier and Treasurer -
(1) What are the names of all the Registered Clubs within a ten kilometre radius of the proposed casino? (2) What was the total amount of Liquor Tax paid by these clubs in 1990, 1991 and 1992? (3) What was the total amount of Payroll Tax paid by these clubs in 1990, 1991 and 1992? (4) What was the total amount of Poker Machine Tax paid by these clubs in 1990, 1991 and 1992? (5) What was the total amount of Keno Tax paid by these clubs since its introduction?
Answer -
(1) This information is not routinely collected by the Government and it is not considered appropriate to provide estimated information which may contain inaccuracies. (2) The Government is unable to provide details of Liquor Tax paid by individual clubs as this information is commercially confidential. (3) The Government is unable to provide information on Payroll Tax paid by individual organisations. To do so would breach the secrecy provision of the Payroll Tax Act 1971. (4) The Government is unable to provide details of Poker Machine Tax paid by individual clubs as this information is commercially confidential. (5) The Government is unable to provide details of Keno Tax paid by individual clubs as this information is commercially confidential.
STEEL-JAWED LEGHOLD TRAPS
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs -
(1) Does the Government allow the manufacture, sale and use of steeljaw traps in New South Wales? (2) Have these traps been banned in 67 other countries? (3) Are there humane alternatives? (4) Do a very large number of protected and endangered animals and birds get killed every year in these indiscriminate traps?
Answer -
(1) Yes. (2) This has been reported in the press. Officers of my Department have been advised by the Australia and New Zealand Federation of Animal Societies that 63 countries have banned steel-jaw leghold traps. These countries are: -Austria; -Liberia; -Bangladesh; -Liechtenstein; -Belize; -Malawi; -Botswana; -Malaysia; -Brazil; -Mali; -British West Indies; -Mauritania; -Burundi; -Morocco; -Cameroun; -Mozambique; -Cayman Islands; -Netherlands; -Chile; -Nicaragua; -Costa Rica; -Niger; -Cuba; -Nigeria; -Cyprus, Republic of -Norway; -Denmark; -Panama, Republic of; -Dominican Republic; -Portugal; -Finland; -Senegal; -Gabon; -Seychelles; -Gambia; -Singapore, Republic of; -Germany, Republic of; -Sri Lanka; -Ghana; -Swaziland; -Greece; -Sweden; -Guinea; -Switzerland; -Hong Kong; -Tanzania; -Hungary; -Togo; -India; -Trinidad and Tobago; -Ireland, Republic of; -Tunisia; -Israel; -United Arab Emirates; -Italy; -United Kingdom; -Ivory Coast; -Uganda; -Jordan; -Upper Volta; -Kenya; -Zambia; and Zimbabwe.
(3) Yes. Humane traps (e.g. "kill traps") are available overseas but have not been widely adopted in this country. Humane poisons are also an alternative, but some individual dingoes may not take the poison baits. The Code of Practice for Use of Spring Traps provides advice to trappers on the ways to reduce the suffering of trapped animals, including a requirement to check all set traps at least once each day so that animals are not held in the trap for more than 24 hours. Where dog traps are not checked Page 3308 daily, strychnine-soaked rags are recommend to poison the trapped dog so that it does not die of hunger or thirst. The Code also indicates that target or non-target animals which are still alive when the trap is checked should be killed quickly by clubbing on the head, breaking the neck or shooting into the brain. The Code of Practice states that steel-jaw traps should only be used where humane alternatives are not practical. (4) Yes. However, the number of non-target animals killed can be reduced by careful positioning of the trap, the usual practice of experienced trappers, and is also affected by the abundance and species of non-target animals in the trap area. New South Wales Agriculture works closely with Rural Lands Protection Boards in providing advice on the correct setting of traps. The Code of practice provides guidelines for minimising the trapping of non-target animals.
BLUE LAGOON DEVELOPMENT
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing -
(1) Given that the Minister for the Environment, Mr Chris Hartcher, is quoted in the Gosford media as stating that a Commission of Inquiry should be established to investigate the controversial Blue Lagoon development, can you advise on whether or not a Commission of Inquiry is indeed being set up to examine the Blue Lagoon development?
Answer -
(1) I consider that the community concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of Blue Lagoon Caravan park at Bateau Bay were carefully considered by the Director of Planning when deciding to grant her concurrence to the project. Wyong Shire Council subsequently granted development consent on 25 February 1993 and environmental safeguards have been implemented through conditions attached to the consent. I therefore do not propose to direct that an inquiry be held into matters relating to the determination of this development application.
