14319

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Tuesday 5 June 2001 ______

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

CRIMES AMENDMENT (CHILD PROTECTION—PHYSICAL MISTREATMENT) BILL

Bill received and read a first time.

PETITIONS

North Head Quarantine Station

Petition praying that the head lease proposal for North Head Quarantine Station be opposed, received from Mr Barr.

Willoughby Paddocks Rezoning

Petition praying that the Legislative Assembly will advocate for the retention of all vacant land in the area historically known as the Willoughby Paddocks and its development as public parkland for the enjoyment of the community, received from Mr Collins.

McDonald's Moore Park Restaurant

Petition praying for opposition to the construction of a McDonald's restaurant on Moore Park, received from Ms Moore.

State Taxes Petition praying that the Carr Government establishes a public inquiry into State taxes, with the objective of reducing the tax burden and creating a sustainable environment for employment and investment in New South Wales, received from Mr Debnam. Cronulla Police Station Upgrading Petition praying that the House restores to Cronulla a fully functioning police patrol and upgrades the police station, received from Mr Kerr. Malabar Policing Petition praying that the House notes the concern of Malabar residents at the closure of Malabar Police Station and praying that the station be reopened and staffed by locally based and led police, received from Mr Tink. Redfern, Darlington and Chippendale Policing Petition praying for increased police presence in the Redfern, Darlington and Chippendale areas, received from Ms Moore. Inner East Sydney Policing Petition praying that the House prevents the closure of Woolloomooloo, Paddington, Redfern and four other inner eastern suburbs police stations and praying for adequate police resources, including uniformed foot patrols, in the inner east area, received from Ms Moore. Surry Hills Policing Petition praying for increased police presence in the Surry Hills area, received from Ms Moore. 14320 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

Inner East Sydney Police Resources

Petition praying that there be an immediate increase in police resources in the inner east, that there be an increase in the uniformed police foot patrols to deter crime and that an effective police recruitment drive be developed to properly resource community policing, received from Ms Moore.

Eastern Suburbs Police and Community Youth Club Closure

Petition praying that the House stops the Board of the Police and Community Youth Club New South Wales Ltd from closing and selling the Eastern Suburbs Police and Community Youth Club, received from Ms Moore.

Woolloomooloo Police Shopfront Closure

Petition praying that the Woolloomooloo police shopfront not be closed and that adequate policing be provided before, during and after the Olympic Games, received from Ms Moore.

Genetically Engineered Food

Petition praying that the House suspends the commercial release and trials of genetically engineered crops, supports the implementation of mandatory labelling of food derived from genetic engineering and funds independent scientific research to investigate the potential risks to health and the environment, received from Ms Moore.

Vaucluse Electorate School Closures

Petition requesting funding for public schools and opposing the merging of local schools, received from Mr Debnam.

Chatswood High School Petitions asking the House to support the retention and refurbishment of Chatswood High School, received from Mrs Chikarovski and Mr Collins. Frederickton Public School Petition praying that priority be given to the construction of buildings at Frederickton Public School, received from Mr Stoner. Queanbeyan Preschool Services Petition praying that funds be made available to construct a new and permanent preschool in Queanbeyan, received from Mr Webb. M5 East Tunnel Ventilation System Petition praying that the Government review the design of the ventilation system for the M5 East tunnel and immediately install filtration equipment to treat particulate matter and other pollutants, received from Ms Moore. Kempsey and Macksville Pacific Highway Upgrade Petition praying that the House improve safety on the Pacific Highway and fast-track the proposed bypassing of Kempsey and Macksville, received from Mr Stoner. Woolloomooloo Wharf Redevelopment Petition praying that the Woolloomooloo wharf redevelopment project include provision for a ferry wharf, received from Ms Moore. Thirroul Railway Station

Petition calling on the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads to fund easy access facilities at Thirroul railway station, received from Mr Campbell. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14321

Wagga Wagga Electorate Fruit Fly Campaign

Petition praying that the Government resources the Fruit Fly Campaign for the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, upgrades the Wagga Wagga electorate to a fruit fly control zone, and develops and implements a fruit fly strategy to eliminate fruit fly from the electorate within the next five years, received from Mr Maguire.

Animal Experimentation

Petition praying that the practice of supplying stray animals to universities and research institutions for experimentation be opposed, received from Ms Moore.

Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust

Petitions praying that the House reinstate the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust as soon as possible, received from Dr Kernohan, Mr Merton, Mr Richardson, Mr Rozzoli and Ms Seaton.

John Fisher Park

Petition praying that the Government supports the rectification of grass surfaces at John Fisher Park, Curl Curl, and opposes any proposal to hard surface the Crown land portion of the park and Abbott Road land, received from Mr Barr.

Manly Lagoon Remediation

Petition praying that funds be made available to assist in the remediation of Manly Lagoon, received from Mr Barr.

White City Site Rezoning Proposal

Petition praying that any rezoning of the White City site be opposed, received from Ms Moore.

Bega Valley Shire Council

Petition praying that extension of the term of the administrator appointed to oversee the affairs of Bega Valley Shire Council be opposed, received from Mr R. H. L. Smith.

Recreational Saltwater Fishing Licences

Petition opposing the introduction of recreational saltwater fishing licences and praying that the House fund the buy-out of commercial licences, research and fish restocking from the State budget, received from Mr Stoner.

COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Report

Mr Hunter, as Chairman, tabled the report entitled "6th Meeting on the Annual Report of the Health Care Complaints Commission", dated June 2001.

Ordered to be printed.

COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Report

Mr Campbell, as Chairman, tabled the report entitled "The Development of Wellbeing in Children— Some Aspects of Research and Comment on Child and Adolescent Development", dated June 2001.

Ordered to be printed. 14322 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

POLICE ASSISTANCE LINE

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: My question is directed to the Premier. Why did it take five minutes for a carload of police officers to attend a call from Jodee Rich when nine parishioners at the Bomaderry Uniting Church had to wait for more than one hour on the police assistance line to report that nine cars parked on church grounds had been broken into, only to give up in disgust when they could not get through?

Mr CARR: Why would the Leader of the Opposition mention the name of Jodee Rich—one of her strongest supporters in the business community of New South Wales? When the Government had all but sealed negotiations to locate a One.Tel call centre in Wollongong, the Treasurer enjoyed a tour of the One.Tel offices in Sydney and, thinking the deal was concluded, stopped at the boardroom to have a cup of tea.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order.

Mr CARR: Jodee Rich swept in and said that the deal negotiated was off unless the Government could come up with $3 million. When the Treasurer said that that was not the way we do business, Jodee Rich replied, "I'll negotiate with Kerry in March." Jodee Rich was one of that small circle of business leaders in New South Wales who for two years busily touted the Leader of the Opposition for the job she currently has while the distinguished member for Willoughby, who is sitting behind her, thought he was safe. By the way, on the subject of performance bonuses, I hope the Liberal Party is not paying a bonus to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs Chikarovski: Point of order: The Premier might find it highly amusing that the people of Bomaderry are unable to get assistance from the police assistance line. However, I am sure that the nine parishioners whose cars were vandalised in the marginal seat of South Coast would be interested to hear what the Premier has to say about what he is going to do to fix the problem, rather than trivialise their concerns.

Mr CARR: What a pathetic performance by the Opposition on a day when students of Granville South high school are in the gallery. I will seek advice from the Minister for Police.

GREATER METROPOLITAN SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION CO-ORDINATION GROUP REPORT Mr McMANUS: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. What is the Government's response to the report of the Greater Metropolitan Services Implementation Co-ordination Group? Mr KNOWLES: Earlier today I received the report of the Greater Metropolitan Services Implementation Co-ordination Group. The group is chaired by Professor Kerry Goulston and John Blackwell and is made up of 42 doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, consumers and health administrators. The group has consulted with literally more than 1,000 of their colleagues over the past 12 months to develop a single, long-term plan for key metropolitan hospital services in the greater Sydney region. The report is but one component of our work following last year's Health Council report, which focused on the broader issues of chronic illnesses, out of hospital services, rural services, information technology and much more. This clinicians' plan forms a blueprint for networked health services for Sydney, the Central Coast, Newcastle and Wollongong. In simple terms, the plan means better results for patients. It is a plan designed by health professionals. It is a plan they say never existed but was always required for Sydney. It is nothing short of a major breakthrough. For more than 20 years doctors and nurses have asked for such a plan. Today they have one, which, importantly, they have created themselves. I want to place on record my great appreciation to Kerry Goulston, John Blackwell and their team. I congratulate every single one of them. They have put aside much of their own views about their particular hospitals and have worked together to form a plan that focuses on patients' needs. Over the past year, Kerry Goulston, his co-chair, John Blackwell, and hundreds of individuals have been working to deliver this plan on the recommendation of the New South Wales Health Council last year that there was "The urgent need to develop a single, coherent, long-term plan for metropolitan Sydney." The Government, together with the clinicians, will implement the plan. We will deliver a strengthened and integrated system of health services based on networks, clinical cross-appointments and the location of services on a more equitable basis closer to where people live. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14323

For example, for the first time ever, renal dialysis services will be provided at Nepean teaching hospital. For the first time ever, heart surgery, angioplasty and angiography services will be provided at Gosford Hospital, with a large expansion of those same services at Nepean and Wollongong hospitals. Prince of Wales and Sydney Eye hospitals will be connected to Liverpool and Westmead hospitals in a formal arrangement, which will see the extension of teaching via their parent universities, the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney. Major stroke units will be established in all metropolitan neuroscience networks. The plan also provides for a statewide severe burns service, networked intensive care and emergency services and a new framework for major trauma with a virtual trauma institute to oversee teaching, research and quality improvement.

The central principles of the Metro Plan include a smaller number of centres for highly specialised services with higher levels of experience, expertise, patient throughput and resources. At the other end of the scale, continuing care will be provided in more places closer to where people live—for example, kidney dialysis services at Nepean Hospital and stroke, eye and heart services. And cutting red tape and removing artificial barriers between the area health service boundaries and their hospitals will allow networking of the services between hospitals. To facilitate this, doctors will be able to obtain multiple hospital appointments. The central principles also include: formally linking metropolitan services to rural centres and communities; establishing clear roles in the acute health system for tertiary and district hospitals and linking them to designated specialty services; and providing people with a single entry point in specialist care.

In the past, health services have been unevenly distributed across Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong and the Central Coast. The report addresses population shifts away from the centre of Sydney. The plan is achievable because the doctors have developed it. This is the plan that they want to implement. No hospital will be closed. All hospitals will be networked, with superspecialised services concentrated in centres of excellence and a massive expansion of those services that need to be more proximate to where people live. For example, people would willingly travel to a centre of excellence for that once-in-a-lifetime kidney transplant. Approximately 150 kidney transplants are performed each year across the State. However, patients want their dialysis and post-surgical care closer to home. That is going to happen, and it will also happen for eye, stroke and cardiac care.

Whereas currently people might travel from the upper Blue Mountains to Blacktown hospital for the closest dialysis unit, in future their journey time will be halved. As many honourable members would know, people who undergo dialysis are required to sit in a chair for five hours a day, three or four days a week. With the addition of the journey time to and from the unit, they do nothing else on those days but get their blood changed. With the establishment of a dialysis unit at Nepean Hospital—a unit the teaching hospital has needed since it was opened—their journey time will be halved. Currently, Central Coast residents needing angiography or angioplasty services go to Royal North Shore Hospital. From now on, under the new plan—with $180 million going to the reconstruction of Gosford Hospital—angiography and angioplasty services will be available at Gosford Hospital.

Chances are that a person with cataracts who lives in Liverpool would be one of 800 people who have to leave the area to undergo eye surgery. With new linkages, more individuals will have their eye surgery done locally. With cross-appointments, specialists who are currently locked into one or two larger hospitals in the city will be able to work at other centres. It is very much like Brian McCaughan's plan, a pioneer in heart services, when he launched an outreach service from Royal Prince Alfred Hospital to Liverpool Hospital in 1998. It is a model that we know works, that meets clinical standards, and that the doctors now support. The plan breaks down the silos of individual hospitals, links up the system as a network and extends the network to formally link up city hospitals with country regions. As honourable members might expect, the response has been very good.

[Interruption]

Even the Opposition spokeswoman has had a bit of a lash, though she could not find it in her heart to get too tough because she knows that she is not having a go at the Government or me. If she criticises this plan she is criticising the clinical community, consumers and allied health people.

Mrs Skinner: I criticise you for not providing enough money. Doctors cannot do that. Mr KNOWLES: As if on cue! Let us find out what the doctors think of that silly statement. I have a press release that was issued approximately one hour ago. Mrs Skinner: You only just got the report. 14324 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

Mr KNOWLES: This is a press release on behalf of the 21 chairs of the Medical Staff Association of the 21 hospitals that make up the greater Sydney region. They are all listed here—Royal North Shore Hospital, St George Hospital, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney Eye Hospital and so on. The press release is headed "Hospital doctors endorse new plan for hospitals". I will read a couple of selected paragraphs.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.

Mr KNOWLES: The 21 chairs of the Medical Staff Association of 21 Sydney hospitals state:

The Chairmen of the Medical Staff Association of 21 of Sydney's Hospitals have endorsed unanimously new plans for improving the services offered by hospitals in the greater metropolitan area of Sydney … The Medical Staff Association's Advocacy Committee has for nearly 2 years been calling for an urgent injection of cash into the public hospital system (a call responded to by government)—

they acknowledge the money has gone in—

but even more importantly, structural reform of our hospital system to reduce inefficiencies and inequities. The current program—

this plan—

responds to those needs in an innovative and timely manner.

There is general appreciation that a focus on what is best for patients has dominated the planning process.

The paragraph I really like is the one quoting the Chairman of the Advocacy Committee, which comprises members representing 21 hospitals in the Sydney region who unanimously support the plan. The paragraph reads,

"Most importantly we would like to emphasise that, uniquely, these plans have not been generated by government nor its bureaucracy", comments Professor John Dwyer, Chairman of the Advocacy Committee. "The plans have resulted from long deliberations by hospital clinicians, other health professionals and consumers. As such we have every right to expect bipartisan support for these overdue and exciting reforms to bring to the people of Sydney the modern integrated hospital service they deserve and expect."

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Pittwater to order.

Mr KNOWLES: How about it? Bipartisan support?

Mrs Skinner: Point of order: The Minister has sought our bipartisan support. I would be happy to indicate that that may be so, provided he sets up a briefing from the Government about the funding that is to be provided, and also from the doctors. That is in response to the Minister. If he does not make a ministerial statement, as he should, then I will respond in this way.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for North Shore will recall that last week I drew the attention of the Leader of the Opposition both to the manner in which she presented points of order and to the content of those points of order. I reminded her that her comments would be more appropriately contained in a statement made after question time. The honourable member for North Shore is now subject to the same warnings in relation to future points of order.

Mr KNOWLES: "We will support it if you give us a briefing." We will give the Opposition a briefing. The honourable member for North Shore has been more than willing to drop reports on the table and claim that all emergency services and emergency departments are going to close. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the second time. Mr KNOWLES: This consultation has been going on for a year and it has involved more than 1,000 individuals from all over the State. The Opposition has put in a request under the freedom of information legislation for the documents anyway. The Government will give the Opposition a briefing, but I would be happy if, for once in the honourable member's life, she would demonstrate what she would do other than adopt this plan. Which part of this plan will she not support? The chairman of the committee of medical staff from 21 hospitals said:

As such we have every right to expect bipartisan support for these overdue and exciting reforms to bring to the people of Sydney the modern integrated hospital service they deserve and expect. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14325

The honourable member for North Shore and the Leader of the Opposition have some choices to make. Do they want to demonstrate some leadership to the community? For one year the members of this committee set aside their partisan views to work together after their day jobs to design a better health system. The Government has adopted the report. We now call on the Opposition to demonstrate bipartisan support. What is the Opposition going to do? It is usually this side of the House that is under pressure on health policy. The only people out on the ice with the polar bears coming up behind them to eat them are those opposite. They are out on their own with nowhere to go. It is very lonely out there. They can demonstrate bipartisan support and get back into the game or, alternatively, they might write some policy. That would be interesting.

Mrs Skinner: You just adopted our plan.

Mr KNOWLES: We just adopted their plan! This was their plan. I made a mistake. It is their plan. It is not the doctors' plan. I thought that Professor Goulston and the large group of people who attended the press conference thought it was their plan. But it is the Opposition's plan! If it is the Opposition's plan we do not need to ask members of the Opposition for bipartisan support because they must support it already. That is fine. If it is not the Opposition's plan what are the members of the Opposition going to do?

Mr Hartcher: Point of order: The point of order relates to your previous rulings and my concerns about the length of the Minister's answer. The Minister has now been speaking for 16 minutes. As you previously ruled, a Minister's answer must not be excessive lengthy. I ask you to ensure that the Minister pays attention to your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If members of the Opposition cease interjecting the Minister will be able to conclude his answer.

Mr KNOWLES: I am delighted to conclude by recognising the great support I have received in the past 12 months and the enormous amount of work that so many clinicians have put into the development of this plan. It is very much their work; it is not the Opposition's work. It is a plan that clinicians endorse and want to implement. It is a plan that they have been asking for for 20 years. Now they have it, and they have the backing of the Government and the community. I congratulate them on it.

RURAL POLICE NUMBERS

Mr SOURIS: My question is to the Premier. Is there such a shortage of police in country New South Wales that victims of crime are being forced to pass a hat around to hire their own security guards, as is happening at Bomaderry Uniting Church?

Mr CARR: I thought the Leader of the National Party would have read my speech to the Country Labor Conference in which I detailed the increase in police numbers to a record high.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the Leader of the National Party on two calls to order.

Mr CARR: This is a day when, to the disgrace of the National Party, Wal Murray is being expelled. Why did the Leader of the National Party not speak out? Wal Murray was a great parliamentarian. It is a shocking thing. The House is united in its respect for him, in its appreciation of his great contribution to national life. He is being kicked out of his own branch in the most inglorious fashion. He is being expelled by a committee of seven. It appeared in a Sunday newspaper, and I am not inclined to doubt the veracity of the report. I could refer to Jodee Rich. I was flicking through the list of campaign donations and I came across "Kerry Anne Chikarovski, Lane Cove, 4 December 1997, One.Tel care of Mr Jodee Rich, donation $1,000." Mr O'Doherty: Point of order: I submit that under Standing Order No. 67 the Premier is engaging in irrelevant, tedious and repetitive behaviour. If a member speaking is tedious, repetitive and irrelevant you have the power under Standing Order No. 67 to direct that member to sit down. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr CARR: There was a donation to the Liberal Party, New South Wales Branch, for the last election from One.Tel, of $10,000. It is no wonder, when I was taking up the fight for the 1,000 One.Tel employees in New South Wales, that there was silence from the Opposition, just as there was silence when we were urging a royal commission into HIH. The response of the Opposition was that it would not want to commit itself because of its dear friend Ray Williams. Those opposite did not want his management explored. 14326 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Swansea to order.

Mr Stoner: Point of order: Standing Order 138 requires that answers to questions be relevant. The Premier has spoken about One.Tel, HIH and former members of Parliament, but not about police. The question was about police. I ask you to direct him to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr CARR: The number of police in country New South Wales has been increased to a record level under this Government. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time. CARAVAN PARKS CASUAL OCCUPANTS Mr CRITTENDEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading. How is the Government helping coastal residents of caravan parks in New South Wales? Mr WATKINS: The Government has a proud record of improving the rights of residents of caravan and residential parks. In 1999 we gave permanent residents legal rights to protect their residential park lifestyle. In 2000 the New South Wales Government led the fight against the Federal Government's attack on caravan park residents with its goods and services tax [GST]. Today I am pleased to update the House about recent developments to protect the rights of long-term casual occupants of caravan parks. Approximately 15,000 New South Wales families enjoy their holidays each year in caravan parks. Every Christmas and Easter, families from all over the State head for their caravans on the South Coast or on the North Coast. They take along their children and their pets and they look forward to a wonderful holiday. Until now those families have had very few rights. Their vans could be moved, their fees could be increased without notice and the caravan park owners could even lock them out. The Government believes those families should have some rights. Many families have been going to the same caravan parks for years, sometimes decades. It is not uncommon for younger members of the family to inherit a site from parents. These families are known as casual occupants of a caravan park. They are normal, often working-class, families living in suburban and regional areas of this State. They usually pay a yearly fee. By so doing they are able to enjoy affordable holidays which otherwise they may not have been able to do. Many of them are pensioners or average family people wanting to take advantage of a pleasant and healthy lifestyle and holiday with people who also enjoy that lifestyle. Most of the 900-plus parks across New South Wales have sites which can be used for short-term, holiday or casual occupation. There are a number of key matters which park casuals have been concerned about. Most of the problems appear to arise from uncertainty over the respective rights of park occupants and park operators. The major problems that arise are the lack of written contracts, not enough notice of fee increases, no minimum notice periods for terminating occupation agreements and no defined dispute resolution process. Although most park owners are decent, hard-working small business people, there are rogues in the industry. For example, honourable members will recall an incident last year when a park owner on the South Coast barred casual occupants after a dispute. That was despite the fact that they had paid their fee is in advance and their own vans were located in the park. To give certainty and clarity to both park operators and casual occupants, rights will be conferred so that written agreements are required, and a minimum notice period of three months will be provided in relation to terminating the agreement. Park owners will benefit from new obligations on the casual occupants to pay fees and charges on time, and to comply with the new written agreement. Both park owners and casual occupants will benefit by having disputes about occupancy arrangements heard by the Fair Trading Tribunal. The changes will apply to casual occupancy arrangements of more than 12 months. Business decisions made by park owners about the development of the parks will not be affected and the changes will not result in tenancy rights for long-term casuals. During discussions with the Department of Fair Trading, park owners and occupants have found common ground on the issues that should be addressed. Those discussions and negotiations will continue to finalise the legislation necessary to enshrine these new rights in law. BUS SHELTER ADVERTISING Mr BARR: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Planning. Is the Minister willing to review the provisions of SEPP 64 in relation to the onerous restrictions it places on some councils providing bus shelters with advertising panels? 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14327

Dr REFSHAUGE: There is no doubt that the changes to outdoor advertising have been welcomed throughout New South Wales. There has been quite strong support to ensure that the natural beauty of the State is not hidden behind excessive advertising. Some of the concerns that have been raised by the outdoor advertising industry in regard to naming rights on buildings have certainly ameliorated and we no longer have a problem in that regard. Advertising on bus shelters has not been raised particularly by the general public or by the industry. The Government is certainly aware of the agreement between the Sydney City Council and the providers of advertising, and the consternation in that regard. The issue is under regular review and I will be happy to consider any suggestions put forward by the honourable member or by anyone relating to whether there should be any further changes to what has otherwise been a positively accepted change to outdoor advertising.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REUNION AND INFORMATION REGISTER

Ms SALIBA: My question without notice is to the Minister for Community Services. What is the latest information on the Department of Community Services Reunion and Information Register?