STATE BANK AND FM AUSTRALIA
Mr Egan asked the Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Vice President of the Executive Council representing the Premier and Treasurer -
(1) (a) Does the State Bank of New South Wales have a significant exposure to FM Australia? (b) Did the State Bank act to protect its loans to FM Australia by procuring the appointment of Mr Graham Jones as its nominee to the Board of FM Australia? (c) What is the Bank's potential loss in respect of its loan to FM Australia? (2) What exposure, if any, does the State Bank of New South Wales have to the Heine family companies and, in particular, Eurolynx Limited, Heine Fund Management Limited and any other company connected with the Heine group of companies? (3) (a) What security has the State Bank of New South Wales held in respect of advances made to FM Australia? (b) Is Eurolynx Limited owned and controlled by the Heine family companies and is it a major shareholder in FM Australia Limited? (c) Were any collateral guarantees or securities provided by, or sought from, Eurolynx Limited or its shareholders in respect of advances made to FM Australia? (4) (a) Is there a longstanding friendship and business association between Mr David Greatorex, Chairman of the State Bank of New South Wales, and Mr Graham Jones, Financial Director of QANTAS? (b) Did the State Bank of New South Wales request the appointment of Mr Jones as Chief Executive Officer of AustWide Management Limited in 1992 in order to protect its investment as a lender to a subsidiary trust of two of the AustWide Trusts in respect of the development of No. 1 O'Connell Street? (5) What are the potential losses facing the State Bank of New South Wales in respect of its loans over No. 1 O'Connell Street including any contingent losses that may accrue as a result of the State Bank being obliged to acquire other members of the lending syndicates loans? (6) (a) Are you aware of proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales by a John Johnson against Permanent Trustee Company Limited, AustWide Management Limited and the State Bank of New South Wales being proceedings 3511 of 1992 in which allegations are made in relation to loans made by the State Bank of New South Wales secured over the No. 1 O'Connell Street property? (b) Do those proceedings involve allegations of participation by the State Bank in a breach of trust on the part of the previous Trustee/Manager of the AustWide Property Trust and the AustWide Flexi Property Trust? (c) Having regard to these proceedings, has the State Bank made any provisions in respect to its loans relating to No. 1 O'Connell Street? If not, why not? (7) Did the State Bank of New South Wales make further advances to be secured over the property at No. 1 O'Connell Street immediately after the appointment of Mr Graham Jones as Managing Director of AustWide Management Limited which managed and controlled the Trust and owns No. 1 O'Connell Street?
Answer -
(1) (a) The State Bank Board and management advise me that they have a clear common law duty of confidentiality in respect of its customers' affairs and information regarding its customers. This duty is also expressed in Page 3309 Section 7 of the State Bank (Corporatisation) Act. In these circumstances the Bank is not prepared to disclose information on the specific liability and exposure in question. Furthermore, beyond the legal position, the disclosure of information on customers' affairs and bank exposure to customers would be commercially damaging to the Bank as it would discourage people and companies from undertaking banking with the State Bank. Members should, however, be aware that the Government has a responsibility as the shareholder in the Bank to ensure that the financial affairs of the Bank, as an operating entity, are in order. Accordingly, the Government relies on the Auditor-General to certify amongst other things that in his opinion, the financial statements of the Bank are properly drawn up so as to give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Bank at the end of each financial year. Further, the independent Board of Directors, who are mindful of their obligations under the Corporations Law, certify that the profit and loss account and balance sheet are drawn up so as to give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Bank at the end of each financial year. Finally, the State Bank has been formally subject to the prudential supervision of the Reserve Bank since the referral of powers in February of this year and had previously complied with all Reserve Bank prudential guidelines pursuant to an exchange of letters dated 2 March 1965. Therefore, whilst the Government may not have access to information in relation to individual client transactions it has certifications from the Auditor-General and the Board of Directors which are printed on page 64 of the State Bank's Annual Report on the knowledge of the oversight by the Reserve Bank of the Bank's activities. (b) The State Bank advise me that the answer to this question is no. (c) The State Bank advise me that the relevant disclosable information is contained in a press release made on 31 March 1993, which notes that the State Bank made a provision against its loan to FM Australia in its 1992 accounts and will be assessing the need for any further provisioning in the preparation of its interim results (due late May). I am advised by the Bank that provision of further information would breach Section 7 of the State Bank (Corporatisation) Act and Bankers' common law duties not to disclose information relating to the affairs of a bank's clients. (2) I refer the Honourable Members to the response to Question (1)(a) which is equally relevant here. (3) (a) I am advised by the Bank that the information in relation to this question is recorded with the Australian Securities Commission. The Banking Syndicate, of which State Bank is a member, has a registered charge over all the assets and undertakings of the Company. (b) The latter is a matter of public record. As Eurolynx Limited is not a customer of the Bank, the Bank advise me that they do not hold the information sought in relation to Eurolynx. (c) The Bank advise me that it is not industry practice for shareholders in publicly listed companies to provide guarantees or securities for such companies. (4) (a) The Government and, I am advised, the Bank have no information on this subject. (b) The State Bank advise that the answer to this question is no. (5) Section 7 State Bank (Corporatisation) Act 1989 and banker's common law duties of confidentiality relating to information concerning bank clients preclude the Bank from providing me with a response to this question. But members should be aware that the Bank, being an unlisted public company, is subject to the Corporations Law which requires its Board to be satisfied with the recoverability of loans or to have made provisions for expected losses in the accounts. (6) (a-c) I am advised by the Bank that the matter referred to has a hearing date set down of 10-11 May 1993 at which the Bank is seeking to have the action struck out. (7) I refer the Honourable Members to the answer to Question 1(a) which is equally applicable to this question.
LEGAL AID FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
Mr Jones asked the Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Vice President of the Executive Council -
(1) Has Government policy been changed to restrict the granting of legal aid to individuals or groups needing aid for environmental matters? (2) Have anti-environment representatives been added to the Environmental Consultative Committee of the Legal Aid Commission? (3) Are grants of aid now made without a Section 47 indemnity? (4) Is this designed to inhibit legal aid?
Answer -
(1) The classes of matters for which legal aid is provided are not determined by Government but by the Legal Aid Commission in accordance with its statutory charter. On 17 December 1992, the Commission resolved to limit the civil law matters, including environmental matters, for which legal aid is available. Legal aid is generally no longer available for most civil law matters, including environmental law matters. (2) The Chairman of the Environmental Consultative Committee is Mr Michael Connors, an alternate Commissioner of the Legal Aid Commission. Page 3310 Nominees of the following organisations are members of the Committee: -National Parks and Wildlife Service; -The National Trust of Australia (New South Wales); -National Parks Association of New South Wales; -Total Environment Centre; -Local Government Association of New South Wales; -Australian Conservation Foundation; -Department of Planning; -New South Wales Forest Products Association Limited; -New South Wales Bar Association; -New South Wales Agriculture; -Chamber of Mines, Metals and Extractive Industries (New South Wales). The Environmental Consultative Committee acts as an advisory body to the Legal Aid Commission. It is considered that members of the Committee hold a wealth of relevant expertise and that membership of the Committee is broad and representative of the community. (3) Sub-sections 30(2) and (4) of the Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 enable the Commission to provide legal aid in the form of a lump sum grant for a specified purpose. When making a lump sum grant, the Commission may determine that the indemnity provided by section 47 of the Act does not apply. (4) No. The purpose of these provisions is to enable the Commission to deliver legal aid services in a variety of forms. The matters in which these provisions are applied are not limited to environmental law matters.
STATE BANK AND HEINE MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Mr Egan asked the Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Vice President of the Executive Council -
(1) (a) Is Heine Management Limited the manager of various AustWide Trusts? (b) If so, does the Heine Management company have control of litigation by the AustWide Trusts against the State Bank of New South Wales and other parties associated with the project known as No. 1 O'Connell Street? (c) Are companies associated with Heine Management Limited, including Heine Finance Holdings Pty Ltd and Swanston Finance Holdings Pty Ltd, indebted to the State Bank of New South Wales for substantial amounts? (d) Has Swanston Finance Holdings Pty Ltd advised the Australian Securities commission that it is "reliant upon the continuing support of their bankers"? (e) Did the Heine Management company declare these interests when bidding for the management of the AustWide Trusts? (f) What action do you propose to protect the AustWide Trusts and its unit-holders from any conflict of interest on the part of the Heine Management company?
Answer -
This matter does not involve issues affecting my administration.
CONSTRUCTION POLICY STEERING COMMITTEE
Mr Manson asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads -
With regard to the Government's "Construction Policy Steering Committee": (1) What is its purpose? (2) When was it created? (3) Who are its members? (4) Is it a permanent committee or does it have a prescribed lifetime? (5) Does it have a budget, and if so: (a) What is its budget; (b) Is it mentioned in the Budget Papers 1991/92 and if so where; (c) Under which Department/Minister is it budgeted? (6) If it does not have a budget, why not? (7) Does it have any staff, and if so what staff? (8) What is its relationship to the Building Industry Task Force?
Answer -
(1) The Government's reform of its Capital Works Planning and Implementation Process and the findings of the Royal Commission into Productivity in the Building Industry in New South Wales have highlighted the need for adoption of a "whole of government" approach involving consistent capital investment, building, construction and contractual policies. To facilitate this process the Construction Policy Steering Committee (CPSC) is responsible for co-ordinating and facilitating: -a thorough overhaul of Government standards and policies; -the development of consistent building, consultant and contractual policies to be implemented by Government agencies; and -more cost effective procurement of capital works. (2) The CPSC had its genesis in November 1991, when the Government made a commitment to develop uniform contractual policies as part of its "Reform of the Capital Works Planning and Implementation Process in New South Wales". The constitution of the Committee was formulated at a meeting of central/construction agency representatives in July, 1992. (3) The Committee representation is drawn from the central agencies, non budget sector construction agencies and Public Works, which acts on behalf of the budget sector agencies. Representation consists of Page 3311 a co-ordinating peak body with the remaining agency representation occurring via a number of working groups. The peak body consists of senior representatives of: -Building Industry Royal Commission Implementation Secretariat; -Department of Industrial Relations, Employment, Training and Further Education; -Pacific Power; -Premier's Department; -Public Works (Chair); -Roads and Traffic Authority; -State Rail Authority; -Sydney Water Board; -The Cabinet Office. This means that in excess of 85% of the State's Capital Investment Program is marshalled directly within the peak body, with the remainder being covered through the various working groups. (4) No sunset provision has been established for the Committee. However, the Committee does have a prescribed program with a six monthly formal performance reporting requirement to the Government's Ministerial Capital Works committee. The achievements and ongoing relevance of the CPSC are reviewed as part of this reporting process. (5-6) The CPSC is supported from within the existing budget provisions of participating agencies. (7) The CPSC is staffed by agency participation. Those officers working on the CPSC program do so in addition to their normal agency responsibilities. In this way, the Government's construction industry reform program is being pursued by officers with direct industry exposure and relevance. (8) The recommendation of the Royal Commission into Productivity in the Building Industry in New South Wales had two major thrusts, these being: -re-establishment of the "rule of law" within the construction industry; and -adoption of a "whole-of-government approach" involving consistent capital investment, building and construction policies and practices, in order to use the State's consolidated buying power to effect meaningful reform. The Building Industry Task Force addresses the "rule of law" aspect whereas the CPSC addresses the "whole-of government reforms".