Mrs LO PO': No-one would dispute that a mother giving consent to her child's adoption, for whatever reason, is one of the toughest decisions a woman can make. Staff responsible for the Department of Community Services Reunion and Information Register are embarking on a groundbreaking project. They are encouraging men who believe they have fathered children whose birth mothers consented to adoptions to make contact. Unfortunately, there is little recognition in our society for the sense of loss and not knowing suffered by fathers. That is evidenced by the fact that only two per cent of people on the Reunion and Information Register are men. That compares with 23 per cent registrations for birth mothers and 68 per cent for adoptees since the register opened its books in 1976.

In 2000, that equates to 17 men, compared with 107 birth mothers and 559 adoptees. Ten years ago only 11 per cent of natural fathers were involved in the decision to put up a child for adoption. In 1998 it was almost 33 per cent and today 72 per cent of natural fathers are involved in the decision to place a child for adoption. Even though many things have changed in recent years, I appeal to those dads, acknowledged and unacknowledged, who have not been involved in years gone by to register on the Reunion and Information Register. Fathers interested in discussing arrangements related to making contact or about adoption in general should telephone the Department of Community Services Family Information Service on 9865 5939 or 1800 049 956. The department is aware of a case of a 51-year-old man. As a teenager he and his girlfriend had a son, but the child was adopted without his knowledge. Let me quote him:

I always felt a piece of me was missing and I'd talk about it with my family ... A lot of blokes don't even know they have kids, but for the ones who think they do or know they do, just take the step and go find them. It's not hard— providing your conscience is good and you have a heart.

A father's absence from the picture often leaves many questions unanswered in an adoptee's search for identity. Personal accounts show that birth fathers may suppress their feelings around the adoption or feel even greater pain arising from a perception that they do not have a right to know about their children. That is supported by Bonita, a New South Wales adoptee in her early 40s, who went in search of her father. She said:

I think many birth fathers may stay away because they are unsure of the consequences. They may think it is too much effort or are put off by the stigma that birth fathers are the "evil" ones.

Bonita went on to say:

Birth fathers are just as important as birth mothers, without both, the father and the mother, there would be no child and they should have the same opportunities.

Back in the 1920s, if the mother consented to the adoption there was no legal requirement to seek the father's consent if the child was born out of wedlock.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. That warning includes the honourable member for Swansea. Mrs LO PO': Fortunately, many things have changed since then, with Australian adoption practices keeping step with new societal attitudes about family norms and the increased child-rearing role of fathers in modern families. This we can see in the increase in the number of dads who are now involved in consenting to their child's adoption. Contact between adoptees and birth parents ranges from an exchange of details without 14328 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 meeting, to fleeting phone or face-to-face contact, to ongoing contact. It is determined by those involved and is as individual as the people concerned. Bonita best sums it up:

I can't explain the emotions I felt when I held that certificate in my hands—overwhelming happiness mainly and acknowledgment that he was my dad, a man of honesty, a man who loved me.

The Department of Community Services can assist fathers to make a presumption of paternity, and discuss issues around the adoption and what it means to register as the father of an adopted person. I urge these fathers to come forward.

ATHENS OLYMPICS SECURITY POLICE ADVICE

Mr TINK: Will the Premier direct his police Minister to cancel his contract work for the Athens Olympics so he can focus on the rising crime rate in New South Wales, which is going through the roof compared with that in Victoria, and on fixing the serious problems plaguing the Police Assistance Line?

Mr CARR: According to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research most crime categories are stable or coming down. The second point I make is that it is a great honour for Australia that a public servant has been asked to give advice about an aspect of our Olympics organisation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Pittwater to order for the second time. I call the honourable member for Davidson to order. I call the honourable member for Southern Highlands to order. I place the honourable member for Hornsby on two calls to order.

Mr Humpherson: He is overpaid and there is work to be done here.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Davidson to order for the second time. I call the honourable member for Davidson to order for the third time.

Mr CARR: The member for Davidson said, "He is overpaid and there is work to be done here."

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the third time.

Mr CARR: That should be embedded in Hansard. That is about as astute as the observation the honourable member made on Friday when I went to open the gaol within a gaol in Goulburn. He described it as a five-star resort.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Gosford on two calls to order.

Mr CARR: How long would one need to judge whether a resort is up to standard? I would say about a week. Here is an invitation to the honourable member. In one of those concrete cells we will render him comfortable for a week. But it has to be a week; none of this overnight business. He should stay there for a week: I insist on that. But so that he can enjoy the full benefit of prison life—

Mr Tink: Point of order: The point of order relates to relevance. The question is about getting the police commissioner back from Greece and getting the crime figures in this State down.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr CARR: While we are happy to accommodate the honourable member for a week. We would insist that to enjoy the full and authentic flavour of prison life we should wait until all the other interesting inmates are there as well. One needs a full week in a resort to be able to assess the quality of the resort. The honourable member for Burrinjuck said:

I've been around the complex and this is definitely no five-star hotel—certainly not one that I would want to be in, either for the short-term or for the long-term. She does not get the generous offer that I extended to the honourable member for Davidson. By the way, this is a day for political miracles. We have just been told that the London Times has backed Labour for the first time. Mr Hartcher: Point of order: Mr Speaker, you may find the irrelevancies that come from this man funny. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14329

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is this a point of order?

Mr Hartcher: Yes, under Standing Order 138. The frivolity of this man: he is referring to Goulburn gaol and the London Times when the question is about the police commissioner and the Athens Olympics. They are totally irrelevant. You are bound to uphold this point of order on relevance. This man does not answer with any degree of relevance. You may find it funny but nobody else finds it funny. If this man does not provide a relevant answer it is your responsibility to call his attention to the standing orders.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr CARR: It is a great honour for Australia that the police commissioner has been asked to give advice to Athens. He is not there directing Athens' security; he has been asked to cast an eye over the security arrangements. Ours for the Sydney Olympics were exemplary. The Leader of the Opposition is seeking to interject. I read in today's Daily Telegraph that there is a little reception on for those on her side who were in the last Parliament but who are not in the existing Parliament. Ron Phillips will be there. I think that he should be honoured for the great service he delivered to the Australian Labor Party.

Mr Watkins: Who else?

Mr CARR: Your mate, Michael Photios. That will be a lovely reception! What a chamber of horrors! Athens says that no-one handled Olympic security better than Sydney. That is a tribute to Sydney. It took a Labor Government to organise the Olympic Games, to deliver the best Olympics ever. If the Coalition had scraped back in 1995 none of the excellence that distinguished the organisation of the Olympics, in security or transport, could have been counted on. Greece, which will host the next Olympic Games, has asked for a little advice from the country that did it four years earlier and did it better than any other host nation or host city in the history of the Olympics. Isn't that an honour to Australia! It would be churlish of us to say, "No, we cannot allow our police commissioner to look once or twice at your security plans.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Epping on three calls to order.

Mr CARR: The Opposition opposed the police royal commission, the implementation of its recommendations, integrity testing, and the establishment of the Police Integrity Commission.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Hornsby to order for the third time.

Mr CARR: On those matters, as on so many others, the Opposition has no credibility. As for the honourable member for Gosford, who took a point of order, the rumour mills are running hot that his long- awaited leadership challenge is two weeks away. What is the nickname that he gives himself? The Central Coast bunyip! They say that the leadership challenge will soon be out. They say that the old Central Coast bunyip is stirring in its lair, getting ready for action. What was the latest whisper today? It was that around about 14 to 18 June he will be ready to make his move on the Leader of the Opposition. Isn't that an appalling thing to do, to undermine your leader! He should be ashamed of himself. She has the support of both sides of the House. He should not be allowed to get in there and stir up disaffection in a party that exists at the present time, as we all know, only in universal concord and harmony. It was a disgraceful thing to do.

Yes, we welcome the fact that the police commissioner is able to give some advice to Athens on the organisation of the Olympics. That is a tribute to New South Wales, and a tribute to Australia. It is a measure of the pathetic smallmindedness of the honourable member for Gosford that he would try to make it an issue.

Mr Hartcher: You are giving Milat a five-star resort.

Mr CARR: Five-star resort?

Mr Hartcher: I will go to Goulburn if you come with me.

Mr CARR: I was there once. If you are so insistent on being in what you describe as a five-star resort we will keep Milat where he is and hold a cell for you for a week.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair always extends a degree of latitude to the honourable member for Gosford. However, if he interjects he should do so from within the Chamber. 14330 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

AREA ASSISTANCE SCHEME

Mr TRIPODI: My question without notice is to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. What is the latest information on the Area Assistance Scheme?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I thank the honourable member for his ongoing interest in this important program. The Government's ongoing and substantial support for the Area Assistance Scheme [AAS] demonstrates its commitment to social justice. Social and community development projects are about to share in the $8.3 million in funding under the AAS. The Government has allocated $3.1 million for 138 new projects that will benefit people in areas experiencing major growth or economic change.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Members on the Government backbench will remain silent.

Dr REFSHAUGE: In addition, the Government has allocated $4.7 million to existing longer-term AAS projects. Also, $500,000 is allocated for subsidies to councils to help make the scheme even more effective by improving project planning and development, and monitoring local projects to make sure that they deliver for people in the local area. Further projects and funding will be announced later in the year. Through the AAS the Government, councils and community organisations are partners in making a real difference to community life in Sydney's west, the Illawarra, Macarthur, the Hunter, the Central Coast and the North Coast.

This is about helping people to help themselves. The scheme provides funding to local councils and community organisations so that they can help build stronger, fairer and more inclusive communities. The AAS supports an enormous range of projects. It helps provide better community facilities, supports vulnerable groups, promotes community education and awareness, and improves access to existing services.

This year's funding means that since 1995 this Labor Government has approved 1,425 projects, to a total value of at least $58 million. That is $58 million well spent. The recent triennial review of the AAS found that the scheme is effective and provides good value for money to the Government and the taxpayer directly. The scheme especially as a strong history of supporting programs for groups with special needs including Aboriginal communities, people of non-English speaking backgrounds and young people.

For example, this year the scheme will give $10,300 to a program for subacute and non-acute palliative care, called SNAP for Kids, to expand the recreational program for children with disabilities from non-English speaking communities. The scheme also helps improve community facilities. This year the AAS is giving $9,000 to Pottsville Beach Neighbourhood Centre, on the North Coast, to buy equipment. A major aspect of the AAS is to support vulnerable groups by increasing their access to effective services and providing opportunities for mutual support and self-help.

The program called Asian Women at Work will receive $66,511 to develop a support network for women of non-English speaking backgrounds who are outworkers in the clothing industry. The network will break down isolation and increase access to information about rights, services and skills recognition. The Scone Neighbourhood Resource Centre, in the Hunter Valley, will receive $6,150 to provide a confidential room for discussion and counselling. The scheme helps provide support services and to train volunteers. The Government is providing $35,000 to Camden Council to establish a community organisation to co-ordinate referral, training and support for volunteers. In the Fairfield electorate $56,000 is going to the Fairfield Community Aid and Information Service to develop training for volunteers.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier is delivering information to the House in relation to funding that will benefit a number of electorates. The House should remain quiet so that the members representing those electorates are able to hear what the benefits are.

Mr Armstrong: Can we have a half-time break?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I was getting to the electorate of Lachlan, but it looks like it might have missed out. [Interruption] The honourable member for Pittwater interrupts again. He has never asked me a question in this whole session. He has never asked one question about this important Area Assistance Scheme, no questions about 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14331 planning. The honourable member for The Hills has been forced to put out a policy about planning, but the shadow Minister, the honour member for Pittwater, has not put out a policy. Not only that, he always get his facts wrong. Just last month he said that the urban release arm of government, Landcom—which he got wrong, because it is not—has only 40 lots for sale. He said that only 40 lots of land are available in Sydney for people to purchase and build houses on. I did a quick count; there are 10,000 blocks of land available right now, not 40. He made a bit of a mistake! But he is heading in the right direction. He was positive, but he is just a kid. I suppose he is waiting for the honourable member for Gosford to make his move so that he can move up the line a little bit.

I am keen to get a question from the honourable member for Pittwater before this Parliament ends—he has about two years to go. In Taree, the Government is providing $5,000 to the Manning Valley and Area Community Transport Group to establish a youth group and regular youth activities, which I understand the local member strongly supports. The Kiama Council peer support group will receive $22,760 to provide social and recreation activities for young people with disabilities. The Area Assistance Scheme helps communities keep up with technological change and as well increases the skills and knowledge they need for a good quality of life by means of, for example, training courses for health, skills and learning projects.

The Government is providing $19,050 to the Immigrant Women's Health Centre to buy office equipment and child-care materials and to help raise awareness about women's health issues in the Vietnamese, Chinese and Arabic languages. A $63,000 grant has also been made to the Holroyd Community Development Association for an Aboriginal community worker, who will develop an Aboriginal peak organisation to co- ordinate services and support local groups. The Area Assistance Scheme is successful because it draws on the local knowledge of communities and councils. The scheme responds to local and regional needs because the community and local councils are actively involved in setting priorities and developing and assessing proposals. It is through the Area Assistance Scheme that the Government again is able to work with councils and the community to improve the wellbeing of communities.

DEMOUNTABLE SCHOOL CLASSROOMS Mr WEBB: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Now that the Minister has decided to replace 330 demountable classrooms across the State over the next four years, can he confirm that at this rate it will be more than 66 years before the remaining 5,470 demountable classrooms identified by the Primary Principals Association are also replaced with adequate permanent facilities? Mr AQUILINA: I ask the honourable member for Monaro what his policies are in relation to the replacement of demountables. I make the commitment to the House that under no circumstances are we going to replace all the demountables in the State because, quite frankly, demountables perform a good function, particularly in growth areas where demountables are placed in addition to the existing structures of schools when the population and student enrolment peak, so that when the population and enrolment settle down, the demountables can be taken away instead of there being empty classrooms, which was the policy in the past. I am proud that in this budget we have money to replace 330 demountable classrooms. That will provide much- needed relief to those demountable classrooms that, in some cases, have been there for many years. However, there is no way that this Government, or any government with commonsense, would undertake to replace all demountable classrooms in this State. Mr WEBB: I ask a supplementary question. In view of that answer, how does the Minister justify the demountable replacement program not being granted the same budget priority as the $75 million blow-out in the conservatorium redevelopment? Mr AQUILINA: The honourable member does not know what he is talking about: 330 demountables are 330 more classrooms than when the Coalition was in government. Questions without notice concluded. DEATH OF ANTHONY VALENTINE PATRICK JOHNSON, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Mr SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 31 May of Anthony Valentine Patrick Johnson, a former member of the Legislative Assembly. On behalf of the House I extend to his family the deep sympathy of members of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places. 14332 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS

One.Tel Employees Entitlements

Mr COLLIER (Miranda) [3.24 p.m.]: There are 1,400 reasons why my motion should be given precedence. The number 1,400 represents the number of One.Tel workers who face being laid off and who may not receive their entitlements. One thousand of those 1,400 One.Tel workers are from New South Wales. A news report at 2 o'clock indicated that they could be laid off as early as Friday. My motion is also urgent because this will affect not just the 1,400 One.Tel workers across Australia—including the 1,000 in New South Wales—but the future of all workers in Australia. A national scheme is necessary to protect their entitlements. For these 1,400 reasons now, and the many reasons in future, this motion deserves precedence.

Electricity Prices

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [3.25 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because small and medium-size business customers across New South Wales are imminently facing higher energy prices as they come to the end of their first three-year supply contracts and they will be greatly disadvantaged. My motion is urgent because this Government, which promised to lower electricity prices for customers who became contestable as part of the reform of the electricity market, has not delivered. Across New South Wales business and community groups are shocked to discover that their electricity supplier is slugging them with increases in their tariff rates that are up to 200 per cent higher than they were playing under the previous contracts. The rising cost of these electricity contracts is costing business dearly.

The motion is urgent because a small business owner from the Central West of New South Wales estimates that his monthly power bill will shortly rise from the current $2,916 per month to $4,097 per month under the new contract. His monthly bill will almost double. That story is being repeated across the State. I have examples from customers including a Catholic school in Leeton, a motel in Wagga Wagga, a North Coast golf club and a Dubbo car yard, who all tell the same story of their power bills rising in the immediate future. This comes after repeated claims from this Government that contestability would lead to lower prices for those customers who are able to choose their electricity supplier. At the time the national electricity market was being formed this Government placed full-page advertisements in regional newspapers stating:

South-eastern Australia will have a single integrated market which promises cheaper electricity and greater reliability of supply for the benefit of all electricity consumers …

The national electricity market is truly a coming of age for electricity supply in New South Wales and Australia.

However, it is falling apart around their ears. What will the Government do to fulfil its promise and to alleviate the almost doubling of electricity prices for businesses in country areas? This has proven to be a coming of age only in respect of prices consumers are being expected to pay for their electricity. This matter is urgent because the renewal contracts being offered by Great Southern Energy, Advance Energy and NorthPower represent a major and unexpected impost on regional businesses. These renewal contracts are currently on the desks of businesses that are contemplating their electricity future and whether to sign the contracts.

I give another example of a Central West business owner who is being offered a peak price for electricity at 7.18¢ per kilowatt hour compared to his old contract price for peak period of 2.3765¢ per kilowatt. That is an increase of 202 per cent. That same business owner is being offered a shoulder price again of 7.18¢ per kilowatt hour compared to 2.2672¢ per kilowatt hour under his old contract, a rise of 217 per cent. It is worth noting that the shoulder price—the period between peak and off peak—has disappeared completely, meaning that peak prices will apply for up to 15 hours a day. The matter is urgent because people are facing this sudden change in electricity pricing as I speak.

At Leeton in the Riverina a Catholic boarding school is being offered a new peak price of 6.957¢ a kilowatt hour compared with 3.16¢ in the current contract. That is an increase of 120 per cent for a country boarding school that is undoubtedly struggling enough without this new impost from the Government. The shoulder price has disappeared in this case and the price rise amounts to 137 per cent for a boarding school in country New South Wales. The Government spin doctors claim that the price increase has come about because of rises in the wholesale pool price of electricity on the national electricity market—that is, the prices that retailers pay for power from the electricity generators. There is absolutely no way that the electricity wholesale price has risen by anywhere near 200 per cent. This is daylight robbery, and I have many examples that disprove that theory. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14333

Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Miranda be proceeded with—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 54

Mr Amery Mrs Grusovin Mr Orkopoulos Ms Andrews Ms Harrison Mr E. T. Page Mr Aquilina Mr Hickey Mr Price Mr Ashton Mr Hunter Dr Refshauge Mr Barr Mr Iemma Ms Saliba Mr Bartlett Mr Knowles Mr Scully Ms Beamer Mrs Lo Po' Mr W. D. Smith Mr Black Mr Lynch Mr Stewart Mr Brown Mr Markham Mr Tripodi Miss Burton Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Campbell Mr McManus Mr West Mr Carr Ms Meagher Mr Whelan Mr Collier Ms Megarrity Mr Woods Mr Crittenden Mr Mills Mr Yeadon Mr Debus Ms Moore Mr Face Mr Moss Mr Gaudry Mr Nagle Tellers, Mr Gibson Mr Newell Mr Anderson Mr Greene Ms Nori Mr Thompson

Noes, 35

Mr Armstrong Mr Kerr Mr Slack-Smith Mr Brogden Mr Maguire Mr Souris Mrs Chikarovski Mr McGrane Mr Stoner Mr Collins Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr O'Doherty Mr Torbay Mr George Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr Glachan Mr Oakeshott Mr R. W. Turner Mr Hartcher Mr Piccoli Mr Webb Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Mr Windsor Ms Hodgkinson Mr Rozzoli Tellers, Mr Humpherson Ms Seaton Mr Fraser Dr Kernohan Mrs Skinner Mr R. H. L. Smith

Question resolved in the affirmative.

ONE.TEL EMPLOYEES ENTITLEMENTS

Urgent Motion

Mr COLLIER (Miranda) [3.40 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) supports the 1,400 One.Tel workers, including the 1,000 from New South Wales, and their campaign for their rightful entitlement; and

(2) calls on the Federal Government to immediately introduce a genuine national workers entitlement scheme funded by corporate Australia, rather than one funded by taxpayers.