GARIGAL NATIONAL PARK KIOSK
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing the Minister for the Environment -
(1) Will the Garigal National Park Kiosk be demolished and the developer compensated? (2) If not, what will happen to the building?
Answer -
(1) Following an independent assessment of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Garigal Kiosk Development by the Department of Planning, the EIS has been referred back to the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service for further consideration. The matter will then be referred back to the Land and Environmental Court for final determination. (2) Any further comment should await the outcome of Mr Justice Stein's deliberations on this matter.
STRAY ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs -
When will the Minister reply to a letter from the Australian Association for Humane Research dated 27 November 1992 concerning a promise made by Mr Greiner when leader of the opposition that the Coalition would ban the use of stray animals in experiments?
Answer -
This letter has been responded to.
IRON GATES DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD V. RICHMOND-EVANS ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIETY LTD APPEAL COSTS
Ms Burnswoods asked the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations and Vice President of the Executive Council -
(1) In the case of Iron Gates Developments Pty Ltd v Richmond-Evans Environmental Society Ltd did the Court of Appeal dismiss the appeal with costs in a judgment dated June 12, 1992? (2) What was the amount of costs taxed by the court? (3) Are those costs payable to the Legal Aid Commission? (4) Has Iron Gates Developments Pty Ltd failed to pay those costs? (5) If so, is the Legal Aid Commission suing for payment of those costs? If not, why not? (6) If the costs have been paid, when did the Legal Aid Commission receive payment and how much did it receive?
Answer -
(1) Yes. (2) The amount of costs taxed by the Land and Environment Court was $17,771.25. The amount taxed by the Court of Appeal was $13,495.25. (3) Yes. (4) Yes. (5) The Legal Aid Commission has issued a Notice to the legally assisted party, under s.45 of the Legal Aid Commission Act 1975, directing it to assign to the Commission its right to recover the costs. The Commission anticipates receiving this written Page 3312 authorisation in the near future and will commence recovery action, upon its receipt. (6) Not applicable.
GLADESVILLE SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Ms Burnswoods to ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training representing the Assistant Minister for Health -
(1) What organisations in the Gladesville electorate which are funded under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program have informed the Department of Community Services that they are, or will be, experiencing financial difficulties as a result of the new Social and Community Services Award? (2) Will the Government provide these organisations with funding to cover additional expenditure already incurred as a result of the new award? (3) Will the Government provide these organisations with funding to cover on-going expenditure based on the operation of the new award? (4) What is the department's criteria in determining whether extra funding will be granted?
Answer -
(1) There are no organisations funded under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program in the Gladesville electorate. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable.
ST GEORGE GIRLS' HIGH SCHOOL FEES
Ms Burnswoods to ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training -
(1) Has St George Girls' High School at Kogarah sent home a notice to parents/guardians titled "Fees - 1993" which includes the statement, "Girls cannot be permitted to continue in elective classes if fees for these classes are not paid". (2) Does the Education Reform Act state that instruction in public schools is to be free? (3) Is it a breach of that Act to stop instruction in certain classes, if fees are not paid? (4) If not, why not? (5) If so, what action will the Minister take to ensure the school informs all parents/guardians that students will not be removed from any classes, if fees are not paid? (6) Are school fees in public schools compulsory? (7) What action can be taken by public schools if fees are not paid?