The collapse of One.Tel highlights the ugly face of corporate Australia. In the One.Tel case we have the trifecta of company failure. First, two directors in a failing company, Mr Jodee Rich and Mr Brad Keeling, each pay themselves a $7 million bonus shortly before the company's collapse, bonuses that by any stretch of the imagination do not bear any relation to performance. Second, a former director, Mr Rodney Adler, bails out and, 14334 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 according to the Sydney Morning Herald, sells off 9.4 million shares two weeks before details of the company's collapse become public. Third, the 1,400 One.Tel workers are left without a legally binding guarantee that they will receive their just entitlements. One thousand of these workers are in New South Wales. I heard on the 2.00 p.m. news today that One.Tel workers will be laid off from Friday. That means that 1,400 Australians will lose their jobs.

Yesterday, with the Premier, I attended a rally of approximately 100 One.Tel workers outside the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, in William Street. I met enthusiastic, creative and committed workers, many of whom were young and in their first job. I met workers such as Denise Toohey, who had been with One.Tel for two years, who were owed commissions and leave and other entitlements. They rely on such payments as a lifeline to their next job. These workers, loyal to One.Tel, were suddenly feeling uncertain and betrayed. They do not want a golden handshake; all they want is what rightfully belongs to them. The workers did not have the happy advantage of examining One.Tel accounts to see where it was heading. They did not have the opportunity to flog off their shares in the certain knowledge that One.Tel was going downhill. Like many other workers involved in corporate failure who are owed entitlements, they were the last to know. While their bosses were paying themselves $7 million bonuses, the workers were being denied their commissions.

The plight of the One.Tel workers has once again drawn attention to the worst of corporate Australia— a sorry state of affairs where corporate cowboys, who call themselves directors and have the capacity to bleed a company dry, move on and leave their workers unable to secure their just entitlements. This scenario is not unique to One.Tel workers; it has happened to others. We must support the One.Tel workers in their fight for full entitlements and, as a nation, we must take steps to ensure that this never happens again. Yesterday the New South Wales Government provided support for the One.Tel workers by engaging Mr Wayne Haylen, QC, in the Industrial Relations Commission to argue the case for an award for the One.Tel workers that would entitle them to severance pay. Commissioner Smith granted an interim award of four weeks pay for each one year of service. He said it was in the public interest to do so. It is in the public interest that the New South Wales Parliament supports these workers.

Under the individual contracts signed by One.Tel workers, there was no redundancy, entitlements or notice. Earlier in the day we had the spectacle of the Federal workplace Minister, Mr Tony Abbott, declining to intervene in the hearing. He said the workers should be paid according to the unconscionable contracts. That simply was not good enough. The New South Wales Government intervened and later we witnessed the embarrassing backflip by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard. In an interview, the Prime Minister, with Mr Abbott beside him, said that the Federal Government would intervene. Again, just as in the HIH Insurance collapse, the Federal Government is dragged kicking and screaming to make an admission that something is wrong, that something needs to be done and that someone must be held accountable.

As I said, One.Tel workers are not alone. This has happened before. Unless we as a nation adopt a bipartisan approach to protecting these workers, it will happen again. We need to do something and we need to do it immediately. I call on the Federal Government to introduce a genuine national workers entitlements scheme—funded by corporate Australia, not by Australian taxpayers—in which workers entitlements are paid into a preserved fund so that, when the time comes, workers are paid their just entitlements.

The introduction of a scheme in which employees' entitlements are preserved and protected requires both political will and political commitment on both sides of politics. The Howard Government says, "We have a scheme. We brought it in after the collapse of National Textiles. It is called the Commonwealth Employees Entitlement Support Scheme." That scheme does not really protect workers entitlements. It only pays out a fraction of the amount that workers are owed. And who foots the bill? The Australian taxpayer foots the bill, not the directors or the shareholders.

Even the Federal Government estimate puts loss of employee entitlements at $110 million annually. Its ad hoc scheme has paid out only 3 per cent of that sum in its first year—less than $4 million out of $110 million. That is an insult to the workers, their families and every fair-minded Australian employer. It is simply a mickey mouse scheme in which taxpayer dollars underwrite corporate failure. Even Liberal States such as South Australia, under Premier Olsen, will not adopt it. Mr Court, before he was booted out of government in Western Australia, refused to adopt the scheme as well.

John Howard has said that the Federal Government will introduce changes to corporate law. However, the changes will not be retrospective and will not help the One.Tel workers. Mr Howard has said that he will legislate so that bonuses paid to corporate executives in circumstances such as occurred at One.Tel will be 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14335 immediately recovered. Such legislation is unworkable and unproductive. For example, what happens if a director has his assets in his wife's name, or is bankrupt or flees the country? The bonuses will not be returned and the workers entitlements will not be repaid.

The only rational and sensible way to deal with such failures is to ensure that we have a national workers entitlement scheme funded by corporate Australia, not by the Australian taxpayers. I am sure that the vast majority of good, honest, hard-working employers who care about their employees will not have a problem with this approach. The only people who will have problems with it are the shonks and the suited cowboys who have the hide to call themselves company directors. The bonuses paid to Messrs Keeling and Rich were not based on performance. If they had been, both men would be broke.

Yesterday it was reported that Mr Keeling has decided to hand back his $7 million. Another report indicated that he promised to guarantee any shortfall in workers entitlements that cannot be made up by the administrators. Today it is reported that he has offered to underwrite employees entitlements to $3.5 million. That is half the $7 million bonus he achieved. Those offers came after pressure was mounted by the Premier and others. I congratulate the Premier, who was the first to apply pressure, in a government sense, on Mr Rich and Mr Keeling. Just as we saw in the HIH Insurance collapse, John Howard later called on Mr Keeling to hand back the bonus.

Today, I understand, Mr Rich belatedly followed Mr Keeling's example—and not without pressure being put on him by the unions, the Government and the media. Apparently, Mr Rich has offered $4 million and the rest of the $7 million bonus if he gets it back from the Australian Taxation Office. Good luck to him getting it back. He has also offered 500 million shares to the One.Tel administrators to keep the company going. The question is: Who are they going to sell them to? The Sydney Morning Herald today lists One.Tel shares at 16¢ each, but it is not trading. In fact, the media have said today that One.Tel will undoubtedly go into liquidation.

Jodee Rich and Brad Keeling can do better than that—and they only did that under pressure. Where will these funds go that they have promised to give back? We want them put into a trust fund for the One.Tel employees to go directly to meeting their entitlements. The aim is to ensure that these workers do not have to go to the end of the queue to get what they are rightfully entitled to. The repayment of the bonuses does not mean that we do not need a national scheme to protect workers entitlements.

It seems that One.Tel will be wound up with $600 million owed. Secured creditors will be paid first, again creating uncertainty. We need to ensure certainty for workers with a national scheme for workers entitlements. The Commonwealth Government has the constitutional power to amend the Corporations Law, and I am sure that all the States will come on board. We cannot go on like this. We cannot have another One.Tel scenario. I call for bipartisan support for this approach. I call on the Opposition to give serious consideration to this motion and to support it unanimously.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [3.50 p.m.]: The Coalition will give bipartisan support to a program that ensures that both the State and the Federal Government accept their responsibilities to the workers of this State. It is sad to see the honourable member for Miranda, and even sadder to see his leader, the Premier, trying to make political gain out of the misfortunes of the workers whilst they are not doing a single thing to help them. Not one single dollar flows from the State Government, not one single ounce of assistance comes from New South Wales, despite the fact that the Federal Government has repeatedly invited the New South Wales Government to participate in a scheme to assist workers who lose their entitlements.

The hypocrisy of the Premier yesterday is matched only by the hypocrisy of the honourable member for Miranda today. The honourable member for Miranda urges that workers be supported; and we support workers. The honourable member for Miranda urges that workers entitlements be respected. We support workers entitlements being respected. It is the Federal Liberal Government that is seeking to do something for the workers, and it is the New South Wales Labor Government that is doing nothing. The sight in this Chamber of the honourable member for Liverpool, the man who claims, above all, to support the left-wing cause, is mirthful. If ever there were hypocrisy it is the hypocrisy of the left wing of the Labor Party—which the honourable member for Londonderry so amply exemplifies—which talks about protecting workers rights but does nothing about it. I move:

That the motion be amended by the addition of the following paragraph:

(3) calls upon the State Government to play its part by paying its share of a workers entitlement program to protect workers rights in New South Wales. 14336 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

I am happy to stand up for the workers of this State. I am happy to proclaim my trade union credentials. I am one who asserts that New South Wales should play its part. I do not join in the hypocrisy of the members opposite, and I certainly do not agree when they say that any assistance I would give the workers would be pure rhetoric. I want to ensure that all workers, not just the high-profile workers employed by the likes of One.Tel and National Textiles, are supported. I want to ensure the protection of workers in the dozens of other companies across New South Wales that have failed and will fail, who, because their employers are not high profile companies, receive no support at all.

Anyone who listened this morning to Alan Jones, the respected commentator on 2UE, would have heard him list companies that have failed and whose workers have not received any support. We did not see the Premier running to those companies to talk about protecting workers rights. Nor did the honourable member for Miranda move a motion in relation to those companies. They were not sufficiently high profile to warrant the Premier's attention. The television cameras would not have been present to record such talk.

This motion is nothing more than the Premier seeking to look good in the media whilst not contributing a cent to these workers. Let him put his money on the table like everybody else. Instead, the honourable member for Newcastle and the honourable member for Miranda have moved these motions. The honourable member for Miranda will be the first member defeated on the Saturday in March 2003. I suggest he will be gone by 6.20 p.m. It may be 6.25 p.m., but I will give him until 6.30 p.m. All the hypocrisy in the world will not protect him when the workers of Miranda, together with workers everywhere else, acknowledge that although he was prepared to talk for them he was not prepared to act for them. He will talk the talk, but he will not walk the walk.

The Federal Government, through Ministers the Hon. Tony Abbott and the Hon. Peter Reith, has set up projects to protect workers. I pay tribute to the work of Tony Abbott, Peter Reith and John Howard to try to protect workers rights. Twelve months ago the Federal Government instituted the Employee Entitlement Support Scheme [EESS]. A report in January this year revealed that the scheme had paid 1,650 workers a total of $3.1 million in entitlements, and it is estimated to cost between $30 million and $40 million a year.

The Federal Government maintains that the scheme could be stronger and better if the States were to contribute, but New South Wales insists on retaining its industrial relations powers. Those powers apply to half the workers in this State, and New South Wales is fully involved in industrial relations and employment. This is not a Federal issue. New South Wales has its Industrial Relations Commission and it has the Industrial Relations ministry. It has the whole panoply of industrial relations, yet it covers only 55 per cent of the State's workers.

New South Wales cannot pretend that this is a Federal issue. We acknowledge that the Federal Government has a responsibility to workers, and we support the Federal Government in that regard. But the State Government also has a responsibility to workers. The Federal Government has set up and funded the EESS, but the State Government contributes zero. I should censure the honourable member for Miranda and the Premier for their total hypocrisy. A lot of excitement was generated about the workers at Steel Tank and Pipe at Newcastle, but they got nothing. They got zilch. They got no support at all because it was regarded as a Hunter issue and not something that would justify the Premier jumping up and down on his rhetoric bandwagon. The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling prepared a report for the State Government called "Alternative Models for the Australian Employee Entitlement Support Scheme". It was released in March. A number of models were examined, but the only one that is working so far is the one adopted by the Federal Government of straight-out, direct financial assistance. The Labor Party scheme—which, as the motion states, seeks to make corporate Australia pay—would be like the superannuation guarantee or workers compensation: an added impost on the cost of employment. Such a scheme would make it even more expensive to hire a worker. Just as workers compensation makes it expensive to hire a worker, just as payroll tax makes it expensive to hire a worker and just as the superannuation guarantee levy makes it expensive to hire a worker, so the entitlement scheme would make it expensive to hire a worker. It would also take away jobs. Such a scheme would remove the fundamental aim of every economy, which is to provide employment to its workers: to ensure, so far as possible, that everybody in the community has a job. If ever a concept had bipartisan support in Australia, it is full employment. The Labor Party knows only too well that imposing taxes on employment will destroy employment. But it does not care, because it regards the trade union and the trade union bosses of this State, rather than the workers, as its constituency. The trade unions and their bosses are the people the Labor Party looks after. It cares naught for the workers. We have this combined posturing of trade union officials affiliated with the ALP and the ALP leaders crying crocodile tears about the plight of the worker, but they are not prepared to reach into their pockets to contribute one single cent. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14337

When the Premier of this State puts his money on the table, he will be entitled to go after One.Tel. He will be entitled to go anywhere he likes, stand proudly and say, "Yes, I support workers' entitlements." But until then he stands accused of being the total hypocrite, a total headline hunter, a person who will do anything so long as the television camera is in front of him. He acts more like a performing seal in this Parliament and in front of the New South Wales public than he acts like a Premier.

I accept the Premier's invitation to go to Goulburn gaol, on the condition that he come with me. If he has the courage to deny it is five-star accommodation, let him come with me. To make it even more interesting, we will share a cell at Goulburn gaol. I will forgo my normal expectation of having the company of good and enjoyable people and I will spend a week with the Premier of New South Wales in his five-star accommodation.

Mr Lynch: Point of order: My point of order is two-fold. First, the honourable member's last few comments were clearly not relevant to the debate. Second, they were so thoroughly distasteful that we should not have to tolerate them.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Miss BURTON (Kogarah) [4.00 p.m.]: Honourable members have had to endure 10 minutes of absolute gobbledygook from the honourable member for Gosford, who obviously has no idea what this issue is about. He has no idea what happens outside this House in the corporate world, what happens to ordinary workers. Job losses have occurred only because of the actions of incompetent directors. The honourable member should ask the 14,000 One.Tel workers why they are no longer employed. It has nothing to do with anything the honourable member for Gosford spoke about; it has to do with the incompetence and rorting of company directors—in this case the two One.Tel company directors who each decided to award themselves a $7 million bonus when the company was going to the wall.

What will it take for the Federal Government to act? The Carr Labor Government has been calling for a national scheme to protect workers' entitlements since the Oakdale dispute, when employees were denied $6.3 million worth of entitlements. It was the Carr Labor Government that yesterday forced the Federal Government to act. Yesterday morning Tony Abbott said, "The workers can get lost." But after a caucus meeting he said, "Okay, we will go down to the Industrial Relations Commission and do something."

That is an absolute disgrace and I believe the Federal Government should be condemned. Let us not become immune to the word "entitlements". Honourable members bandy about the word "entitlements", and that effectively means that while employees are working they are earning sick pay, holiday pay and long service leave. They should also be entitled to 17.5 per cent annual leave loading, paid paternity leave, and redundancy and other allowances. Many of these entitlements have been negotiated over the years, and in some cases pay rises have been forgone to achieve them.

I take this opportunity to echo the Premier's words. I have listened to the honourable member for Gosford constantly attempting to kick the trade union movement to death, but if workers have ever doubted the need for union protection and decent award protection, they only have to look at what has happened to the One.Tel employees. We have heard that, because of pressure applied by this Government, the directors of One.Tel are going to pay back the bonuses they wrongfully took from the company. Hear! Hear! They should never have been paid those bonuses in the first place. We have heard that they are going to repay the money and that the One.Tel employees will be compensated and will receive their entitlements. However, they will still be out of work at the end of this week.

Another issue is that the One.Tel workers were on individual contracts and their conditions of employment did not include a redundancy package because many felt that they would not need it. Let me return to workers' entitlements. This money is rightfully theirs; they have earned it. I do not see how anyone, particularly the honourable member for Gosford, can attempt to justify directors paying themselves that level of bonus in the circumstances that company was in. The level of remuneration they received borders on the ridiculous. There have been numerous media reports of the record rise in the salaries of directors and executives.

Mr Amery: He made no comment on that.

Miss BURTON: Exactly. Who is worthy of a $7 million bonus? Definitely not Jodee Rich or Brad Keeling. There is no way they are worth $7 million. They have just run a company into the ground. However, the view is that if they are going to greatly benefit from the good times of a company, take these huge salaries 14338 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 and pay themselves outrageous bonuses, they—not the Australian taxpayer—should be held responsible when things go bad. The honourable member for Gosford said that other workers should support the company and look after Jodee Rich and Brad Keeling; that the sweat of their brow, the taxes they paid for State infrastructure, education and health, should go to cover incompetent directors—incompetent, lazy and irresponsible directors who could not run a chook raffle, let alone a company. I think that is a disgrace!

The honourable member for Gosford's constituents should be made aware of what he is advocating: that it is all right for directors to run off with money, pay themselves exorbitant salaries and bonuses, but that the workers should get nothing. Once again, I cannot express strongly enough the view that this is the workers' money. It belongs to the workers. To me it is like theft; it is stealing something that belongs to somebody else. There is nothing surer. I do not believe that this money should be retained by the company, and it certainly should not be retained by the incompetent directors who have overseen the demise of this company. [Time expired.]

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [4.05 p.m.]: I strongly disagree with the honourable member for Kogarah, because she completely misrepresented most of what the honourable member for Gosford said. I do not believe it adds dignity to the debate to allege that a member of this House said something that that member did not say. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gosford, because this is what I would term a flick-pass motion. Every member of this House would support the right of the 14,000 One.Tel workers to receive their entitlements, no-one would disagree with that, but the motion has no sincerity at all. The honourable member for Miranda does not dignify himself by moving this facile, simplistic motion—this stunt— and the New South Wales State Government certainly does not dignify itself by sponsoring a motion of this nature.

The honourable member for Kogarah made some interesting points, which I believe come closer to the issue of responsibility than anything suggested by the honourable member for Miranda or the honourable member for Gosford—with all due respect to my colleague the honourable member for Gosford. That is, the real problem in these situations is the culpability of the directors of the company in putting the company into default. In fact, it goes beyond that: it goes to the culpability of the auditors, those who are there to provide the checks and balances to ensure that the provisions of the company law and of business generally, including the legal requirements of employers, are properly met.

Very few of these companies genuinely crash overnight because of some absolutely unforeseen circumstance. If one looks at the paper trail that has been dragged painfully out day after day, one can see there is a clear indication that both HIH and One.Tel were in trouble quite some time ago. Where are those who were supposed to keep the directors honest? Where are those who were supposed to ensure that the entitlements of workers were put to one side and made safe at all times, so that if there were a collapse—whether genuine, engineered or as a result of incompetence—that money, which was supposed to have been reserved for the workers for their annual leave, long service leave and sick leave components, was in fact set aside?

Business is supposed to make provision for that. If a company goes belly up and that money is not available, has not been quarantined, someone along the way has done something wrong. I do not really believe that the good, solid, honest employers about whom the honourable member for Miranda spoke should pick up the bill for incompetent directors—directors who are irresponsible and have a flagrant disregard for the law. Why should honest, law-abiding employers, who work hard for their money and look after their employees responsibly, have to carry the burden of the incompetence of directors who let the side down?

We have to go back to square one and look very closely at the mechanism by which business sets aside workers' entitlements so that if a company crashes, a pool of money will be available in the wreckage of the company to meet workers' entitlements. It may well mean that we need a national scheme—and I agree with the honourable member for Gosford that it should be funded by the Federal and State Government's—to pick up the shortfall, because no business could carry a full range of entitlements at any one time on the basis that the company may collapse. Most companies are required to meet the normal obligations that may be made upon them by way of periodic requirements.

So it may be true that no company can afford to carry the full amount of money necessary to meet every entitlement should the company go belly up all of a sudden. Perhaps that is where the national scheme should commence to pick up the shortfall. But the amount of money which would be claimed under the national scheme would be a lot less if businesses did only what the law requires them to do, and that is to quarantine a satisfactory amount of money to meet the statutory obligations they have towards their workers. I have appeared 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14339 in bankruptcy cases and it has always grieved me that in the bankruptcy court the worker comes well down the line in gaining entitlement to what is left in the wreckage of a company. That is disgraceful. I wholeheartedly support the right of workers to make claims and receive their money. We have to look deeper into the problem, not simply set up a national scheme which fishes irresponsible directors out of trouble without making them responsible. [Time expired.]

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [4.10 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the honourable member for Miranda: consequently I oppose the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gosford. The current events concerning One.Tel are, on any view, a fiasco. The clearest way of describing the fiasco is to say that a large number of employees who earned on average $28,000 per year looked very much like they were not going to get their entitlements, whilst on the other hand two people who ran the company got $7 million each. If anything, "fiasco" is probably too kind a word to use to describe that situation. There are a number of reasons behind the situation developing. One must be the greed at the heart of corporate Australia. There has been some discussion in this debate about good and honest employers. We have not seen many of them lately: no doubt because they are not in the headlines. But we see many examples of extraordinary corporate greed involving large amounts of money being paid to chief executive officers [CEOs].

It seems that if a CEO is performing reasonably badly he gets an awful lot of money. If he performs even worse and gets out of the company he is paid even more. It is a bizarre development in this sort of economic structure. That is one part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the thoroughly inadequate scheme that currently exists to pick up the pieces from that situation. There is a Commonwealth scheme which I must say that I find at a moral level to be absolutely appallingly abhorrent, because that scheme requires that the taxpayer underwrite corporate failure, corporate incompetence and corporate dishonesty. It is just wrong as a matter of principle, despite all the rhetoric that the honourable member for Gosford carried on with, that the taxpayer should have to pick up the pieces from corporate collapses brought about by fraud, stupidity or incompetence by directors. It is a classic example of privatising gains and socialising losses.

These corporations are delighted to take all the profits they can but as soon as they have a loss they want to throw it on the taxpayers, to have them pick up the tab. Think through the logic of the position of the honourable member for Gosford: if Rich and Keeling do not pay the money back as they have promised the situation will be as it would be if the honourable member for Gosford had his way. They would have taken $7 million each and yet the taxpayer was funding the liabilities for the entitlements of the workers. That cannot on any view of it be a proper or principled position. As I said, it is simply wrong.

In addition, such a scheme would be strongly likely to lead to even worse corporate behaviour. Chief executive officers could continue on their merry way, behaving in this appalling fashion without having to worry about the consequences because, according to the honourable member for Gosford, there will be a wonderful scheme there to pick up all the pieces. It is also worth noting that the current scheme defended by the honourable member for Gosford and introduced by the Federal Government has a cap of $20,000 per worker, which in many cases would be completely inadequate. The current scheme is not satisfactory. There have been previous examples of people losing their entitlements. Someone contacted my office today about a company named Renite Furniture Pty Ltd, which apparently closed its doors today. The workers at this company in south- west Sydney have been told that they will not receive their superannuation payments accrued over some five years because the directors did not put the money aside. Presumably such instances will continue. Turning specifically to the arguments of the honourable member for Gosford, he was very critical of the Premier and the Labor Government for not putting a single dollar into paying workers' entitlements. That is right: that is the position of the Government because it is simply wrong that taxpayers' money should be devoted to picking up the tab for a situation that other people have created. When one goes through the arguments of the honourable member for Gosford one comes to the rotten ideological sludge, the disease, at the heart of his argument. He says that we cannot have the alternative scheme that the Government has proposed because that would be an added impost on the cost of running a firm. It seems to me that if firms are getting the benefit from making a profit through employing workers they must bear the cost of paying out the entitlements of those workers. The contribution of the honourable member for Hawkesbury was very different from that of the honourable member for Gosford. Whilst the honourable member for Hawkesbury may not have said things that I completely agreed with, at least he put them in a rational and sensible way that perhaps advanced the debate. The honourable member for Hawkesbury asked: Why should the honest employers have to pay an extra impost to pick up the tab for other employers who are going bust? That is an interesting argument. But the alternative is for taxpayers to have to pick up the tab. It seems to me that that is not a much better position. 14340 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

Mr Rozzoli: Maybe the tab should not be so big in the first place. Mr LYNCH: I completely agree. I think there would be general agreement across the House with that part of the honourable member's argument. [Time expired.] Mr COLLIER (Miranda) [4.15 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Hawkesbury for a reasoned, rational contribution which I think added much to the debate. The honourable member for Gosford ranted and raved in his usual manner about the Premier and the State Government. But when his argument is boiled down what he is really saying is: Brad and Jodee can do what they like, not pay the workers' entitlements, not quarantine the money as the honourable member for Hawkesbury said, and you and I, Mr Speaker, the taxpayers of Australia, will foot the bill. That is straight out ripping off the taxpayers. We cannot allow that to happen. That is why we need a national scheme. The honourable member for Gosford spoke about Mr Tony Abbott, who yesterday morning said, basically, "Let them eat cake. The workers signed these contracts. We are not going to give them any more than what they signed up for." Later that afternoon he was standing beside the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister said, "Mr Abbott and I now agree that we should intervene in this matter. We really should look for an award to cover these workers", which is what the Premier, Bob Carr, was saying yesterday morning in William Street. In the speech of the honourable member for Gosford there was no mention of Jodee or Brad, their slow-moving nature or how they came out of the woodwork after much pressure by this Government and by the media to put their hands in their pockets and attempt to pay the workers' entitlements. The offer of Mr Rich is really not an offer. The shares are absolutely worthless. It will be a real offer only if a deed of arrangement is entered into. The offer of Mr Keeling is only half of the $7 million bonus he received. I will dwell for a moment on the contribution of the honourable member for Hawkesbury. It was sincere, thoughtful, and rational. I take him up on one thing he said. I do not know whether I am misquoting the words of the honourable member, but he said that money to which employees are entitled should be quarantined. I agree: there should be a scheme in which the money is quarantined. Why not have a national scheme so that the money is available for the workers to receive their just entitlements? There is nothing wrong with that. As the honourable member for Hawkesbury said, there are many good, honest employers who do the right thing by their employees. He sees such employers being penalised under the proposed system. However, it is a sad truth that there have been so many corporate collapses—National Textiles, HIH and One.Tel—with corporate cowboys not doing the right thing by workers that we must have a national scheme that covers all employers, that does quarantine workers' entitlements, that is available to pay every worker in the event of corporate collapse or when the time comes for the payment of the entitlements. As the honourable member for Hawkesbury rightly said, when we go to the bankruptcy court—and bankruptcies have increased—who is often at the end of the queue? It is the worker. I agree that quarantining the entitlements is one way of resolving the situation, but a national approach must be taken. The only government with corporation power under the Constitution is the Federal Government. We should not take an ad hoc approach under which we pick up the pieces for the crooks, or one in which taxpayers are penalised. We should have a scheme which preserves the rights and entitlements of workers. To use the words of the honourable member for Hawkesbury, we should have a scheme which quarantines their entitlements. I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I ask the House to support my motion. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put. The House divided. Ayes, 36 Mr Barr Mr Maguire Mr Souris Mr Brogden Mr McGrane Mr Stoner Mrs Chikarovski Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Collins Ms Moore Mr Torbay Mr Debnam Mr O'Doherty Mr J. H. Turner Mr George Mr O'Farrell Mr R. W. Turner Mr Glachan Mr Oakeshott Mr Webb Mr Hartcher Mr Piccoli Mr Windsor Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Ms Hodgkinson Mr Rozzoli Mr Humpherson Ms Seaton Tellers, Dr Kernohan Mrs Skinner Mr Fraser Mr Kerr Mr Slack-Smith Mr R. H. L. Smith 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14341

Noes, 50

Mr Amery Mrs Grusovin Mr Orkopoulos Ms Andrews Ms Harrison Mr E. T. Page Mr Aquilina Mr Hickey Mr Price Mr Ashton Mr Hunter Dr Refshauge Mr Bartlett Mr Iemma Ms Saliba Ms Beamer Mrs Lo Po' Mr Scully Mr Black Mr Lynch Mr W. D. Smith Mr Brown Mr Markham Mr Stewart Miss Burton Mr McBride Mr Tripodi Mr Campbell Mr McManus Mr Watkins Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr West Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr Whelan Mr Debus Mr Mills Mr Woods Mr Face Mr Moss Mr Yeadon Mr Gaudry Mr Nagle Tellers, Mr Gibson Mr Newell Mr Anderson Mr Greene Ms Nori Mr Thompson

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Precedence of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [4.30 p.m.]: I move:

That standing orders be suspended to allow consideration forthwith of the matter of public importance standing in the name of the member for Murray-Darling and the resumption of the debate on the motion of no confidence in the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to be postponed until a later hour.

Under the current standing orders, which were introduced into this House on 12 December 1994 by the former Coalition Government, a matter of public importance was postponed if a matter of no confidence was on the record. The motion of no confidence in the Minister for Land and Water Conservation has been on the record now for several months and the Government has allowed a number of Opposition members to speak on the motion.

Mr Rozzoli: Point of order: A number of members are interested in what the Minister is saying. I am sitting quite close to him and I cannot hear a word. The noise is emanating from Government members who are on the other side of the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House is giving reasons why his motion should be agreed to. It is incumbent on all members to listen to what he has to say.

Mr WHELAN: To repeat briefly what I have said, the purpose of the suspension motion is to enable the matter of public importance, notice of which has been given this day by the honourable member for Murray- Darling, to be dealt with today. The standing orders provide that that matter or any other matter of public importance will be postponed pending the conclusion of debate on the motion of no confidence in the Minister for Land Water Conservation, which has been on foot in this Chamber for some considerable time. Robust and lengthy debate has taken place on that motion. The Government does not want to gag the debate. However, the standing orders, which were introduced on 12 December 1994, provide that a matter of public importance cannot proceed unless the motion of no confidence is dealt with.

I understand that a number of Opposition members are yet to speak on the motion of no confidence and, therefore, the business of the House is interrupted pending its conclusion. The debate has gone on for three or four weeks and regardless of the Opposition's personal views about the Minister for Land Water 14342 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

Conservation, he has the support of the Government and we would like this matter brought to a head. However, I cannot get that guarantee. The Government is not prepared to gag that debate.

[Interruption]

Let me rephrase that. The Government is not prepared to gag the debate right at this time. The Government is anxious that the matter of public importance of the honourable member for Murray-Darling, which is important to rural New South Wales and particularly his electorate, be dealt with today.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.33 p.m.]: It is all about bullbars. This motion for suspension has been moved so that the member for Murray-Darling can give the House a dissertation about bullbars. The reason debate on the motion of no confidence has not been reached is because the Leader of the House has not allotted sufficient time. The Leader of the House has allowed the motion to sit on the books for something like six weeks, with a little slice at it here and a little slice at it there. The honourable member for Hawkesbury was allowed to move the motion one night, the Minister replied the next day, and the whole tedious business drags on simply because the Leader of the House will not allocate sufficient time.

The Leader of the House seeks to prevent the matter coming on so that the House can hear a ridiculous dissertation from the member for Murray-Darling about bullbars, an issue in relation to which the Premier has already indicated that the Government has no intention of changing the law. Eight weeks ago the Premier said that he would not introduce legislation to ban bullbars so why would we have a debate on it? It is simply because the Leader of the Government does not want his friend, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, exposed to debate on a no confidence motion. If ever there was ever a case of the troglodyte faction closing ranks about their leader, this is it. The old guard of the right wing are all coming together behind the Minister because he cannot look after himself.

The honourable member for Hawkesbury has moved an important motion, which should not to be trivialised. The major catchment in the State has been denied the right to a catchment management system simply because the Government is not prepared to put up the $3 million necessary to fund it. At the end of the day, despite the excellent work done by the catchment management trust, which was established in 1994 by the Fahey Government, the Government has closed it down without consultation and without adequate reason. The reasons given by the Minister are inadequate and he has been exposed and he will continue to be exposed by the honourable member for Hawkesbury and other speakers. However, there is no guarantee that there will be a debate because the Leader of the House has indicated that he intends to gag the debate once it is reached.

Mr Whelan: I did not.

Mr HARTCHER: You did. You trivialised the whole issue. You said, "We are not going to gag debate at this time", the significant words being "at this time". Motions of no confidence have priority over matters of public importance. There are a number of Ministers against whom motions of no confidence could be moved. The Minister for Education and Training is clearly next on the list after the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. We have not forgotten him and Cecil Hills High School has not forgotten him either. Cecil Hills High School remembers him only too well for what he tried to do to it when he used it for his media stunt that misfired. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation closed down the major catchment authority for this State without adequate reason; he engaged in no program of consultation.

The Minister for Land and Water Conservation used the sheer weight of his authority to deny the 19 or so councils and thousands of people who live in that catchment the chance to develop a management plan for their own area and to ensure that the great Hawkesbury and Nepean valleys were adequately protected. That demonstrates the commitment to the environment of this Government, which does not even acknowledge World Environment Day. On World Environment Day the Government stifles debate on the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust, the biggest single catchment authority in New South Wales. The Opposition rejects the idea that a hypocritical motion about bullbars should take priority when the issue of bullbars has been rendered null and void by the Premier's announcement eight weeks ago. The Leader of the Government is trivialising the time of the House and wasting its time. The motion to suspend is denied.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14343

Ayes, 49

Mr Amery Mrs Grusovin Mr Orkopoulos Ms Andrews Ms Harrison Mr E. T. Page Mr Aquilina Mr Hickey Mr Price Mr Ashton Mr Hunter Dr Refshauge Mr Bartlett Mr Iemma Ms Saliba Ms Beamer Mrs Lo Po' Mr W. D. Smith Mr Black Mr Lynch Mr Stewart Mr Brown Mr Markham Mr Tripodi Miss Burton Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Campbell Mr McManus Mr West Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr Whelan Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr Woods Mr Debus Mr Mills Mr Yeadon Mr Face Mr Moss Mr Gaudry Mr Nagle Tellers, Mr Gibson Mr Newell Mr Anderson Mr Greene Ms Nori Mr Thompson

Noes, 36

Mr Barr Mr Maguire Mr Souris Mr Brogden Mr McGrane Mr Stoner Mrs Chikarovski Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Collins Ms Moore Mr Torbay Mr Debnam Mr O'Doherty Mr J. H. Turner Mr George Mr O'Farrell Mr R. W. Turner Mr Glachan Mr Oakeshott Mr Webb Mr Hartcher Mr Piccoli Mr Windsor Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Ms Hodgkinson Mr Rozzoli Mr Humpherson Ms Seaton Tellers, Dr Kernohan Mrs Skinner Mr Fraser Mr Kerr Mr Slack-Smith Mr R. H. L. Smith

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

BULLBARS IN COUNTRY AREAS

Matter of Public Importance

Mr BLACK (Murray-Darling) [4.45 p.m.]: My matter of public importance relates to bullbars and their necessary use in country New South Wales. Before I begin, I would like Hansard to record that members of the New South Wales National Party have yet again opposed a country issue raised in this House by Country Labor. Indeed, those opposite divided the House to avoid discussing this matter this afternoon. I find that extraordinary. When I arrived in Sydney yesterday afternoon I came to Parliament and discovered a dead kangaroo at the front gate. There is a link between road kill and bullbars. That kangaroo was still there today— although I am told that one of my Country Labor colleagues in the upper House contacted Sydney City Council to have it removed. Bullbars are absolutely germane to the bush. We need look no further than this issue to see evidence of the leadership that is being shown by Country Labor: It is a metaphor for all country politics. Country Labor is fighting the good fight, representing regional and rural communities. That contrasts starkly with the approach of the once great National Party, which is now simply unwilling or unable to represent the interests of country families—as was demonstrated by the recent division. Let us hark back to December last year when there were whispers around the traps that bullbars would be banned by the Roads and Traffic Authority. Those rumours were completely false. As we know, the Federal 14344 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

Government and Standards Australia were developing a new national standard for bullbars, and this plan worried Country Labor members. As a matter of urgency, we made representations directly to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads and the Premier. In contrast, National Party members did not raise a yelp. I expect the honourable member for Barwon to speak in this debate. He is a good bloke—there are only three good blokes left in the New South Wales National Party. National Party members could not have cared less about bullbars: They were more interested in their Christmas turkey than in country families. As Country Labor member of the Legislative Council and central west farmer Mr Tony Kelly commented at the time, country motorists need bullbars. He said:

Bullbars are for genuine use in rural and regional areas. They are not merely an inner-city fashion accessory. I shall quote from the great speech that the Premier of New South Wales delivered to the Country Labor conference on the South Coast 10 days ago. By the way, honourable members should know that the Country Labor conference is now the second largest political party conference in Australia—what an achievement in only a couple of years! Country Labor has more than 6,000 members—more than the entire membership of the New South Wales Liberal Party—and it is still growing. Country Labor was formed in 1999. This year Country Liberal was formed. But we are still waiting to see the Country National Party. There is still not a date for that. It is an absurdity. The Leader of the National Party of New South Wales is leading the National Party from obscurity to the edge of oblivion. I bet he does not have a bullbar. The Premier reported to the conference:

In New South Wales, Country Labor members of Parliament are an effective voice in Macquarie Street. They are in touch with country people. They take issues up directly with the Cabinet. We listen. Take the issue of bullbars. A fashion accessory in the Eastern Suburbs; a necessity in the country. A half-baked proposal to ban them was raised last year. Country Labor ensured this ridiculous idea was crushed immediately. We will not allow policies generated in the city to get through without analysing their effect on the country. That is a ringing endorsement from none other than the Premier of New South Wales, who holds the highest office in the premier State. Just weeks ago that bunch of do-gooders, the Pedestrian Council of Australia, brought out its wonderful plan to ban bullbars. Last week the issue was reported in the Daily Telegraph and the Sydney Morning Herald. We all know who these people are. They are a bunch of eggheads who are opposed to everything, led by that eternal whinger in search of a cause, Mr Harold Scruby, Chairman of the Pedestrian Council of Australia. Last week Mr Scruby hit a new low. He disgracefully cited the death of a 64-year-old woman who was killed after being struck by a four-wheel drive at a crossing. Mr Scruby blamed the death on the bullbar at the front of the vehicle. He could not get on the radio and television quick enough to repeat his call for restrictions on bullbars. What an absolute disgrace! How low can he go? Unlike Mr Scruby, Country Labor publicly extended its condolences to the woman's family. Also, in a much less public fashion, we continued to express concerns about Mr Scruby's plan. We understand some of Mr Scruby's concerns, and we even agree with some of them. He has some sensible suggestions, such as restricting attachments—fishing rods and bicycles—to bullbars on the front of a vehicle. Mr Stoner: Point of order: The honourable member for Murray-Darling has referred to Mr Scruby as Mr Scrubby. I raise the matter so that the gentleman concerned will not be offended by the reference to "Scrubby". Mr BLACK: I apologise for the mispronunciation. However, Mr Scruby's plan of a wholesale ban on bullbars would be extremely dangerous for country families. I for one, and a number of other members of this Parliament, would not fancy driving at night without a bullbar. A kangaroo would definitely have an advantage over my four-wheel drive 100 series with a wrap-around bullbar. Kangaroos can cause severe damage to the strongest four-wheel drives without bullbars. Any plan to ban bullbars in city areas only is simply unworkable and impossible to implement. As Country Labor has said previously, what happens when a family drives from Gunnedah to the Royal Easter Show? Does Mr Scruby suggest that they change cars at Hornsby? Country Labor dismisses out of hand Mr Scruby's comment that "bullbars are a fad and in most cases they protect nothing more than the radiator." Every family in rural and regional New South Wales knows otherwise. Bullbars play a vital role in protecting families in rural and regional areas, especially with the recent explosion in kangaroo numbers in western New South Wales. According to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, kangaroo numbers in western New South Wales are now estimated at 8.1 million—up from 6.7 million four years ago. Even the Hon. Ian Cohen, MLC, leader of the Greens, agreed last March that we need to proceed with a cull. I once again refer to the protest outside against shooting any kangaroos. Last year Country Labor successfully fought off a Federal Government plan to ban bullbars. This year we are fighting off plans by the Pedestrian Council of Australia. Make no mistake: Country Labor will continue to fight to protect the interests of country families. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14345

Finally, I wish to make some remarks about Mr John Anderson, the leader of what is left of the Federal National Party. I have learnt that John Anderson does not have a bullbar on his car. But I have also learnt that big wide Wal Murray most certainly has a bullbar on his vehicle and he has put it into action in the last few weeks against Mr John Anderson with great effect. This is the same John Anderson who the Bulletin reported earlier this year was taking his kids out of school in Canberra—this is how much he knows about bullbars—for political reasons and so on, and bringing them back to the Mullaway primary school.

Mr R. H. L. Smith: Point of order: Whether Federal member John Anderson takes his kids out of a Canberra school has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. I ask that the honourable member for Murray- Darling be brought back to the relevance of this debate.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Order! As I understand it, the issue is the status of Mr Anderson's bullbar. On that basis the remarks of the honourable member for Murray-Darling are relevant.

Mr BLACK: Indeed, John Anderson does not have a bullbar. John Cobb has been left without a bullbar as well.

Mr Slack-Smith: Point of order: The honourable member for Murray-Darling is misleading the House because John Anderson has a bullbar on his private car.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr BLACK: What a great bullbar—setting up John Cobb for the high run and the National Party not having a preselection until last Saturday because they could not con him into standing. I commend this motion. We will keep our bullbars.

Mr SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [4.55 p.m.]: I cannot really comment on what the honourable member for Murray-Darling was talking about because he did not talk loud enough and we missed a lot of his words! I wish he would raise the volume, then we could understand what he is saying. Out the front of this place is a dead kangaroo, no doubt sacrificed by the poor, misguided people who are standing outside Parliament at this moment. Obviously, the kangaroo was sacrificed in the name of animal rights. Interestingly, these poor, misguided people have said that the kangaroo population used to be 4.7 million but is now down to 2.2 million. As the honourable member for Murray-Darling said—a remark I happened to catch—the population of kangaroos in New South Wales today is 8.1 million. Outside Parliament those poor, misguided people are saying that there is scientific proof that kangaroo meat is unsuitable for human consumption. That has not been scientifically proved, therefore they are telling lies. There is a record number of kangaroos throughout rural and regional New South Wales. The numbers are so great that we have had record exports of kangaroo meat. Another point which the poor misguided fools outside do not understand is that the industry is totally sustainable.