Answer -
(1) The notice sent home does include the statement "Girls cannot be permitted to continue in elective classes if fees for these classes are not paid". The fees are used for the purchase of materials which are used by students in the making of products in some elective subjects, e.g. Visual Arts, Foods Technology, which become the property of the student. The notice was prepared by the previous Principal in 1992 and issued to all new 1993 enrolments, Year 8-12, who attended the Orientation Day held on Monday, 7 December 1992, and to all current Year 8-12 students at the beginning of the 1993 school year. The incoming Principal has stated that it is not her policy to deprive students of enrolment in elective classes involving the payment of fees and the above statement will be deleted from all future notices regarding fees. In the school's monthly newsletter sent to all parents/guardians the following statement appeared: "Some elective subjects involve the payment of fees for the purchase of materials to be used by students in the making of products in these subjects. Neither students nor parents should consider that because of financial circumstances students are prohibited from enrolment in these subjects. Parents are reminded of the availability of financial support from the Students Assistance Scheme." (2) Section 31 of the Education Reform Act states that: "The instruction provided in government schools is to be free of charge". (3) Guiding principle (a) upon which the Education Reform Act is based states: "Every child has the right to receive an education". It would be a breach of the Act to stop instruction in certain classes if fees are not paid. (4) Not applicable. (5) Not applicable. (6) Principals are guided by the guidelines laid down in the Department of School Education Memorandum 87/082 (S.043) issued on 6/4/87 titled 'School Fees and Charges for Secondary Schools'. "No principal may withhold School Certificates and/or School Reports or deprive a student of part of the regular educational program such as excursions, sporting activities and access to reference books because of the non payment of the general service fee". (7) Principals can negotiate with parents and offer support through the Student Assistance Scheme or other accumulated funds.
WYONG ROAD AND SHORTLAND AVENUE, KILLARNEY VALE, REZONING
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing -
(1) Why did you make the Wyong Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Amendment No. 31) allow for a rezoning of lot 9, 10 and 11, D. P. 27791 Wyong Road and Shortland Avenue, Killarney Vale to 3(c) Neighbourhood Business, when this rezoning will have a major deleterious impact on the Killarney Vale Nursing Home?
Answer -
Page 3313 (1) Lots 9, 10 and 11, D.P.27791 Wyong Road and Shortland Avenue, Killarney Vale are zoned 2(a) Residential under Wyong Local Environmental Plan 1991. Wyong Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Amendment No. 31) inserted an enabling clause to permit the development of a service station and convenience store on the land. The Wyong Council's assessment indicated that any likely impact of the proposal on the amenity of the locality could be satisfactorily addressed at the development application stage.
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL LITERACY COUNCIL
Mr Egan asked the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister for Employment and Training -
(1) Has an organisation called the "Aesthetics and Visual Literacy Council" been awarding honorary doctorate degrees, recipients of which include two of its own members, Lucy Marjorie Lee Hertz and Maureen Goldston-Morris? (2) Is the Aesthetics and Visual Literacy Council a body approved under the Higher Education Act regulations to confer a degree? (3) If not, what action have you taken to investigate the AVLC'S liability to penalties under s4 of the Higher Education Act, for conferring bogus qualifications?
Answer -
(1) The University of New South Wales has formally requested that the activities of the "Aesthetics and Visual Literacy Council" be examined in terms of the Higher Education Act 1988 which prohibits the inappropriate usage of the term "degree", and by implication, the term "doctorate". (2) No. (3) The matter has been referred to the New South Wales Crown Solicitor for advice regarding what action may be appropriate in the event that there has been a breach of the Higher Education Act.
COFFS HARBOUR BEAUTIFICATION AND IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads -
(1) Will the Minister make available all the correspondence between the Coffs Harbour Beautification and Improvement Committee and the Department of Public Works? (2) Will the Minister make available all documents held by the Department of Public Works relating to the Coffs Harbour Beautification and Improvement Committee, including documents relating to telephone calls and/or conversations with its members, diary notes or other notes of departmental employees? (3) Will the Minister assure Parliament that he and the Department of Public Works will not engage in any racist conduct? (4) Will the Minister assure Parliament that he will direct the Department of Public Works and other Government instrumentalities not to interfere with, cause distress to, or intimidate the Aboriginal inhabitants of the Coffs Harbour area? (5) Can the Minister provide Parliament with the history of the above mentioned land, including the date on which the Government appropriated or took possession of the land, from whom it took possession of the land and the amount of compensation, if any, paid to the original owners?
Answer -
(1-2) Public Works is subject to Freedom of Information and is always pleased to comply with the provisions of the relevant statutes. 3) If the Honourable Member has any evidence of inappropriate behaviour within Public Works I would be pleased for him to bring it to my attention. 4) Public Works' relations with the Aboriginal inhabitants of the Coffs Harbour area have been cordial, open and positive, and Public Works will not act other than to improve relationships. 5) No "abovementioned land" is referred to in the question.
CASTLECRAG INFANTS SCHOOL ENROLMENTS
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training -
(1) Did Department of School Education figures predict a decline in enrolment in schools surrounding the Castlecrag Infants School from 1038 in 1992 to 985 in 1996? (2) Have school enrolments actually increased by 6% in one year? (3) Will you now reconsider the demand in the area from parents wishing to send their children to Castlecrag Infants School, and investigate the reopening of this school in the next financial year?
Answer -
(1) When the Department did its planning in 1991, it was predicted that enrolments at Willoughby, Castle Cove and Northbridge would decline in total from 1,038 in 1992 to 985 in 1996. (2) Total school enrolments for 1993 in the three primary schools closest to the Castlecrag Infants site have increased by 2.8% since 1992. The majority of the increase was at Willoughby Primary School. (3) The Department will not re-open the Castlecrag Infants site because there is adequate accommodation at surrounding primary schools to cater for infants children from the Castlecrag area. Willoughby Primary School, which is the primary school for the Castlecrag area, has adequate accommodation for present and future enrolments from Castlecrag.
TATHRA RIVER ESTATE - STAGE TWO
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing -
Page 3314
(1) Is the proposed Tathra River Estate Stage Two on what is described in a 1983 Local Environment Study as a 'fragile area'? (2) Have the Environment Protection Authority, and the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service and Water Resources expressed concern at this proposed development? (3) Would the proposed development jeopardise SEPP 14 wetlands, the Black Ada swamp and the Bega River? (4) Will the Minister ensure that the Department of Planning rejects the application to rezone this environmentally sensitive land from 1(c) and 2(c) to 2(a) to ensure that the Government's Coastal Policy is complied with?
Answer -
(1) Yes (2) Yes - These and other agencies raised issues that need to be addressed before a decision is made on the proposal. (3) The proposed development does have the potential to adversely impact on these water bodies. The Department of Planning has asked the Bega Valley Council to consider this and other aspects before proceeding further with the preparation of the draft local environmental plan to rezone the site. Relevant government agencies are to be consulted as part of the process of determining the level of development that can be sustained on the site without affecting water quality. (4) Development proposed for Stage II of Tathra River Estate requires the Council to prepare an amending local environmental plan which will need to be submitted to me for decision. In reaching my decision I will give careful consideration to the environmental sensitivity of the site and whether the level of development proposed will lead to degradation of the river and wetlands in this location.
WETLAND 631a
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing -
(1) Will the Minister release the proposed amendment relating to wetland 631a for public comment? (2) Will the Minister make available to Members a copy of the letter to the landowner which notifies him of the boundary change? (3) Will the Minister explain in detail why the wetland boundary is being altered? (4) What are the alterations in the wetland catchment which affect the long term viability of the wetland? (5) What changes on the subject land have contributed to the viability of the wetland? (6) Why was the owner of wetland 631a not prosecuted for illegal slashing and burning which took place in 1990 and led to considerable vegetation damage including that on an adjacent crown reserve? (7) When did the dumping of dredge spoil in the wetland take place and by whom? (8) Have these actions contributed to the catchment changes which are the basis for the proposed boundary change?
Answer -
(1) Wetland No.631a was last amended on 26 March 1993 as part of Amendment 8 to State Environmental Planning Policy No.14 - Coastal Wetlands. There is no amendment currently proposed. (2) Yes (3) The Department of Planning on inspection of the wetland found that a substantial part of the wetland should be deleted from SEPP 14 on the basis of the published exclusion criteria for the Policy. (4) Great Lakes Council prepared a local environmental study for the land covered by SEPP 14 Wetland No. 631a. The study concluded that the area is a closed drainage catchment and the hydrological regime of the saltmarsh/sedgeland community had been altered in the past through drain construction and urban development in its upper catchment which reduced water flows into the wetland and retention time. It is these apparent changes to the hydrological links with the upper catchment of the wetland which affect its long term viability. (5) The viability of this remnant wetland rests with its innate natural characteristics and is not the result of any changes which have taken place within the subject wetland. (6) Any breaches of SEPP 14 are considered to be serious. It is initially the responsibility of the local council to enforce the provisions of the Policy and to take appropriate action in regard to any development carried out without consent. Great Lakes Council did respond in relation to Wetland No.631 by stopping the owner of the land from carrying out any further works. It is far more positive to negotiate the rehabilitation of any losses where questions of breaches arise rather than launch straight into proceedings in the Court. (7) The area of dredged spoil now deleted from Wetland No.631a appears on the 1986 Coastal Wetland aerial photographs. This shows deposition occurred sometime between the original mapping done from 1981 aerial photographs and the gazettal of the Policy in December 1985. (8) No changes subsequent to the inception of SEPP 14 have occurred in Wetland No.631a which contributed to the amended boundary.
WASTE INCINERATION
Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing representing the Minister for the Environment -
(1) Is the Minister aware that there are no legislated standards in Australia for dioxin and furan levels, and that the Clean Air Act regulations are outdated? (2) In light of the fact that backyard burning has been controlled and household incinerators discontinued, when will mass burn incineration of municipal waste Page 3315 be treated as the serious environmental problem that it is, and also be banned? (3) Is the Minister aware that the process of incineration consumes 2 tonnes of water per tonne of garbage burnt which equates to the contents of Cowan reservoir every month? (4) Is the Minister aware of discussions being held between the Water Board and plant management to strike a deal on rates and charges for this massive water use and waste? (5) Is the Minister aware that one third of all burnt waste remains as solid ash residue, which is disposed of at St Peter's Tip, and that this ash residue has only been tested once in 20 years (December 1992)? (6) Why are these results not readily available to the public and the South Sydney Council? (7) Is the Minister aware that there were out-of-standards emissions for a period of 6 hours on 14 June 1992? (8) Was this incident reported to the EPA as per licence conditions? (9) What actions were taken by the EPA over this incident?