With 8.1 million kangaroos and rural areas turning dry, the table drains are the only places with any green feed. That is where the kangaroos congregate. As a result, panel beaters in my electorate of Barwon have found that the number of collisions with kangaroos has increased dramatically in a matter of weeks. As to the bullbar issue, I agree with some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Murray-Darling. Bullbars should be here to stay. In the past three years I have saved my insurance company, and myself in additional premiums, approximately $30,000 because I have a decent bullbar on my car. If it were not for that bullbar, I believe my premiums would have skyrocketed and it may have got to the stage where the insurance company would refuse to insure me because of the collisions I have had with skippies on the road. I have hit not only kangaroos. But we cannot pick on kangaroos all the time. I do not know where the kangaroo out the front of this place came from. I do not know whether the people out the front got it from the Domain or somewhere else. They claim to have found it on the road. I would not be at all surprised how they got that kangaroo. Bullbars are used to protect vehicles and their passengers from impact not only with kangaroos but also with livestock that strays onto the road, such as sheep, goats, cattle, horses, and emus— which are very intelligent when they come to the side of the road! Kangaroo numbers are the highest they have ever been. The people out the front have never acknowledged that kangaroo numbers have exploded since European settlement in this country. Many places now have decent pastures and the numerous watering points created throughout New South Wales following European settlement have made New South Wales a paradise for kangaroos. Kangaroos have two teats. They are the only animals in the world that can have two joeys of different ages in the pouch— 14346 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 the mother provides each joey with an appropriate milk formula—and another joey in the womb ready to be born when one vacates the pouch. It has been proved that in dry times a joey can stay in the womb, in suspended animation, for a number of years. In good times, which we have experienced in the past few years, the kangaroo population has exploded. I agree with the figure of 8.1 million kangaroos quoted by the honourable member for Murray-Darling.

City-centric bureaucrats, most of whom live in Sussex Street where the city-centric Australian Labor Party and Country Labor are based, suggest that if bullbars are used in regional and rural New South Wales they should be of the plastic variety. Plastic bullbars are fantastic. I can guarantee that they will never break. I once fitted a plastic bullbar to one of my vehicles. When I cleaned up a kangaroo on the road the bullbar came back on impact. It was supposed to absorb the shock of the impact, and it did a fantastic job. Unfortunately, it also knocked off two lights, the grill and the radiator, and busted the fan. It then popped out in mint condition. Consequently, I removed the plastic bullbar and replaced it with a bit of iron, which has been successful.

If city-centric bureaucrats are serious about replacing iron bullbars with plastic ones then we are in big trouble. The response in my electorate and all rural electorates throughout New South Wales is that it is stupid to assume that we have to get rid of bullbars. Those who want to ban them should talk to the insurance companies, which will state conclusively that bullbars fitted to vehicles save the companies large amounts of money in claims and downtime. A car that has collected either a kangaroo or an emu is never back on the road in less than two weeks. The Opposition is totally opposed to banning bullbars. A bullbar is an essential part of a vehicle in the country. It is an insult to the people of rural and regional New South Wales to suggest that they should be banned. Recently, I attended the opening of a bridge at Blue Nobby on the border of my electorate of Barwon and the electorate of Northern Tablelands. Close to 50 vehicles had been driven to the official opening of the bridge.

I was amazed to note that the only cars without bullbars belonged to those in the civil service. Every other vehicle parked in the area, from a little VW up to a Land Cruiser—I cannot afford to drive a Landcruiser, but it is obvious that the honourable member for Murray-Darling can—was fitted with a bullbar. People do not spend $2,500 to $3,000 fitting bullbars if they are not needed. It is money well spent. We should endorse them and ignore completely this ridiculous idea that people in regional and rural New South Wales do not need bullbars. The biggest concern about bullbars is their effect on impact with human beings. In country areas we very rarely run over people; we generally hit wildlife. Bullbars should remain on vehicles in rural and regional New South Wales.

Mr HICKEY (Cessnock) [5.05 p.m.]: I support the motion and the need for bullbars in country New South Wales. The eloquent contribution of the honourable member for Murray-Darling put everything into perspective. Members from country New South Wales need bullbars fitted to their vehicles if they travel throughout country electorates. They fully understand the problems associated with animals on the roadway. Bullbars have been of concern for country families following the publication in December 2000 of the report undertaken by the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services. The report, undertaken by the Australian Safety Transport Safety Bureau, entitled "Bullbars and Road Trauma" produced the following findings:

The fatal crash data does, however, enable one to broadly specify a ceiling to the contribution of bullbars to road trauma in Australia.

The data shows that about 30 pedestrians, 10 bicyclists and motorcyclists and 50 occupants of side impacted vehicles are fatally injured each year in impacts with the front of a vehicle equipped with a bullbar.

It is likely that many of these deaths would occur regardless of the presence of the bullbar due to the severity of crash circumstances.

On balance the number of deaths attributed to bullbars is probably substantially less than the number identified as involving a bullbar equipped vehicle.

Although there was some anecdotal evidence that old style bullbars increased risk:

Recent improvements in the design and fitting of bullbars may have reduced the risk below that imposed by the old style bullbars used in the experimental studies and present in many of the crash records analysed here.

Issues concerned with air bag deployment and the proper operation of crumple zones in striking vehicles also appear to have been addressed by recent improvements in bullbar designs. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14347

Let us examine why we fit bullbars to our vehicles. Honourable members have already stated that the kangaroo population is 8.1 million. Anyone who travels in my electorate late at night would be aware of the large population of kangaroos in the Singleton area. The honourable member for Barwon stated that the kangaroo population in his area is also large. It is clear that country areas of New South Wales suffer from the same problem. Bullbars tend to protect vehicles from damage and reduce occupant injury in the event of a collision with an animal or another vehicle. Protection from animals at night is a special requirement in the country, though that may not necessarily be the case in metropolitan areas. Members of Parliament who represent country electorates are united in their stance that they do not want bullbars banned in country areas.

Singleton is the home town of the Leader of the National Party, and in that area bullbars are a necessity. It is dangerous for motorists to cross some bridges without a bullbar on their vehicle. I am pleased to report to the House on the allocation of funding for bridges announced in this year's budget. The Singleton Argus reported that $7 million had been allocated to the shire. Of that sum, $1.4 million has been earmarked for the replacement of the bridge over Howes Valley creek on the Putty Road, $940,000 for the replacement of the bridge over Boggy Swamp Creek, and $600,000 for a replacement bridge over Wollombi Brook.

Without a bullbar, motorists crossing bridges in country areas run the risk of colliding with animals that may cross their paths. Country Labor has pushed forward issues in country areas, to the point where, in a letter sent to a member of Country Labor, a person from Lightning Ridge referred to the convener of Country Labor, the Hon. Tony Kelly, as a member of the New South Wales National Party! In a letter to the honourable member for Murray-Darling, May Searle from Walgett shire referred to him as a member of the National Party. The Leader of the National Party— [Time expired.]

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Order! I call the honourable member for Murray-Darling in reply.

Mr R. W. Turner: Point of order: There is no provision for the member submitting the matter to speak in reply on a matter of public importance.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I have been in the Chair long enough to know the standing orders. I suggest to the honourable member that I know them and he does not. The standing orders do indeed provide for the member submitting a matter of public importance to speak in reply.

Mr BLACK (Murray-Darling) [5.11 p.m.]: I am delighted with the general support for this matter rendered by the honourable member for Barwon. The honourable member for Barwon, like me, lives in the front paddocks of New South Wales and is clearly aware of the number of kangaroos to be found on the roads at night. I, for one, am embarrassed to drive at night. I usually have a driver with me when I am touring around my electorate. The fact of the matter is that, on roads such as the Menindee to Ivanhoe road and the Silver City Highway south of Broken Hill, at night there are wall-to-wall kangaroos.

I support the comments of the honourable member for Cessnock, another member of that great organisation, Country Labor. His comments about the need for bullbars in the bush were spot on. I endorse his comments and those of the honourable member for Barwon with respect to the necessity to confront the people outside, and those who support them, with regard to the kangaroo industry. It is ludicrous!

I acknowledge in the Speaker's gallery the convener of Country Labor, the Hon. Tony Kelly, who—as the honourable member for Cessnock said—was referred to in correspondence from a person in Lightning Ridge as a member of the National Party. That is unbelievable! Absolutely unbelievable! That is how far Country Labor has advanced in replacing the once-great National Party. As I said earlier, in 1999 we formed Country Labor. This year we have the country liberals, but no date has been set for the formation of the Country National Party. I look forward to that day. I look forward to the day when the National Party will support, in more than a wimpish way, the issues raised by Country Labor.

Mr O'Farrell: What about city Labor?

Mr BLACK: City Labor supports County Labor and vice versa. This great State is fast becoming a two-party State, consisting of Country Labor and city Labor, and nobody else. The others are all alone. As I said earlier, the Leader of the National Party, that wimp George Souris, is leading the National Party from obscurity to the edge of oblivion. He is gone! He is useless! Today we have the man with the bullbar, big wide Wal, Wal Murray, who is driving over the top of John Anderson, pushing John Anderson into oblivion—and rightly so. 14348 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

I was told today by the honourable member for Barwon that he has a bullbar. If he has one it must be a plastic one, because with him nothing is solid. The fact is that in western New South Wales we are proud of our bullbars, and whether city Liberals or—

Mr Brogden: Point of order: It being 5.15 p.m. standing orders require that business be interrupted so that private members' statements may be called on.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I will call on private members' statements in accordance with the standing orders at the appropriate time. The honourable member for Murray-Darling may continue.

Mr BLACK: I was waiting for the interjection. Three interjections were taken when I was speaking earlier in this debate. I wonder why there were only three. There should have been four at least—perhaps six, depending on the National Party's view. Again, I welcome the comments of the honourable member for Barwon, and I welcome what some other members of the National Party might secretly have in their hearts. Perhaps it would be going too far to say what they might have in their craniums. The bottom line is that when issues such as this are raised in this Chamber, where do we find the National Party? Going down the gurgler, on bended knee to the eastern suburbs Liberals—the city Liberals in the eastern suburbs who drive around in their status symbols. Honourable members would be aware that on Sydney's north shore there are actually two companies selling bullbars. [Time expired.]

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

______

CLOSED-CIRCUIT SECURITY CAMERAS

Mr McMANUS (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.15 p.m.]: I wish to speak about a matter of particular importance. Prior to Easter, together with the honourable member for Miranda and the Mayor of Sutherland, Tracie Sonda—I welcome her and her councillors from the shire to the public gallery—I visited Perth to look at closed-circuit television cameras being used in that city. On 29 May the honourable member for Cronulla indicated to his community that he was not in support of closed-circuit television. The honourable member for Cronulla is an absolute disgrace to his community. The mayor of Sutherland has collected 3,000 signatures on a petition indicating that the incidence of crime that the honourable member has been unable to prevent for 17 years—

Mr Brogden: Point of order: The standing orders require that if a member wishes to mount an attack or criticise another member, he must do so by way of formal motion. The honourable member for Heathcote is attacking another member of this House and is not doing so by way of substantive motion. I ask that you call him to order and request that he cease his attack.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! As I understand it the honourable member for Heathcote made only a passing reference to the honourable member for Cronulla. If he returns to the substance of his contribution he will be in order.

Mr McMANUS: Certainly. I was responding to interjections. It was quite an exciting time for Government members in Perth. Members of the Opposition, including the honourable member for Cronulla, have continually referred in this House to problems with the transport system—people disembarking from trains at midnight being attacked on the station. There is an opportunity in Sydney, as there is in Perth, to ensure that the attackers are identified and that the police act accordingly. Members of the Opposition are up in arms about my raising an issue of importance in another member's electorate. That is basically because the mayor of Sutherland has had the audacity to try to do something for her community.

Tracie Sonda took it upon herself to ensure that the honourable member for Miranda and I were invited to look at closed-circuit television [CCTV] operating well. As the Minister for Police, Paul Whelan, has indicated, it does work well and it is of benefit. There is no suggestion—contrary to the claim of the honourable member for Cronulla—that CCTV will take the place of police. In Perth the patrol commander had police and council people watching CCTV. He said he could not do without the cameras: they were the eyes and ears of his police. Yet the local member condemns the mayor for trying to do something for her area. She should not be 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14349 condemned; she should be congratulated. It has been alleged that she is part of some conspiracy in the Labor Party. She has never been a member of the Labor Party, and as far as I know she has no intention of joining that party. The honourable member for Cronulla is terrified that she might stand as an Independent against him.

Mr Brogden: Point of order: I took a point of order earlier about the honourable member for Heathcote attacking another member of this House other than by way of substantive motion. I ask again that you remind him that if he wishes to attack another member of this House he should use the appropriate forms.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order, but if interjections from the Opposition were less pointed the honourable member for Heathcote would not stray.

Mr McMANUS: There is a way around this problem. Instead of the council being attacked it should be congratulated on its initiatives. It happened only five minutes ago: Councillor Matt Daniel joined with Government members and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning in a briefing on development in the shire. The honourable member for Cronulla knew the meeting was on but did not bother coming. He had the opportunity a long time ago— [Time expired.]

ORANGE COMMUNICATIONS MOBILE PHONE FACILITIES

Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater) [5.20 p.m.]: On 8 March I referred in a private member's statement to Orange Communications' activities in the Pittwater community. Orange Communications is a division of Hutchison Telecommunications that is progressively rolling out mobile phone facilities throughout Sydney. I refer particularly to its activities on the northern beaches. On 8 March I referred to the construction by Orange of a so-called low-impact mobile phone tower at Bilgola Plateau on top of the Hilltop Deli. Since then, Orange's relations with the community of Pittwater have only got worse. Orange Communications is building a so-called low-impact mobile phone tower above the squash courts at Elanora Heights. In response to the decision by Orange to do so, I recently wrote to Ms Jacqueline Crompton, who is the public affairs officer for Orange, clearly outlining my concerns about the way Orange behaves in the community. I referred in particular to its lack of consultation and its moving quickly to construct the facilities without considering the needs and wishes of the residents.

Late last week I received a response dated 30 May from Mr Barry Roberts-Thomson, who is the chief executive officer of Orange, and I wish to bring to the attention of the House the style and form of the letter. I also need to correct the assertions in the letter. Mr Roberts-Thomson referred to a meeting held in my office between Jacqueline Crompton and one other staff member of Orange and Bob and Sheryl Dyer, who are the tenants of the Bilgola Plateau property, the Hilltop Deli, on which the mobile phone tower is located. Also in attendance was Julia Beckley, who is a neighbour. At the meeting I asked that Orange consider the option of moving the mobile phone tower from the edge of the flat roof of the building to the middle of the roof, predominantly for visual impact reasons. Within a few days Orange replied that that option was not its preference and, in any event, it was not achievable. The letter from Mr Roberts-Thomson states:

I refer to your advice and direction regarding a new facility at Bilgola Plateau, when you directed my staff to relocate the antennas ... Did you consult the adjacent property owners and their tenants before you directed Hutchison to move the antennas ...

I am in no position to instruct Orange to do anything. I asked Orange to do something; I did not instruct, direct or advise it. The tone of the letter just gets worse. It states:

I am especially surprised since we have been advised by another member of the Mobile Carriers' Forum that you had received our letter before going overseas, contrary to the statement you made at Monday's public meeting.

The public meeting that Mr Roberts-Thomson refers to was held on 28 April at Elanora Heights to discuss the facility currently being built. He went on to say:

I am amazed that you can find in any way the opportunity to call this company or any of its staff "duplicitous".

At the beginning of the meeting I rose in front of 100 local residents and asked whether there were any representatives from Orange at the meeting. No-one indicated the presence of a representative from Orange. Yet it is clear that someone was representing that company at the meeting, and that that person reported the proceedings of the meeting to Mr Roberts-Thomson. Frankly, the company is very dishonest in the way it deals with people. It refuses to consult. It builds facilities without first consulting the community. It will not argue the case with the community. Its spies and agents slip in through the back door rather than have the guts to stand up 14350 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 and indicate they are there representing Orange and are willing to listen to the meeting, answer questions and put its view. It is no wonder that mobile phone companies are on the nose at the moment. Orange stands condemned for its arrogance and the way it treats my community. I ask that it cease and desist from these activities.

SHORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOL ASSEMBLY HALL

Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [5.25 p.m.]: On 10 May it was a distinct honour and pleasure for me, representing the Minister for Education and Training, to open the assembly hall at Shortland Public School. The hall was the result of a five-year school community effort, and the school community deserves congratulations on its outstanding work in raising funds for the hall. This is a fine example of what can be done when a school and its community work together to achieve a goal. There could not be a more genuine all-round school and community effort, from its inception to the final exterior painting by the community. All of those involved should be proud of their achievement.

Acting District Superintendent Jan White was present at the opening, as were School Council President Brian Conway, parents and citizens president Dave Fisher, and the Deputy Lord Mayor of Newcastle, Councillor Barbara Gaudry. An honoured guest was Mr Matthew Holt from Architectural Design and Creations. His wife, Amanda, who is the director of the preschool, which is on the grounds of the school, was also there. Matthew Holt donated the design of the school hall. Matthew and Amanda had a child attending the school. Mark Queenan, past president of the school council, is the parent of a child attending the school, and he was a driving force behind the establishment of the hall. Elizabeth Murray, the Principal of the Newcastle School for Children with Autism, which is on the site, was particularly helpful. Dave Hartney from the Department of Education and Training gave valuable advice behind the scenes. Robert Hyland from Hyland Roofing, a parent, gave a lot of advice and in-kind assistance.

Mr Deputy-Speaker, you as the former member for Waratah, deserve acknowledgment for your part in this project. The function of the master of ceremonies was carried out by the student representatives, school captains Elly O'Sullivan and Owen Blake. The hall provides a much-needed resource for a wide variety of educational experiences for the students, and is used daily. The community has been involved in all stages of planning and construction. It has been deeply involved in the fund-raising for the hall, which is greatly valued by all sections of the school community. Planning for the hall commenced in 1996 and as money became available the development proceeded. The funds were raised basically through school resources, including donations by parents. Its total cost was $157,000 in cash and in kind.

The opening of the hall was marked by a tribute to the retiring principal, Mr Iven John Guyer. Iven had been at Shortland Public School for 13½ years and was a driving force behind the construction of the hall. He commenced training as a teacher in 1958 at Newcastle Teachers College, but then went to the bush. He was appointed to North Star Public School, Bolivia Public School, Tenterfield High School, the primary department of the Sir Henry Parkes Memorial School at Tenterfield, then to its infants department, and back to the primary department in May 1980. He was appointed to the Glen Innes Public School for a couple of years, went to Emmaville Central School, and from 1983 to 1987 inclusive he was at Trangie Central School. Finally, Iven Guyer was appointed to Shortland Public School, from which he retired on the day after the hall was opened.

Iven completed a Master of Educational Administration degree in 1989 from the University of New England, with a thesis focusing on aspects of transition in leadership in educational institutions. In his time at Shortland Public School the school and its staff have led the development of curriculum in the cluster of local schools. He co-ordinated Education Week programs, chaired the district literacy committee and carried out many tasks within the district.

Iven always encouraged community participation in school activities. Referring to Iven J. Guyer, the commemoration plaque on the hall states, "To commemorate the significant contribution to the development of Shortland Public School and the education of children throughout his career." I pay tribute to Iven Guyer and congratulate the Shortland school community on its great achievement. The acting principal, Ros Sheetrum, advised me that the school community really enjoyed celebrating the opening of the Iven J. Guyer Hall.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone—Minister for Education and Training) [5.30 p.m.]: The best thing about being the Minister for Education and Training is witnessing, on a daily basis, outstanding work done by outstanding school communities and educational leaders. The Shortland Public School community has worked hard over a long time to achieve its objective of having a school hall. The dedication, commitment, sweat and 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14351 tears that have gone into building this hall and the many toils undertaken over a long time, with the able support of the honourable member for Wallsend as well as Mr Deputy-Speaker, in whose former electorate of Waratah the school is located, should be well and truly emphasised on this occasion.

I pay tribute collectively and individually to all the people involved for their hard work. I take this opportunity to compliment the former principal of Shortland Public School, Iven John Guyer. In many ways Iven sums up the ideal of an educational leader's career. As the honourable member for Wallsend said, Iven graduated from Newcastle Teachers College in 1959. He was appointed to a number of schools in rural New South Wales and showed leadership at each of them, culminating in 13 years at Shortland Public School. I commend his educational leadership at Shortland, particularly in the development of curriculum. In 1989 Iven Guyer graduated with a Master of Educational Administration degree, showing that educational endeavour continues for all time. I had much pleasure in agreeing to the commemoration of the hall in his name. I wish him well in his retirement and I wish the school well for the future.

COWRA ROSE GARDEN VANDALISM

Mr R. W. TURNER (Orange) [5.32 p.m.]: The Cowra Shire Council and every ratepayer and resident of Cowra are very proud of the rose garden in Cowra. It is a major tourist attraction, located outside the visitors' centre on the junction of the Boorowa to Canberra road, towards Forbes and beyond, and the highway towards Young. In fact, all roads lead to that garden on the western side of the bridge over the Lachlan River. However, over the past 20 months or so a tragedy has unfolded there: the roses have been slowly dying.

The council has taken enormous steps in an endeavour to find the cause of the decline in the roses. Not all have died, and those that did were replaced, but unfortunately the replacements also died. Many other rose plants look poorly and have not flowered. Following 18 months of lengthy investigation the Parks and Facilities Committee was informed that the cause of the decline in the roses and three large claret ash trees located at the rose garden was due to deliberate poisoning. The poison used is commonly known as Graslan and has an active constituent of 200 grams per kilogram of tebuthiuron. Dow Agro Sciences has positively identified the chemical in the samples sent to it and has indicated that the symptoms shown by those plants are identical to others exposed to Graslan. Many tests have been carried out on the soil but, as many people would know, only specified tests are carried out. Each poison or chemical is tested individually. Finally, Dow Agro Sciences tested for tebuthiuron. It was estimated that the first application of the poison was applied in about July 2000 and the latest application on April this year. The poison is used for the control of woody weeds but has not been available for sale in New South Wales for five years. It is applied in a granular form and quickly dissolves when mixed with water. Depending on the rate of application, the poison can have a residual life of up to five years. Now that the council has identified the poison it will have to remove the surviving roses and the soil down to a depth of nearly one metre and replace it with uncontaminated soil. The rectification work will cost the council, or ratepayers, $20,000. That act of vandalism has impacted not only on roses and other plants but also on tourism. It has created a risk to children who may visit the area. The pellets used are classified as hazardous and toxic, and pose a major risk to children if swallowed. The person who poisoned the roses also poisoned roses in pots in the main shopping centre. This is of great concern because young children tend to pick up dirt and put it in their mouths. The Parks and Facilities Committee and the police are distressed to know that someone has deliberately destroyed or damaged one of Cowra's most important assets. The damage has also had a detrimental effect on staff morale. The level of damage caused by that vandalism is estimated to cost ratepayers in excess of $60,000 and the matter is in the hands of the Cowra police. Both the Parks and Facilities Committee and the police agree that these findings should be well publicised and a reward offered. The committee and the police recommended that a $20,000 reward be offered for the successful arrest and prosecution of the offender, and the council has adopted that suggestion. The committee has agreed to continue with the refurbishment of the rose garden and the flowerpots, in accordance with the 2001-02 budget. However, until the culprit is convicted the chance of repoisoning remains. Whatever the grudge this person has against people or the council, it is an act of extreme bastardry against the ratepayers of Cowra. KARIONG PUBLIC SCHOOL LIBRARY AND MULTIMEDIA CENTRE Ms ANDREWS (Peats) [5.37 p.m.]: I inform members of the House of an important event that took place in my electorate on 14 May. That date marked the official opening of the state-of-the-art library and 14352 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 multimedia centre at Kariong Public School. Those new facilities marked the completion of stage three of the upgrading works carried out at Kariong Public School. The upgrading works cost $1.493 million and funding consisted of $863,000 or 57.80 per cent funding from the State Government and $630,000 or 42.20 per cent from the Federal Government. The hardworking members of the Kariong Parents and Citizens Association contributed $10,000 towards the project and the school contributed $5,000 towards the establishment of the multimedia centre in the new library.

Since 1999 Kariong Public School has been substantially upgraded, with the completion of extra permanent classrooms and additional car parking facilities, the refurbishing of the administration office and staffroom, the new library, including special programs room, the multimedia centre and additional toilet facilities. It is worth noting that Kariong Public School celebrated its tenth anniversary in 1998. The school opened its doors in 1988 with 79 students in three classes: kindergarten, year 1 and year 2. Needless to say, over the years enrolments have surpassed all expectations. There are now just over 900 students attending Kariong Public School. In fact, the school has one of the largest student enrolments on the entire Central Coast.

The first-class library and multimedia centre will augment and expand students' learning. It will introduce students to leading-edge technology and allow them to access important worldwide resources in a fun and engaging environment. The library is named in memory of the late Lindsay Stibbard, foundation Deputy Principal of Kariong Public School and a recipient of the director-general's award for excellence in service to public education and training. It was fitting that Mr Stibbard's widow, Janet, and their two sons, Timothy and Nicholas, together with Mr Stibbard's father, Ray, were in attendance at the naming of the new library. Mr Stibbard Snr had travelled all the way from the far North Coast of New South Wales for this special and rather moving occasion. Mr Frank Potter, who at the time was relieving in the position of District Superintendent, Department of Education and Training, presented the Department of Education and Training service medal to the Stibbard family.

It was a great pleasure to officially open the new facilities on behalf of the Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. John Aquilina. Kariong Public School is a school of excellence and that was clearly demonstrated by the fine performance on the day of school captains, Lauren Ellis and Nathan Burgio, the vice- captains, India Rose Rex-Weller and Jonathon Bish, as well as all the other students who played a role in the official opening of the new facilities. The school choir entertained the rather large audience with a rendition of well-known Australian songs and is to be congratulated on a fine performance. Special tribute is paid to the Principal of Kariong Public School, Mrs Maureen Gray, and Deputy-Principals, Mr Evan Campbell and Mr John Barwick, executive staff members, the teacher librarians, Mrs Jan Sutton and Mrs Leslie Ferrie, and all other teachers and support staff, headed by the Senior School Assistant, Mrs Daphne James. Their hard work and dedication has made Kariong Public School one of the most respected primary schools on the Central Coast.

The school's teachers and students have always received solid and ongoing support from the Kariong School Council and the Kariong Parents and Citizens Association. Mr Stephen Hawkes, President of the School Council, and Mr Stephen Firth, President of the Parents and Citizens Association were among the official guests on the day. Also on the receiving end of commendations at the official opening were representatives from the Department of Public Works and Services. In a thoughtful gesture a representative of that department presented the school with a lovely wall clock for the new library. The builders, Artel Constructions Pty Ltd, are also to be commended for their fine work carried out at the school over a long period. Of course, it was not easy to carry out that work while children attended the school. The same company also built the New South Wales Fire Brigades building on the Pacific Highway at Kariong.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone—Minister for Education and Training) [5.42 p.m.]: I extend my thanks to the honourable member for Peats for officiating at the opening of the new facilities at Kariong Public School, particularly the opening of the new library and the multimedia centre. Not too long ago I attended Kariong Public School to open stage 1 of the construction program, which was substantial because of the fast growth in enrolments in that district. On that occasion it was a great pleasure for me to visit the school and witness first hand the outstanding education achievements of the school, which is very ably led by the school principal, Mrs Maureen Gray. She is providing not only outstanding education leadership but also social leadership to the local community and the school.

The honourable member for Peats wastes no time in informing me of the needs of her electorate and it was her constant representations that led me to allocate the priority funding that was required to ensure that this fast-growing part of our State received the necessary funding to provide this outstanding facility at Kariong Public School. I extend my congratulations to the school community, the executive, the teachers, staff members, 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14353 students and parents, who so solidly support the school. On this occasion in particular I congratulate the honourable member for Peats on her outstanding dedication to the needs of the school community.

PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI CONFLICT

Mr O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.44 p.m.]: I raise recent events in Israel which are of concern to me and should be of concern to all decent Australians. A month ago I visited Israel for the first time. Without seeking to claim instant expert status, it was a visit which opened my eyes to what was happening in that troubled region. I embarked upon the visit with my own personal baggage: a fifth generation Australian brought up in a secure and peaceful country where democracy has flourished. Those factors are baggage for Australians when we come to view events on the other side of the world.

Thankfully, Australians cannot comprehend the daily pressure and struggle of living in a nation and sharing borders with countries who, at best, grudgingly accept the Israeli presence and, at worst, are committed to ridding them from the region. Australians also bring to our perspective of Middle East events our own democratic ideals and practices. Yet we fail to comprehend that Israel is a democratic island in a totalitarian sea. When Australians hear of talk of Arab presidents we are apt to equate them with United States presidents, who head a genuinely democratic nation. But it is not true.When we read reports of Arab kings I suspect we again think of our own antecedents and imagine a United Kingdom style constitutional monarchy. But that also is not true.

I have no idea what Australians conjure up when they hear of Chairman Arafat, but it should certainly not be a concept of a democratically elected leader. As a politician I think I understand what makes democratic governments tick. As a politician viewing the Middle East I can try to apply my understanding to the way Israeli governments operate, but I cannot comprehend the actions of those Arab leaders and countries involved. If I am an Arab living in Gaza or on the West Bank how do I make my desire for a peaceful settlement with Israel known to my leaders? Where is the free and open political process which allows ordinary citizens, and not vested interests, to express a view? Obviously, they cannot and it is this point, above all, which must remind Australians of the difficulties faced by Israel in attempting to establishing a lasting peace in the Middle East.

Israel is a democracy in the Australian sense, warts and all. It has a free media, it tolerates dissent, and it possesses all those institutions that make up modern, civil and open societies. Governments rise and fall peacefully through the exercise of a vote and not through the barrel of a gun. A month ago this week I was in Tel Aviv staying at the Sheraton Hotel located on the city's beachfront. A short walk away, along its famed boardwalk, is the Dolphi Disco. Last Friday night a so-called suicide bomber joined the line to gain entry to the disco, triggered his device and killed 20 young Israelis. Those killed were as young as 15, many were migrants from countries that make up the former Soviet Union. I cannot begin to imagine the effect this latest atrocity has had on the victims' families and the wider Israeli community. All I know is that my visit to Israel was characterised by what I found to be a surprising optimism in those I met, especially young people, about the prospects of a lasting peace. I do not know how the people I met are feeling today. I pray for their continued safety and I pray that their determination to establish a secure peace is realised. The Tel Aviv outrage is the latest in a series of attacks upon Israeli civilians. Shortly after I left Israel a similar incident occurred at Netanya shopping mall. Hamas and Islamic Jehad are the recognised terrorist groups behind the bombings, yet it is clear that these groups do not operate on their own. They are supported by those regimes that are well known for their practical support of worldwide terrorism, but they also enjoy support from the Palestinian authority. These attacks represent state-backed terrorism. In the face of worldwide revulsion at this latest attack, Yasser Arafat condemned the bombing and called for an end to similar bombings. I note in passing that this is the first such denunciation Mr Arafat has made, despite previous horrific incidents involving loss of life. Yet almost immediately 13 Palestinian factions, including Arafat's own Fatah faction, issued a statement calling for a continuation of the intifada. It is time that Australia took a strong stance against these atrocities. Evil should always be denounced, and the evil of state-sponsored terrorism should be denounced vociferously. My problem with Australia's response to date is that, like other governments, our Government bizarrely seeks to equate the actions of Mr Arafat's regime with those of the democratically elected Government of Israel. The reality is that innocent people are being killed by Arab, not Israeli, suicide bombers. The fact is that those Arabs are backed by Palestinian groups committed to using deadly force to obliterate the State of Israel. The truth is that those groups are, in turn, central to Mr Arafat's regime. It is time that Israel's friends stood up for her. 14354 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

During my visit to Israel I learned, to my shame, of Australia's mid-war history of joining other nations in refusing to open its doors to European Jewry, leaving them to the ultimate horrors of war and the Holocaust. Reading Mark Aarons' book last weekend further shamed me. We must not show indifference at this time: We must support Israel. We should use every opportunity to denounce these atrocities and ensure that Messrs Arafat and co. are ostracised until they return to the negotiating table with goodwill and realisable goals and accept the obvious: the reality of the State of Israel and the need to establish a coexisting, democratic Palestinian homeland. Nothing else should be accepted by Australians, and Australians must demand it of our Government.

WYONG ELECTORATE SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.49 p.m.]: It is my pleasant duty to report to the House on a very productive meeting that was held in the auditorium of Wyong High School on 23 May. About 300 people were at the meeting, which ran from 6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., and it was great to see so many in attendance. I believe this meeting marked the beginning of an important process of making worthwhile improvements to secondary education provision in public schooling on the Central Coast, particularly in the northern part of that region. The school community submitted a proposal regarding a part-selective school at Wyong similar to the Sefton model. The idea is that students currently in the drawing area for Wyong High School would continue to be zoned to the school and that additional places would be filled by students who had sat the selective test. As a result, Wyong High School would become part selective.

There is excess capacity at Wyong High School because at the commencement of the 2000 school year inappropriate boundaries were drawn for the adjoining new high School, Wadalba High School, to which the State Government contributed $15 million in construction costs.. In fact, Wadalba is much closer to the epicentre of what is soon to be the fastest-growing area of New South Wales. It had 181 year 7 enrolments this year while Wyong High School enrolled some 90 students. There has obviously been a mistake. However, the community did not dwell on this problem on 23 May. The meeting was constructive and positive, and full and frank discussions were conducted with good manners. The immediate problem is that, because Wadalba High School commenced operations in 2000 with inappropriate boundaries, the year 9 class of 2002 at Wyong High School will have half the choices available to the year 9 class in 2001. That is obviously causing a great deal of angst in the community, and I share that concern. Because Wadalba is a small school starting with year 7 classes, upon its establishment it received supplementation for the school staffing formula. In light of the problem at Wyong High School, which is no fault of the school, I believe the Government should consider seriously providing additional staff so that adequate subject choice, similar to that offered to the year 9 class in 2001, is available to year 9 students at Wyong High School in 2002. The Minister for Education and Training is in the Chamber and I thank him for his attendance, which was requested at very short notice. The Minister has indicated that he will respond to my comments, although he obviously cannot provide detailed information at this point. Nevertheless I am very pleased that he has found time in his busy schedule to listen to this debate and to consider this matter. On the wider issue of part selectivity, Mr White from the demographic planning section of the Department of Education and Training and Mr Bill Low, the District Superintendent, met me on 30 May for some two hours We discussed a range of options, and the demographic profile for the next 10 years or so was produced. Before we jump at the idea of making Wyong a selective high school, we must realise that such a school could attract students from the North Shore and from the Hunter— places such as Turramurra, Hornsby and Toronto—and other areas outside the Central Coast. We need a demographic study and other information because we must ensure that adequate places exist for local students at local high schools before we make any long-term decisions. Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone—Minister for Education and Training) [5.54 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Wyong for raising this matter and for conveying to the House the outcome of the substantial public meeting held at Wyong High School on 23 May, which was attended by some 300 parents and interested members of the school community. I welcome his comments about the positive start to the process of establishing worthwhile provisions for secondary education in that part of his electorate in particular and on the Central Coast in general. The Government has invested a substantial sum in the construction of Wadalba High School, which is a brand new facility offering outstanding educational opportunities. I had the pleasure of joining the honourable member for Wyong in inspecting the construction of Wadalba High School when I saw for myself the outstanding education innovations that were being introduced at that school.

When a new school is constructed, particularly in a fast-growing area, it is somewhat difficult to work out precisely where the boundaries should go and to predict with some degree of accuracy precisely how those 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14355 boundaries should be determined so as to ensure that both the existing and new schools have adequate student numbers. In this case we may need to adjust the boundaries from time to time as growth continues in the area. I give the honourable member for Wyong an undertaking that we will continue to monitor the situation closely. I look forward to seeing the analysis and details that will be provided by the district superintendent and other education officials in that area and to making appropriate decisions in the near future.

QUEANBEYAN PRESCHOOL SERVICES

Mr WEBB (Monaro) [5.56 p.m.]: I found the comments by the Minister for Education and Training most interesting. Like many others in New South Wales, I believe that educating our young people is our most important task. That is why I asked a question today about the demountable replacement program for classrooms. Some Monaro schools will benefit from this program, and I thank the Government for that. However, while it is a step in the right direction, I ask how long other Monaro parents and their children must wait during long, cold winters for their demountable classrooms to be replaced?

I want to speak about the other important part of preschool education: the number of places available in Queanbeyan. For our commitment to education to succeed, we must have sufficient preschool places to accommodate demand. Similarly, preschool education should be linked to general education, with funding through the Department of Education and Training. On behalf of the people of Queanbeyan, I wrote to the Minister for Community Services in July last year. I told the Minister that I was concerned that the three locations in Queanbeyan—Harris Park, Waratah and Karabah—that were operated by the Queanbeyan and District Preschool Association had limited vacancies and that children aged four years and over who currently attend preschool are limited to as little as 1½ days per week. I further stated:

In addition there is concern at the increasing cost of pre-school education. The available 1½ days per week fees currently amount to approximately $1,000 per annum, while 15 kms away in the ACT, pre-school education is readily available at the nominal voluntarily contribution of $100 per annum for up to 3 full days per week.

The New South Wales Government must address that major anomaly. I further stated:

My constituents seek your comments and advice on the Government's plans for expansion of services in Queanbeyan, and also why pre-school education in NSW is not a part of the education portfolio similar to other States and Territories.

In reply, Minister Amery, acting for the Minister for Community Services in her absence, said:

Indicators suggest, however, that the Queanbeyan area could be a priority for expansion in the provision of early childhood places if additional monies were unavailable for this purpose.

The Minister referred to the universal year of preschool being taken into account, as occurs in other jurisdictions, and including it in the general education field. He also said:

Unfortunately, in 1975 the incoming Commonwealth Government began to dismantle the pre-school commitment by significantly reducing the funding budget.

Again, these multilayers of government hinder the vitally important process of education of our young people. Unfortunately, petitions received were inadvertently forwarded to the wrong Minister, which may have caused a delay in the funding process for this year. I want to mention, in particular, Michelle Kolas, who has been very much involved in circulating letters. I have received responses too numerous to mention. Letters are rolling into my office at the rate of eight to ten per day. These people have signed the petition and are now calling on the Government to provide a new preschool with adequate places in the Queanbeyan area.

I also wish to mention the dedicated and caring committee of the Queanbeyan and District Preschool Association. Janine White, Director of Queanbeyan preschools, has worked tirelessly to provide an education system under the preschool curriculum. These people are genuinely upset that their children will not have the opportunity to go to preschool. Some of the children will go to play group, but that does not have the same level of expertise in curriculum that they would encounter in preschool, with the associated socialisation and pre- learning that is vital to young people today. I have asked the Minister on several occasions for responses to this issue. I would like to know of the 109 places currently funded by the New South Wales Government, how much of the $286,000 goes to the preschool organisations and how much goes to the long day care centre. It is important with Queanbeyan's growth rate, which has been acknowledged at over 2 per cent, that the approximately 600 new people per annum in the area have some hope that they can place their children in 14356 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 preschool care. Without funding increases, there is no hope at the moment. The current growth strategy demonstrates that. The Queanbeyan area could be a priority for expansion in the provision of early childhood places. I respectfully suggest that Queanbeyan has waited long enough for funding. I look forward to a positive response to the petitioners from the Government.

SHOALHAVEN RIVERFEST

Mr W. D. SMITH (South Coast) [6.01 p.m.]: Tonight I inform the House about the inaugural Riverfest held in Nowra in April, which demonstrated that Shoalhaven River can be a true showcase as a focus for community participation and enhanced tourist interest. The idea to showcase the Shoalhaven River in a festival grew from suggestions raised at community workshops held in March 2000. Thanks to the dedication of members of the Shoalhaven community, the project became the first major event for the Nowra Now strategy, which was developed by the Nowra Area Development Board, which is chaired by Mr Phil Hurst, in conjunction with the Rotary Club of South Nowra and funded by the Department of State and Regional Development. It was also the first time the river has been the central focus for celebration and attention.

Shoalhaven Riverfest was a nine-day spectacle of events beginning with a launch of a gallery exhibition of artworks featuring Shoalhaven River landscapes by local and visiting artists, including a priceless Arthur Boyd landscape. That exhibition was hosted at Nowra Galleries by Dr George Ivanov, who is keen to promote art in the South Coast region and has regular exhibitions in his gallery. During the nine days the festival featured some of the most fabulous exhibitions relating to the Shoalhaven River and the region. The formal launch for Riverfest, which was held at the Nowra School of Arts on Friday 20 April, featured the opening of art exhibitions and a photographic display. The exhibitions showcased works by South Coast artists—"Images of the Shoalhaven River in Flood" and "Celebrating a River Town"—which were both presented by the Shoalhaven Historical Society. The photographic display was co-ordinated by the Nowra Neighbourhood Preservation Group and featured typical residential architecture and streetscapes of the past 100 years.

The South Coast Register and the Shoalhaven and Nowra News also presented a display of news stories from the past. The Shoalhaven River has a history of flooding and many of the most severe floods were featured in striking photographs. The Spinners and Weavers groups also presented an exhibition of works which depicted changes in their craft over the past 100 years and showed that spinning and weaving are still popular among regional communities. We were highly privileged to have the Amazing Travelling Sound and Film Show spend a week at the Nowra School of Arts. This show, which depicted the evolution of media over the past 100 years, was one of the highlights of the festival.

Riverfest ended with an early morning breakfast at the rowing club on the river, followed by the Shoalhaven Head of the River and a number of other boat races—some serious, some just for fun. On the final Sunday on the north bank of the river, Shoalhaven District Memorial Hospital also held a fun fair, with various displays and stalls. The entire festival was a huge success for the region, as well as for all those involved. I am pleased to say that at least 7,500 people attended on the final day and at least $12,000 was raised for Shoalhaven hospital, with pledges still coming in. A survey of local businesses, conducted by the Nowra Area Development Board, indicated an overwhelming increase in business during the week of the festival. The ferry service made 39 trips, carrying 1,000 people on the river between venues. The ferry was a terrific alternative to driving and the frustration of trying to find car parking near to the events.

I wish to thank a number of people concerned with the festival. Riverfest was proudly sponsored by EWST-Australia, Wray Owen Pty Ltd, Hyden Lake Pty Ltd and Shoalhaven (Tomerong) Quarries, with the Department of State and Regional Development and the National Trust. The festival was part of the Nowra Now project, a strategic plan for Nowra's future development and promotion, which was devised by members of the local community under the auspices of the Nowra Area Development Board and assisted by the Department of State and Regional Development. I wish to make special mention of Julia Guy, Nowra Now co-ordinator. Miss Guy did a terrific job co-ordinating, hosting, liaising and working with the various organisations that supported the festival. She had excellent assistance from publicity person Grant Lee.

The Department of State and Regional Development has worked exceptionally well with the Nowra Area Development Board. I am very pleased that the New South Wales Government has provided such valuable assistance to this local project: Well done, client manager Michael Jerks. The Nowra Chamber of Commerce also deserves credit for being a firm believer and supporter in the project evolving through Nowra Now. I thank all those who participated in the festival, especially the countless volunteers. I thank the Minister for Regional Development for the initiatives introduced to the South Coast region. The next event for Nowra Now, which 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14357 will focus on young people, will be held in November. I have been told on good authority that we can expect another series of challenging events. I am very pleased that our local young people will have our undivided attention.