Answer -
(1) Yes. The Clean Air Regulations are currently being reviewed. (2) The only incinerator of Municipal Waste is at Waterloo. It was tested for dioxin emissions in 1990. The results showed that the incinerator is not a significant contributor to the ambient dioxin levels, and the ambient dioxin levels were below the only known health goal. (3) The matter of the water consumption is a commercial transaction between the Water Board and a customer is not a matter for my Portfolio. (4) Discussions between the Water Board and management of any plant is the appropriate way of dealing with the question of water supply. (5) Incineration of Municipal wastes reduces the volume of waste for landfill disposal. In the case of the incinerator at Waterloo, the ash tonnage appears to be consistently about 30% of the waste tonnage. There are no records of tests on ash from the Waterloo Incinerator earlier than December 1992. (6) The results of the December 1992 ash tests are available on request. (7) No out-of-standard emissions were reported. The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has advised me that it examined plant records for the day in question and there is no indication of unusual operation. (8-9) Not applicable.
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTRES
Ms Burnswoods to ask the Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Vice President of the Executive Council representing the Minister for Justice and Minister for Emergency Services -
(1) In each of the State's juvenile detention centres, how many young people in custody have been placed in solitary confinement for each of the past three years? (2) Do the cells used for solitary confinement in each of the detention centres have any windows? (3) What are the dimensions of each of the cells used by each detention centre for solitary confinement? (4) What is the longest period that a young person has been held in solitary confinement in the past three years? (5) What guidelines are there on the use of solitary confinement as a punishment for young people? (6) Can the Minister give a summary of the type of offences committed by the young people that caused them to be punished by solitary confinement? (7) Does the Minister agree that punishment by solitary confinement is not suitable for young people? If not, why not?
Answer - (1) March 1990 - March 1991 - March 1992 - February 1991 February 1992 February 1993 Cobham 274 377 297 Kariong * 34 46 Keelong 469 80 211 Minda 380 307 424 Mount Penang 6 5 14 Reiby 656 250 342 Riverina 36 83 98 Worimi 214 94 69 Yasmar 103 80 114
Page 3316
* Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre opened in September 199l. (2) The confinement rooms for each juvenile justice centre have an external window allowing natural light and an internal observation window or panel. The only exception to this is a confinement room at Cobham Court which is only used in emergencies. This room does not have an external window but does have an observation panel so that the interior of the room can be seen by supervising staff. (3) The dimensions of the cells used by each detention centre for solitary confinement are listed below in alphabetical order:
Cobham Two confinement rooms measuring 3.7 metres x 2.6 metres. Both have external and internal windows. Two additional confinement rooms in the court area for use in an emergency measuring 3.7 metres x 2.4 metres. One has external window and both have a viewing panel in the door. Kariong Two confinement rooms measuring 4 metres x 2.4 metres with a secure exercise area measuring 4 metres x 3 metres. Each room has an external and internal window in addition to an observation panel in the door. Keelong Two confinement rooms measuring 3.5 metres x 2 metres. Both are equipped with a window. Construction has commenced on two new confinement rooms at Keelong. These rooms will be larger and will contain an external window and an observation panel in the door. Minda Two confinement rooms measuring 2 metres x 9 metres, each equipped with an external and internal window. Two additional confinement rooms measuring 8.6 metres square, each with an external window. Mount Penang Two confinement rooms measuring 3.25 metres x 2.7 metres each with an external and internal window and an observation panel in the door; two additional confinement rooms measuring 3 metres x 2.46 metres which have external windows and a viewing panel in the door. Reiby Five confinement rooms (one in each unit) measuring 3 metres square, each with an external window; an additional two confinement rooms measuring 2.6 metres x 2.7 metres each with an external window. Riverina One confinement room measuring 3.6 metres x 2.9 metres with an internal window. Worimi One confinement room measuring 4 metres x 2.2 metres with an internal and external window. Yasmar Two confinement rooms measuring 3.5 metres x 2.6 metres, each with an external and internal window. (4) The Children (Detention Centres) Act, 1987 prescribes the maximum time that a young person found guilty of misbehaviour can be placed in confinement as being 12 hours for those of or over the age of sixteen years and three hours for those under the age of sixteen years. The longest period that a young person has been held in confinement in the past three years is twelve hours. (5) Section 21(2) of the Children (Detention Centres) Act, 1987 prescribes that confinement may only be imposed subject to the following conditions: (a) that young person must be provided with some means of usefully occupying himself or herself; (b) the physical environment of the place where the young person is confined shall, unless otherwise appropriate, be no less favourable than the physical environment of other places occupied by young people in juvenile justice centres; (c) the young person must at all times be visible to, and able to communicate readily with an officer. (6) Schedule 1 of the Children (Detention Centres) Regulation, 1988 determines the offences that a young person can be found guilty of in a Juvenile Justice Centre under Part 1 - Minor Misbehaviour. The most common misbehaviour resulting in a detainee being confined are abusive and threatening language, subversive behaviour and fighting. (7) No. While every attempt is made to manage the young people in custody through other behaviour management strategies, at times there is no alternative but to diffuse the incident by using a solution that immediately removes the young person from that situation. When confinement is awarded as a punishment it is the practice that this penalty to be reviewed by the Superintendent and in many cases the time awarded is reduced to a lesser period if it is apparent that the detainee has become more settled. "Solitary" does not appropriately describe confinement in a juvenile justice centre as solitary implies total isolation. When confined detainees can frequently see out onto the activities of the Centre, can speak to and contact staff, and are regularly checked by staff. In several of the Centres the confinement rooms are located close to the operational centres of the unit which means that there is considerable activity going on around them. Currently twenty-five percent (25%) of the young people in custody are aged eighteen years or over. The staff in juvenile justice centres are not equipped with any restraining devices and seek to resolve situations that ensure the safety of the detainee, staff and other detainees. Frequently confinement is the most effective way to achieve this. The Office of Juvenile Justice is committed to ensuring that confinement as a punishment is used as a last resort. The introduction of additional professional support services such as Psychologists and Counsellors Page 3317 (Alcohol and other Drugs) should assist to ensuring that confinement is used as a last resort.