Ms NORI (Port Jackson—Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism) [6.06 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member on his enthusiasm. It pleases me so much to see a local member of Parliament who understands the value of tourism. Even more importantly, he represents a community that understands the value of tourism. I congratulate his community on the festival. It pleases me to hear that the festival ran for nine days. Believe it or not, people will travel from major metropolitan centres to see artistic works, particularly by artists of the calibre of Arthur Boyd. I note that the honourable member for Northern Tablelands is in the Chamber. He will recall the opening, not so long ago, of the Tom Roberts Festival. People travelled from Sydney to see works of art by Tom Roberts and to celebrate that great artist. I congratulate the honourable member on his support. I ask him to convey my congratulations to the local community on their initiative. It is a great way to diversify their economy.

KELLYVILLE AND SAMUEL GILBERT PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [6.08 p.m.]: Tonight I want to give the Government an opportunity to support and promote public education, an opportunity I hope it will grasp with both hands. I have been approached by Steve Redfern of the parents and citizens association of Samuel Gilbert Public School, Castle Hill, about an issue raised recently on ABC radio with the Minister for Education and Training by a member of the school community, a Ms Jane Ross. Samuel Gilbert was built in the mid 1980s with permanent accommodation for about 500 students. However, its numbers rose rapidly to almost 800, where they have stayed for most of the eight years I have represented The Hills in this place. The school has some of the finest facilities of any primary school in the State, not just because it is comparatively new but because of the extraordinary effort by the very dedicated parents and citizens group, which raises between $65,000 and $70,000 a year towards improved facilities.

The parents and citizens association also funds things such as remedial reading, which ought to be the responsibility of the Government. However, since the school was built the surrounding population has aged and, consequently, the number of students at the school has fallen to below 700. Last year 125 students graduated from year 6, but only 70 enrolled in kindergarten. I understand from the principal, Dr Barry Schwarzer, that the pattern will be repeated this year. A falling school population means that benefits, such as general assistant days, are progressively taken away as enrolment numbers fall below certain thresholds, even though often the amount of work remains constant. In the case of Samuel Gilbert the fall in numbers will also mean that Dr Schwarzer will be lost to the school at the end of this year.

Demountable buildings are being dismantled and moved from the school at a substantial cost to the taxpayer. There is a solution to the problem, which is a win-win from all aspects. Although the area immediately surrounding Samuel Gilbert is not now growing—few new home sites are within its boundaries—just west of the school across Cattai Creek is one of the biggest growth areas in Australia, the north-west sector. Cattai Creek is also the boundary between the educational districts, Hornsby to the east and Parramatta to the west. What is known as the Kings Road area—that is the area bounded by Wrights Road, Cattai Creek and Victoria Road—despite being classified as part of Castle Hill is in the Parramatta district. Children living in the area are required to go to Kellyville Public School along Windsor Road

Kellyville is a very fine school, which has achieved great things under the long-term principalship of Alan Parker who retired at the end of last year. It has one of the pre-eminent bands in New South Wales, a consistent eisteddfod winner, which is always a pleasure to listen to. Kellyville's biggest problem is physical. The school site is too small for its current population. The new Beaumont Hills Public School, which was opened at the beginning of this year, has helped to reduce student numbers from 670 and the end of last year to 600 at the beginning of this year. However, I understand that the phenomenal rate of growth means that numbers will be back up to 670 by the end of 2001. The school site is only big enough for 450 to 500 students. One can imagine that with 670 students on the site, the children do not have room to move or play.

The obvious solution is to change the boundaries of both Kellyville and Samuel Gilbert schools so that the Kings Road area in Castle Hill becomes part of the Samuel Gilbert catchment. Alternatively, residents of the Kings Road area might be given a choice between sending their children to Kellyville or Samuel Gilbert. I understand that currently Samuel Gilbert has to turn away between 50 and 60 children a year. I have received a number of letters and phone calls from parents who wanted to send their children to Samuel Gilbert, mainly 14358 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 because of overcrowding at Kellyville. Unfortunately, I have been unable to assist them because Samuel Gilbert does not accept out-of-area enrolments from the Kings Road area. Many parents of children who are turned away choose to send their children to private schools—there are quite a substantial number in The Hills, such as Our Lady of the Rosary at Kellyville—thus further increasing the drift away from the government sector.

Both Kellyville and Samuel Gilbert schools will win from this decision, as will public education in my electorate. The taxpayer will also be a beneficiary, as demountables will not have to be relocated, and the government will maximise the use of resources in the area. The Parramatta and Hornsby district superintendents are discussing this matter. Last week I spoke with Mr Denis Osborne, the Hornsby District Superintendent, about it. He believes that a solution is certainly possible. My understanding is that the Parramatta district is not opposed to this proposal. It has merit on both sides. I ask the Minister to do whatever he can to expedite the change of boundaries.

EMMAVILLE COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS

Mr TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [6.13 p.m.]: I support the never-say-die community of Emmaville in my electorate. Much has been made of the atmosphere in Sydney during last year's Olympic Games when volunteers in their thousands converged on the city and made it a much nicer place to be. I can assure the House that that community spirit, which created such euphoria at the time, is alive and well in country towns and villages throughout the State not only for special occasions but for every week of the year. It is the spirit that has sustained country communities for generations through good times and hard times. It has made them resilient.

It is also the spirit that has been wounded by the mean and tricky policies of economic rationalists who are removing the basic services from country people without factoring in how much they contribute and how hard they work to retain and build on their services and facilities. For example, I direct the attention of honourable members to the village of Emmaville in my electorate. It has a close-knit community of around 470 who live in town and some scores of others who live on surrounding properties. Last year the Emmaville fete, organised by the hospital auxiliary—I am delighted to be able to say I was there—raised $16,000 for equipment for its local Vegetable Creek Hospital. It is a far greater amount than is raised in many larger communities, and it is a matter of pride for Emmaville.

President of the hospital auxiliary, Ellie Seagrave, should be nominated as volunteer of the year. She has played the church organ for 38 years; she was the school's parents and citizens president for 21 years; she has worked for meals on wheels since 1984; and she has been president of the hospital auxiliary for the past five years. She calls on 35 to 36 local volunteers to help organise the fete with its cake, sweets, craft, plant and white elephant stalls; the chocolate wheel; the raffles and lucky envelopes; the morning and afternoon teas, and the two barbecues. Rotary donated $400, Lions donated $250, a commercial outlet donated $400, and a Melbourne Cup Calcutta also contributed to the total.

But if honourable members think that the good people of Emmaville rest on their laurels after that effort they are quite wrong. Johnny O'Brien, president of the golf club, makes the course available on Saturdays for Ambrose events to raise funds for local causes. Barry Riley of the Club Hotel is organising a hangi to raise funds, and Robert Shields of the Tatts Hotel is holding a charity auction. Donna Davis, the parents and citizens president, and her group contribute to catering for group events and raffles in the hotels to raise funds for the school. Each year Rothschild Road in Emmaville is cleared for the sheep race, the income from which supports the town's museum. Approximately 100 sheep are entered into the one-kilometre race. Each wears a coat with a number, and the local people pay $5 a head to enter. First prize is $100. The sheep charge down the street, chased by sheep dogs. Last year was a bit of a spine tingler because none of them wanted to cross the finish line. On the same day the school organises a triathlon and barbecue lunch, with another barbecue at night to raise more funds. This is in addition to the barbecue that raised $350 for the Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service and the $3,000 raised for the same service through a darts day at the Club Hotel, and a golf day organised by the hospital auxiliary, the school, the golf club and the local branch of the Australian Old Bastards Club. The President of the Museum Association, Ronny Jillet, also runs the Sport and Recreation Club, which raises money to buy fingerlings to restock the local rivers for fishing. Clark Say, president of the swimming club, runs a mini numbers competition, which has raised $10,000 for the club. A proud boast of the Cemetery Committee, headed by Dot Woods, is that Emmaville has the best kept cemetery in any country area in the State. Volunteers regularly mow it, weed it and carry out repairs. Dot's husband, John, built the crematorium wall at no cost after the local council donated the materials. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14359

Then there are the Mothers Day and Fathers Day cake drives, the volunteers who raise funds to support the Tin Town Tinies preschool, and the Christmas Eve carnival, from which seven organisations raised $200 each last year. A church group of volunteers runs Monday School to give religious instruction each week. This profile, this slice of life, this township of volunteers aged to 84 years, adds up to the real identity of country communities. I believe that Emmaville and the hundreds of other small villages like it deserve the services they receive from government, and more, because they are prepared to play their part to meet their obligations so generously. In this is the Year of the Volunteer let us remember and include small country villages and the unknown thousands of country people who lend a hand because they believe it is the right thing to do. It is up to all governments to recognise their contribution and to do the right thing by them in return.

Ms NORI (Port Jackson—Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism) [6.18 p.m.]: I commend the honourable member for having taken the time and effort to highlight the contribution of the citizens of Emmaville to their local hospital, and for bringing to the attention of the House the extraordinary achievement by 470 people in raising $16,000. That is a record all honourable members would envy. I congratulate Ellie Seagrave on her voluntary work in her local community and in her latest role as president of the hospital auxiliary. The honourable member has quite rightly identified that volunteers are the backbone of so many of our communities, but I imagine especially so in rural and regional New South Wales where alternatives are so scarce.

I am not sure when I will be next in the electorate of Northern Tablelands, but probably in the not too far distant future. If time permits during my next official visit to the area I would like to meet Ellie Seagrave and all the others at Emmaville. It is obviously an incredible community. Well done! The honourable member is fortunate in having such a great community in his Northern Tablelands electorate.

CLOSED-CIRCUIT SECURITY CAMERAS

Personal Explanation

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [6.20 p.m.]: I wish to make a personal explanation to the House. I was subjected to a personal attack by the member for Heathcote in relation to a speech I made in this Chamber on 29 May. The nature of the attack was that I objected to the placement of cameras in Cronulla and that my speech obtained objections to that. I wish to explain to the House that at no time during that speech did I make an objection. In fact, what I said was that personal safety and the security of property are the responsibility of the State Government not the ratepayers of Sutherland Shire. Security cameras are no substitute for a strong physical police presence. I went on to refer to a note that I had received from the Cronulla Parents and Citizens Association, which stated:

The best way to improve security is to have an increase in police presence. Cameras were thought of as a good idea but the question was raised: "Can a camera come to your aid if you need help then and there?" If the police presence were to be increased, police could be close by to assist in a situation. A camera will only record the event.

By way of explanation to the House in relation to the attack upon me, it is clear that I did not raise an objection but sought to put the matter in context. I am sorry that the honourable member for Heathcote is not in the House, but I understand he was having drinks with the Mayor of Sutherland and is presently having dinner with her in the dining room.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.24 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (EXISTING LIFE SENTENCES) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 30 May. Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove—Leader of the Opposition) [7.30 p.m.]: In recent times the possible release of convicted murderer Allan Baker into the community has caused anger and revulsion throughout our State. Baker's application for a redetermination of his sentence focused the attention of the community on a class of prisoners whose crimes were so horrendous that they should never be allowed out of gaol but who because, to use the Premier's words, "of a quirk in the legislation" will have an opportunity to apply for release. Much of the community's sympathy has been focussed on the Morse family, and particularly Brian Morse, husband of Virginia, who was so brutally assaulted and murdered by Baker and his accomplice, Crump. 14360 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

As the Premier would no doubt concur, Brian Morse is a gentle and honourable man who, along with his family, has suffered enormously since 1973. To put it simply and concisely, Mr Morse has been seeking justice for Virginia and for his family. Given all that he has gone through, this is not a large request, and one that every member of this House should support. That is why I and members of the Coalition have fought so hard to bring legislation into this House seeking that justice. My motivation all along has been to give Brian Morse, his family and the families of other victims all the support, publicly and privately, that I could offer. It is with these thoughts clear in my mind that I rise to speak today.

This bill before the House is not just about the brutal murder of Virginia Morse, but rather it is meant to be for all the victims of those criminals who have been sentenced "Never to be released". That includes the families and friends of Anita Cobby and Janine Balding. It means that those people who have been involved with these horrendous criminals over so many years can finally have some peace. My concern is that the bill will not provide that peace. Having said that, I knowledge that already Crump has had his sentence redetermined and the bill will provide some assurance that he will not be released. For that reason the Opposition will not oppose the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill. However, we will seek to improve the bill by introducing amendments. We do so with the intention of seeking bipartisan support for an issue that should be addressed in a bipartisan way.

This bill removes the ability of the Supreme Court to set a fixed period of sentence for a non-release offender, replacing it instead with possible parole. The Parole Board can then grant parole if the offender is in imminent danger of dying or is incapacitated, has demonstrated that he does not pose a risk to the community, and that parole is justified. This bill, with the proposed Opposition amendments, would have been unnecessary had the Government supported the Coalition's Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentence Confirmation) Bill. Last year I introduced that bill simply to confirm the life terms that these criminals were sentenced to at the time of their conviction. These criminals were sentenced "Never to be released", and that is exactly what should occur.

Yet Mr Carr and his Government refused to debate this bill on at least 10 separate occasions. They said that they had legal opinion that what we were proposing was not legal and that there were constitutional concerns involved. The legal opinion to which the Premier and others continued to refer stating that there were constitutional problems has never been released to the House. It has never been released to the public. By contrast, we have received legal opinion stating that what the Government was asserting was simply incorrect. The Opposition sought and obtained legal advice from senior counsel which stated:

Since Parliament has provided those prisoners with a process which enabled them to have their sentences determined by being shortened from that originally imposed, if appropriate, there is no reason in principle why Parliament cannot remove (or substantially amend or alter) that process either with respect to all remaining prisoners in such a position, or with respect to a particular prisoner …

In addition, the advice stated:

It is within the power of the New South Wales Parliament to pass a valid Act which would have either a direct or indirect effect on the ability of Mr Baker to continue with his application for redetermination of his life sentence.

There was clear legal advice that the bill the Opposition proposed to have the House debate could be debated at the time, could be passed and would have the effect of ensuring that Allan Baker was not going to have a redetermination of his case. However, time and again the Government ignored our calls for the matter to be debated. The Government ignored the opportunity to support the Opposition's legislation, and thereby protect the community and the dignity and rights of the families and friends of the victims. Instead, the Government has introduced this bill.

Fundamentally, this bill has one major problem: It fails to ensure that those who, due to the heinous nature of their crimes, were sentenced "Never to be released" are never given the opportunity to seek that release. If this bill is passed in its present form Baker would be able to apply every three years for a redetermination of his sentence. Every three years he can come back before the Supreme Court and ask for that sentence to be redetermined. This means that the families and friends of victims of those who were "Never to be released" may be forced to endure redetermination hearings for the rest of their lives, once the murderers have served 30 years of their sentence, which is the provision imposed by this bill. All the hurt, pain and suffering could be once again brought to the surface for the families and friends of victims. Last year Mr Morse said:

Twenty seven years ago when the trial was over I felt secure. They were convicted for life and we could go on with our lives as best we could. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14361

Now Mr Morse and others like him may continue to be forced to endure, potentially, every three years the redetermination hearing and the associated pain—and the publicity and media attention that go along with them. And if the redetermination is successful, these people may be forced to endure parole hearings after parole hearings after parole hearings. Be under no illusion, the criminals we are talking about will apply time and time again. These men have the time and they will have the energy to keep applying for redetermination and then for parole. To pretend otherwise is to delude ourselves. Surely, the families of the victims have suffered enough.

As I foreshadowed earlier in my speech, the Coalition will seek to amend the bill in Committee. We will seek to include the provisions of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentences Confirmation) Bill. Our amendments will deny those killers whose files have been marked "Never to be released" the opportunity to seek a redetermination of their sentence in the Supreme Court. As I said in a previous debate in this House:

We believe there are some crimes so horrific that penalties should not be re-evaluated at a later date. There is no need for a further consideration at a later date—a consideration tempered by a range of extraneous issues and arguments, including claims of personal reformation.

That could be no truer of the Morse murder, the Anita Cobby murder, or the other victims of those criminals. I appeal to the Premier to adopt a bipartisan approach. I appeal to him to finally do what he said would be done in 1997, following the successful redetermination of Crump's sentence. The Premier promised to introduce laws that would, according to the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 May 1997, ensure that the murderers were never granted parole. The Premier also stated that the legislation would ensure that Kevin Crump will never be released.

The legislation that was introduced by the Government in 1997 did not fulfil the Premier's promise. Those murderers were still eligible for parole, and eventual freedom. This legislation, unamended, will still not achieve the Premier's promise. With the Opposition's amendments, he will finally have the chance to fulfil his promise. I urge the Premier, the Government and the House to fulfil the promise by the Premier to the people who have been involved in these horrendous crimes for so many years.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [7.40 p.m.]: This bill seeks to cure a mischief that could have been resolved quite some time ago. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the stated goal and purpose of the bill is exactly what she sought to achieve last year. If her bill had been accepted, much of the anguish, emotional pain and hurt to victims and their families, and the community's lack of confidence in the judicial system, could have been mitigated. But it was not accepted. A lot of technical counterattacks were launched against the Opposition's bill, particularly that the Opposition's bill could be challenged in the High Court. What is the difference with this bill? Mr R. H. L. Smith: They were forced into it. Mr KERR: Yes, as the Opposition Whip said, they were forced into it. The Government was forced into it by public opinion and by knowing that, if not resolved, this matter would continue to be a running sore at the next State election. That is what this is all about: There is to be a State election in two year's time and the Government is seeking to put this legislation to bed. The Government was quite happy to allow the hurt and emotional pain to continue, and if the Opposition had not raised this issue the amended legislation would never have been introduced. Baker and Crump should have been gaoled for life, as was the intention of the trial judges. In each case the trial judge made his determination, having heard the evidence and listened to both the Crown and defence cases, when the matters were fresh in his mind. They were Supreme Court judges with a wealth of experience in criminal cases and they determined that those offenders should never be released. And why should they never be released? Because the crimes they committed forfeited their right to re-entry into society. Ultimately the people and the State have need of the protection that will be afforded by this legislation. We are not dealing with mandatory sentences imposed quite arbitrarily according to the system at that time. We are dealing with judicial determinations that certain persons should not be released because their crimes were so heinous they deserve to remain in gaol for life. In fact, they did not simply murder their victims; they murdered them in circumstances that were so horrendous, so lacking in any spark of human decency, that they could be distinguished from other murders. Most murders are committed within a family and often there are mitigating factors. While not condoning the murder, there is at least some explanation, some pretext, for the action. In this case, that is not so. 14362 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

What Crump and Baker did to Mrs Morse was not in response to some provocation or some perceived injustice, slight or insult. What was done was calculated cruelty on a grand scale that was simply a denial of the humanity of the perpetrators of that heinous crime. What was the community's response? The community's response was to collectively breathe a sigh of relief. I am sure we all remember the publicity that surrounded the murders. Public reaction was to call for a verdict of guilty and for the judge to direct that the offenders should never be released, that they die in gaol. The community felt safe that the offenders would not be out on the streets, and that their heinous crime had been visited by the most appropriate punishment available to the State.

However, there followed the possibility of a release because memories fade. The initial horror and revulsion was emotional but soundly based. I emphasise that the basis of the public reaction was not unthinking and emotional but was soundly based because of the circumstances of the crime and the actions of the perpetrators. Yet, memories fade and the system provided for the potential release of the offenders. It is important that we have a system of justice that ensures that justice is done, that in fact there is truth in sentencing. When a judge says that a person should not be released, that is exactly what the community expects to happen.

Mr Debus: The truth is that, although the community would like it, that is not what it used to mean.

Mr KERR: It is not what it used to mean at all.

Mr Debus: Exactly.

Mr KERR: But it is what the community and the judge would have liked it to be.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! The Minister and the honourable member for Cronulla will cease discussion across the table and address their remarks through the Chair.

Mr KERR: I was responding to an interjection.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Yes, and I have admonished the Minister as well as the honourable member for Cronulla.

Mr KERR: The argument that that is not what happened is an argument against that system. When a judicial officer makes a direction, people expect that it will be followed. It is meaningless to say that people are to be imprisoned for life if some 15 years later they are released. If we are to have a justice system, it has to meet community expectations. If it fails to do that, eventually it will fail to have community support, because it becomes a farce in the same way that if laws are not enforced they cease to have meaning. Our system does not end at the point of arrest. The accused is either acquitted or found guilty and sentenced—and that sentence has to have meaning.

When a sentence is imposed, its conditions should be reflected in what actually happens. The Attorney General was right when he said that does not always happen because in such cases the law allows the prisoner to seek a review before the Supreme Court decades later, when the reviewing judge does not have the advantage of seeing the witnesses or the full import of the case. The Government is belatedly acting in response to what the Opposition said it should have done some time ago. Honourable members should look at the Premier's responses to the Opposition's legislation.