CASTLECRAG INFANTS' SCHOOL SALE
Ms Burnswoods asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and Minister for Employment and Training -
(1) Has the Government sold Castlecrag Infants' School? (2) Who bought the school, when and for what price? (3) Did the Government call for submissions earlier this year on suggestions for uses of the school grounds? (4) Did the Castlecrag Progress Association make submissions on proposed uses? (5) When were those submissions received? (6) Did the Government reply to the submissions? If not, why not? (7) Did the Minister for Education in 1990 promise residents concerned at the closure of Castlecrag Infants' School that there would be community consultation on the future of the school precincts? (8) Why has the Government failed to consult with the local community as promised? Answer -
(1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) The Government called for Expressions of Interest in the future use of the property. (4) Yes. (5) By the due date of 19 March 1993. (6) The submission from the Castlecrag Progress Association was delivered by hand by Mr Andrew Frazer who met with the Director, Properties, Department of School Education, to explain the background. The Minister has since written to the Castlecrag Progress Association. No other reply is possible yet. (7) Community consultation has taken place. (8) The Government has not failed to consult with the local community. The Government has even approached Willoughby City Council with a suggestion that Council acquire the property for community use. That resulted in a public meeting to discuss the matter.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE CONTRACTS
Ms Burnswoods asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister for Employment and Training representing the Assistant Minister for Health - (1) Is it correct that divisional General Managers of the Department of Community Services work under special SES contracts which provide them with bonuses when they bring their regions in under budget? (2) Is this the proper way to run a Government Department which is supposed to help people in need?
Answer -
(1) No. (2) Not applicable.
DEPARTMENTAL OFFICE REFURBISHMENTS
Mr Egan asked the Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Vice President of the Executive Council representing the Minister for Justice and Emergency Services -
In relation to each Department or Authority within your portfolio, how much was spent on office fitouts or refurbishment in 1991/92 and what is the estimated expenditure in 1992/93?
Answer -
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT Year Agency Expenditure 1991/92 Attorney General's Department $117,873.00 Solicitor General and Crown Advocate $2,160.00 Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions $707,232.88 Legal Aid Commission of NSW $255,453.00 Public Trustee Nil Motor Accidents Authority $131,801.00 Judicial Commission of NSW Nil 1992/93 Attorney General's Department (Estimate)$28,000.00 Solicitor General and Crown Advocate Nil Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions $240,000.00 Legal Aid Commission of NSW $19,852.20 Public Trustee Nil Motor Accidents Authority Nil Judicial Commission of NSW $31,110.00
Page 3318
COURTS ADMINISTRATION Year Agency Expenditure 1991/92 Sheriff's Office (Manly) $116,000.00 Goodsell Building $173,000.00 Land and Environment Court $134,000.00 Community Corrections $490,000.00 Miscellaneous Minor Works on the Department's 108 Rented Premises Statewide $363,000.00
TOTAL: $1,276,000.00 COURTS ADMINISTRATION (Continued)
1992/93 Goodsell Building $812,000.00 Land and Environment Court $28,000.00 Supreme Court (Bail Court) $61,000.00 Industrial Court $75,000.00 Community Corrections $180,000.00 Miscellaneous Minor Works on the Department's 108 Rented Premises Statewide $672,000.00
TOTAL: $1,828,000.00
CORRECTIVE SERVICES Year Agency Expenditure 1991/92 Regionalisation Related Fitouts $425,851.00 Head Office Related Fitout $598,712.81
TOTAL: $1,024,563.81 1992/93 Regionalisation Related Fitouts $1,034,210.00 Head Office Related Fitout $1,185,000.00
TOTAL: $2,219,210.00
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE Year Agency Expenditure 1991/92 Building $419,728.00 Furniture $192,822.89
TOTAL: $612,604.89 1992/93 Building $341,580.00 Equipment $117,887.00 Furniture $558,282.00
TOTAL: $1,477,216.00