Can the Attorney General guarantee the House that the provisions of this bill cannot be appealed against in the High Court—because that was the argument put forward by the Government? What has changed? The legislation could be challenged in the High Court. Does the legislation address the constitutional vulnerabilities that were asserted to be present in the legislation introduced by the Leader of the Opposition? How does the Government justify the pain and hurt visited upon the family and friends of victims? This matter is being dealt with belatedly. There is an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. This Government was armed with all the facts, yet it allowed an injustice to occur over a long period. It cannot claim ignorance, because the victims and public were prepared to speak out on this matter. Even if the bill passes through both Houses of Parliament, justice will still have been denied because on this occasion justice has been delayed and the system has failed. The failings were obvious, yet they were not dealt with. When it comes to our system of justice the people of New South Wales are entitled to a have a government that does not simply act on expediency. This matter transcends partisanship. We should all be 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14363 committed to justice and to ensuring that when courts impose a sentence and the sentence is not interfered with on appeal, the terms of the sentence should have their full meaning and should be implemented truthfully. The people of New South Wales deserve nothing less. Mr COLLIER (Miranda) [7.53 p.m.]: In 1989 the Coalition Government introduced truth in sentencing legislation, whereby minimum and additional terms were set for prisoners. As it turned out, those already sentenced to terms of life imprisonment had their sentences redetermined into minimum and additional terms. My recollection from working with the Director of Public Prosecutions and being involved in these matters as a solicitor in the Court of Criminal Appeal is that the average was 13 years. The flaw in the legislation was the category of prisoners who were not sentenced to life imprisonment but whose files were marked "Never to be released." Since then the sentencing legislation has been amended so that "life" means "life", as happened in the case of Ivan Milat, who murdered seven backpackers; Glover, who murdered six elderly women; and Garforth, who murdered Ebony Simpson. These men were sentenced to life imprisonment, and "life" now means "life" But there are those men whose files were marked "Never to be released." and it is quite clear that the sentencing judge intended that they should remain in gaol for the rest of their lives because of the crimes they committed. I refer also to the cases of Anita Cobby, Janine Balding and Virginia Morse, and I note that Mr Morse is in the gallery. When sentencing Baker and Crump, Justice Taylor said:

For sheer cruelty, for callous indifference to suffering, for a complete disregard of humanity, for the complete absence of a spark of human decency, what you have done to this woman and to her children and to her husband is without parallel in my experience, and I have sat here many times over the years.

You have outraged all accepted standards of the behaviour of men. The description of "men" ill-becomes you. You would be more aptly described as animals, and obscene animals at that. I appreciate how painful it must be for Mr Morse to hear those words again. Baker and Crump, the killers of Anita Cobby and Janine Balding, should never be released and "life" should mean "life". Of course, there is opportunity to apply for a minimum and additional term but under this legislation these men will remain in gaol for life. The Parole Board could consider their release only if they are dying or are so incapacitated as not to pose a risk to the community. It is important to consider the proposals of the Opposition. The Hon. John Hannaford made an important point during debate on the Opposition bill in the Legislative Council on 31 August 2000 when he said, in relation to his own 1993 legislation amending the redetermination process, that sometimes legislation does not work in the way it was intended. This has been the case because the legislation did not pick up those whose files were marked "Never to be released." No government has previously sought to impose a legislative life sentence upon prisoners whose files were so marked. Instead, they have sought to tighten the requirements for a redetermination of their sentences, and the model proposed by the Opposition takes a dramatic and somewhat flawed new direction. This Government has learned from the failed Kable legislation and is aware of the need to make laws within boundaries. The point of distinction with the Opposition proposal is that the Government is following as closely as possible the original scheme under which "Never to be released" prisoners were sentenced. Of course, it would be foolish not to acknowledge that there could possibly be a challenge to this legislation in the High Court. The honourable member for Cronulla suggested that perhaps the Government should guarantee that this legislation is immune from dispute in the High Court. He is a qualified lawyer and he well knows that no legislation is immune from dispute in the High Court. No government could guarantee that. However, the Government has taken legal advice from the Solicitor General and is of the view that it is likely that this legislation will be upheld in the High Court. The difficulty with the advice is that there is no High Court authority directly on the point of what a court might do if the Parliament should choose to effectively resentence a prisoner to life imprisonment without any prospect of release. Of course, the High Court makes the ultimate laws that bind every court and human being in this land. Of course, the imposition of sentences for criminal conduct rests appropriately with the courts and it is difficult to imagine that the High Court would not entertain a challenge to a legislation that seeks for the first time to resentence the small number of life-sentence prisoners to life without any real prospect of release. The legal position is still at the level of abstract principle because no case directly on this point has been to the High Court. However, the Government has been advised by the Solicitor General that the bill is sound and will withstand challenge. This bill seeks to impose life sentences on those whose files have been marked "Never to be released." They will be real life sentences, because such prisoners will be released only if they pose no threat to the community or if they are dying. I support the bill. 14364 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [8.00 p.m.]: The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill does not do the job fully. It does not meet the expectations of the broader community, which is looking to the Government to provide a level of justice commensurate with the degree of revulsion generated by horrendous crimes. The community also looks to government to protect it and the individual from the release of our worst criminals back onto the streets although their sentences clearly state that they should be gaoled for life. When a criminal is sentenced to life imprisonment, it should mean life. When a criminal's file is marked "Never to be released." that criminal should die in jail. Governments owe that to the public and, specifically, to the many people—particularly women—who live in isolated circumstances in rural New South Wales. The Baker-Crump atrocities committed against Virginia Morse when she was alone on a rural property shocked and reviled all Australians in 1973. The fact that Baker recently had his application for a redetermination of his sentence rejected in the Supreme Court provided some comfort to Virginia Morse's husband, Brian, and his family. The knowledge that Baker was not about to be released into society gave the public confidence that the law firmly supported society's decisions. However, the current law does not preclude Baker from seeking redetermination of his sentence at a future date—and again and again. That applies also to other lifers who are serving sentences for horrific crimes against society. The families of the victims of depraved crimes can never really feel secure that the perpetrators will stay in gaol: They live in fear of repeat crimes, afraid that the system that allows redetermination of life sentences will put society at risk. The Opposition is seeking to tighten this legislation so that the redetermination loophole can be closed forever in the case of those who are meant to die in gaol. I want rural families to feel secure and to take some comfort in the knowledge that those who prey on lone and unprotected rural women will be removed from society and not given a second chance. Those who have not experienced such tragedy cannot know the devastation and misery visited upon Brian Morse and his family and upon others who have had to endure the after-effects of loathsome crimes perpetrated against their loved ones. Mr Morse—this gentle man—is one of the most frequent and well-known visitors to Parliament. I urge the Government to take the final step with this legislation: accept the Coalition's amendments and admit that the Coalition got it right with the proposed Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentence Confirmation) Bill, which the Government repeatedly refused to debate. We must close the escape hatch on those who claim remorse, and ensure that they serve out their sentences and receive the same level of clemency and mercy they showed to their victims. Ms SALIBA (Illawarra) [8.03 p.m.]: I support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill. In doing so, I remind Opposition members that in 1989 the Coalition Government introduced legislation that provided for the redetermination of life sentences. Those opposite call this legislation inadequate but, if that Coalition legislation had never been enacted, there would be no grounds for redetermining sentences. These criminals—as far as I am concerned, they are animals—have lost their rights. They lost their rights when they violated the rights of others. They do not have the right to demand release back into the community, and this bill goes a long way towards ensuring that that will not happen. Prison terms will be extended from 20 years to 30 years to ensure that there is no redetermination. The legislation will also allow the Supreme Court to set a non-parole period for a non-release offender's sentence but deny the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to set a fixed-sentence period. That will ensure that, unless a parole order is granted, the offender will never be released from custody. The bill will also exclude a non-release offender whose sentence has been redetermined, whether before or after the commencement of the proposed Act, from automatic consideration for parole to which other offenders are entitled. Legislation introduced in Parliament last year would have given Baker the opportunity to go to the Court of Appeal. If we had passed that legislation, we would have granted him the opportunity to appeal his sentence. A judge recently confirmed that the Government's actions are correct. He said that that case could not be redetermined and that parole would not be considered. I do not think it should be a consideration for any of those who commit horrific crimes. This bill provides that a non-release offender may be granted parole only if that offender is dying or is permanently incapacitated and thus has absolutely no chance of reoffending. I support that provision: Such an offender should be released from gaol only to die. Mr Fraser: Who gives the guarantee? Ms SALIBA: This bill guarantees that such prisoners will be released only in those circumstances. This legislation is about protecting our community and making it a safer place by preventing these animals from getting back onto our streets. I remind honourable members that the 1989 Coalition Government introduced the legislation that gave these criminals the right to have their sentences redetermined. I support this bill, which will go a long way towards preventing that in the future. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14365

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [8.08 p.m.]: There are few benefits associated with getting older, except perhaps being in good health, having enjoyed a good life filled with experiences, being able to remember many past events and having talked to people from all generations. I can probably remember better than anyone who has participated in this debate some of the horrific crimes committed by those who are currently incarcerated and whose fate we are discussing. Many references have been made tonight to acts of an animal nature, but I do not agree with that description. I have bred animals all my life and I understand them very well. Human beings are animals but nothing in the animal kingdom is as cruel as human beings, because humans have intelligence. History supports that assessment.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill deals with extraordinary crimes committed by extraordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. We are born into this world with some privileges, the first of which is life and the second of which is the ability to determine one's future. Each and every one of us has the opportunity, through our conduct, intelligence and wishes, to seek education, employment, happiness and direction in life.

We can determine that for ourselves. The people we are talking about, who are currently contained within the penitentiaries of this State, made a determination. They had the opportunity, in the same way as the rest of us, to make that determination freely. Nobody forced, persuaded, bullied or cajoled them. They were free to make a determination and they made a free choice. They chose to commit crimes of a nature that is abhorrent to any reasonable-thinking human being. By taking that step, they chose a way of life of their own making. We have no right to interfere in the path they chose to take. They chose to completely isolate themselves from the broader society. They chose to put themselves in conflict with every fundamental rule of law, with basic Christian principles and with basic human commonsense.

Therefore, I have no conscience in urging and appealing to the members of this Chamber and the other place to support the Opposition's amendments, which will ensure that those people who have committed these crimes—crimes such as those committed by Baker and Crump—are allowed to do what they have determined for themselves, that is, to live contrary to society for the rest of their lives. It is nonsense to say that the parole of an offender who is dying or is permanently incapacitated may be revoked if the offender subsequently recovers. What is permanent incapacity? Would the amputation of both legs and confinement to a wheelchair be classified as permanently incapacitated? I believe that most people and every insurance company would agree that having both legs amputated would be classified as permanent incapacity. Two years ago in the north of this country I saw a prisoner who was in gaol for the third time. He was in a wheelchair, having had both his legs amputated 15 to 18 years ago. He was an habitual criminal.

Under the powers of separation, we are the people who are responsible for making laws in this State. We have an obligation not only to reflect on the future of those people who have transgressed the morals, wishes and basic principles of humankind, but also to those who are left behind. That has been forgotten in this debate. I do not pretend for one moment that I understand the lifelong hurt and effect that such crimes have on someone who has lost a loved one—a husband, a wife, a brother, a sister, a cousin or a good friend. I have never had that happen to me. It would be false of me to say that I understand. I do not.

Mr Fraser: You couldn't.

Mr ARMSTRONG: I could not. As intelligent members of this place, we should have—and I hope that I have—some understanding of the lifelong hurt of members of the families of the victims who have been horribly murdered. In the past 40 years we have seen some of the members of those families in this place, on television, at forums and in church groups. They are trying to help society understand. They do not do that for any reason other than the lifelong sentence that has been imposed upon them. Government members have the audacity to claim that we should release the perpetrators in 30 years time but do nothing about the lifelong sentence that those criminals have inflicted upon entire families, relations and groupings of people who supported, loved, cared for and depended upon those who were taken from them.

Every time this issue arises, every time we debate this matter, we are constantly reminded that we have to consider whether we are doing the right thing by the criminals. Everyone is on the side of the criminal. We are told, "We have to let them out after 20 or 30 years if they are going to die of cancer." I have news for the House: sadly, people die of cancer every day; people die of heart attacks; and people have their legs cut off because of diabetes. That is no excuse to release prisoners who have decided to be judge and jury over the families of those whose lives they have taken away. They made their choice. I will not interfere in the decision that they made. I will support the amendments with one proviso: that the people who have committed these 14366 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 crimes remain incarcerated for the full term of their natural lives. I am on the side of those who are left behind. At my age I have some semblance of understanding of the pain and angst that they bear. I see it reflected in them every time we meet.

Mr IEMMA (Lakemba—Minister for Public Works and Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [8.16 p.m.]: I support the legislation. I would like to address some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Lachlan. I agree with him wholeheartedly about our obligation to act in the way he outlined. I also believe that when we discharge that obligation, we have an obligation to get it right. The Opposition does not want to accept that fundamental point because it has been trumped, and it hurts. Unfortunately, rather than support the Government's legislation, the Opposition says it will support the legislation with its amendments because the Government's legislation does not keep these people in gaol forever.

That approach was summed up by the honourable member for Lachlan. He gave an example of a prisoner in a wheelchair. He said the legislation fails to deal with people who are still a danger to the community, notwithstanding that they may suffer some incapacity. The honourable member failed to mention that the Parole Board has to take into account three conditions. The first condition is that the prisoner is dying or suffering an incapacity approaching death. Between the first and second conditions is the word "and". The first condition is that the prisoner is dying or suffering from an incapacity approaching death and the second condition is that the prisoner will not be a threat to the community if released. If, in the circumstances outlined by the honourable member for Lachlan, a prisoner is permanently incapacitated, such as the man in the wheelchair to whom he referred, that person must satisfy the Parole Board that he will not be a threat to the community.

Mr Armstrong: Point of order: With respect I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that tonight, incarcerated in a gaol in the Northern Territory, is a person who has been sentenced three times.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Lachlan is debating the issue. He will resume his seat. That is an outrageous point of order. Mr IEMMA: In addition to the first provision, that the prisoner has to be in imminent danger of dying, the Parole Board must be satisfied that the prisoner will not pose a risk to the community if released. That provision would more than adequately deal with the incapacitated prisoner in a wheelchair whom the honourable member for Lachlan has seen in institutions in this State and believes could be a danger. Such a prisoner would have to pass the second test of not being a danger to the community. The prisoner spoken about by the honourable member for Lachlan would not satisfy that test and, therefore, would not be released. The third test requires the board to be satisfied that, after consideration of the first and second provisions, the making of an order directing the release of the prisoner on parole would be justified. Mr Armstrong: Point of order: I speak under Standing Order 73, which says:

A Member, having concluded a speech, may be briefly heard again to explain a material part of their speech which has been misquoted or misunderstood but cannot:

(1) Interrupt another Member who is speaking. (2) Introduce any new matter. (3) Debate the matter. (4) Be heard after determination of the question before the Chair. Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lachlan has read the important part: he cannot interrupt another member who is speaking. I will give him the call at the conclusion of the Minister's contribution. Mr IEMMA: The few people who are in the gallery are seeing a time-wasting exercise. The honourable member for Lachlan often takes points of order to waste the time of the House and to try to cut down the speaking time of the member with the call. I had intended to speak for only a few minutes, so he has not really cut down my time. The legislation will overcome the difficulties and loopholes created by legislation introduced in 1989 by the previous Coalition Government, which has resulted in the many matters we have been debating for some months. The bill will ensure that Crump, Baker and the others referred to by the honourable member for Lachlan will never be released. It will give true meaning to the intention of the sentencing judge. The legislation fulfils our obligation not only to act but to get it right. The legislation is not a stunt for the media that will be struck down by the High Court, as would have been the case had the Government accepted the proposal put forward by the Opposition some months ago. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14367

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [8.23 p.m.]: I have already referred to Standing Order 73. The Minister misunderstood me. In relation to permanent incapacity, I point out that a male person with no lower limbs who has been sentenced three times is currently incarcerated in a gaol in Darwin. He is permanently in a wheelchair. He is in the open section of gaol. It is within the realms of probability that a person incapacitated as a result of the loss of limbs could be released under the legislation, and, as history has demonstrated, commit further crime and be sentenced. Precedent has been set as to why the legislation should be disregarded as foolish.

Mr Debus: Point of order: The honourable member for Lachlan is blatantly misquoting the legislation. The words in the legislation refer to somebody in imminent danger of dying or incapacitated to the extent that he or she no longer has the physical ability to do harm to any person. Mr Fraser: The Minister's speaking time has expired. Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: The Minister is entitled to take a point of order, which he had done. The matter is settled for the time being. Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [8.25 p.m.]: We have heard Government members claim that the problem this bill seeks to deal with is a consequence of the 1989 truth in sentencing legislation. I am prepared to admit that an unintended consequence of that legislation was that prisoners were able to apply for redeterminations of their sentences. As a result prisoners such as Baker and others were given an opportunity to have their sentences drastically reduced. We should now turn our attention to the legislation and to what the public expects of us as members of Parliament and of the New South Wales courts. One of the definitions of "life" from the Macquarie Dictionary as it pertains to sentencing is:

20. a. a prison sentence covering the rest of the convicted person's natural life. The definition seems perfectly clear. The high-profile case we have heard about of late—and I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mr Brian Morse—relates to the horrific crimes committed by Mr Baker for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment, and his papers marked "Never to be released". I lived in Moree when those crimes were committed and I know of the community angst, which continues to this day. People who live in regional and rural New South Wales are in a unique situation. Their families are left unprotected, which means that crimes such as those committed by Mr Baker are a possibility. Thank God they do not occur regularly. I know that when Baker applied to have his sentence redetermined those who saw him sentenced expected the words "Never to be released" to mean exactly what they said. It is somewhat ironic that the Premier of this State refused to intervene, refused to accept legislation introduced by the Opposition, and is now refusing to accept amendments proposed by the Opposition to ensure that prisoners such as Baker are never released. My constituents in the Coffs Harbour electorate and the people of New South Wales generally have some faith in the judicial system. They believe that laws made in this Chamber will be acted on by the judiciary, and in Baker's case they were. Unfortunately, a loophole in the legislation enabled him to apply to have his sentence redetermined. Government members who have contributed to the debate have told us that if the prisoner is no longer a danger to the community he or she can be released. I draw the attention of honourable members to the case of a fellow who was convicted of three murders on three separate occasions. I cannot remember his name, but I am sure other members in this Chamber will be able to do so. The second murder occurred in the electorate of the Attorney General, the Minister at the table. The fellow said he believed that, through God, it was his job to murder three people. He murdered one person and he was sentenced to life. After serving some time in gaol he was let out. He then travelled to Katoomba, and in a motel room he murdered another person. He was convicted once again, was released, killed for the third time and is now behind bars. Page 2 of the explanatory note to the bill states:

The object of this Bill is to amend the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 so as:

(a) to increase, from 20 years to 30 years, the length of time for which a non-release offender must serve his or her sentence before becoming eligible to apply for a redetermination of the sentence, and In relation to a person who has been found guilty by a jury and whom a judge has deemed fit to sentence to imprisonment for life, I direct the attention of the House and of the judiciary to the dictionary definition, which states that "life" is a prison sentence covering the rest of the convicted person's natural life. It does not state that such persons may be ill, that they may have some condition that should cause them to be released, or that if the condition does not improve they should remain at liberty or be readmitted to gaol if the condition does improve. It does not state that 20 years or 30 years is the length of time a non-release offender must serve before becoming eligible for release. It states that the person has been sentenced to "life". 14368 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

As the representative of the people of the Coffs Harbour electorate and of those constituents who have made representations to me on this matter, I believe that when someone is sentenced to life imprisonment, it should mean life, the dictionary definition of life. Some fairly horrific crimes have been committed in regional and rural New South Wales. The honourable member for Northern Tablelands referred to an incident where a fellow—I think he came from Queensland—came down into New South Wales. Hanging Rock was involved. He shot another person, and threw the person over the side of the rock. It was a horrific crime. The case was heard in Coffs Harbour. I believe the perpetrator took his own life in prison. One can but wonder at the agenda of a small minority of left-wing people within our community. One wonders whether such people would have had their sentences redetermined, whether the judge would have said, "Yes, 10 years is enough."

As the honourable member for Lachlan said, people throughout New South Wales are grieving and will continue to grieve because their relatives or friends have had their lives taken. Perhaps we ought to go back to the origins of law, that is, the Ten Commandments. I sometimes wonder whether members of this Chamber heed those commandments. They are found not only in the Christian religion. In almost all of the great religions one will find 10 basic commandments that commence with, "Thou shalt not". One is "Thou shalt not kill." An eye for an eye. We have a responsibility under the Christian basis of the law in this country to ensure that the basic commandments are observed.

I may be leaning towards the right wing, but in reality when someone takes another's life, a life must be taken. That life may be taken by way of capital punishment, although that does not happen in Australia as it does in other countries. If a life is taken and a person is incarcerated for the term of his natural life, as per the Macquarie Dictionary definition, I believe the public could have some faith in Parliament, in the judiciary and in the laws of this State. Far too often we have witnessed a judiciary that does not necessarily carry out the law; it extends latitude when sentencing. Legislation has been enacted that allows such people to be released from incarceration prior to the completion of the sentence fixed by the judge after the finding of a jury. The Government should not grandstand on an issue that it has ducked for months. The Government should not play games in this House by introducing legislation when in the past it has allowed other legislation to be called on, only to move that the matter be adjourned.

One can but wonder if the judge had not made the decision he made the other day with regard to the criminal Baker, whether this legislation would be before the House today. I suggest to members of this Chamber and to those in the gallery that it probably would not. We have witnessed the spectacle of the Premier riding on the tail of the decision made by the court, which I believe should never have been made. We now have an opportunity to fix it. We will not do that by saying that it is for someone else to determine that such persons will not commit further offences, that they may safely be released into society or that the length of time for which a non-release offender must serve his or her sentence before becoming eligible to apply for a redetermination of the sentence is 20 years to 30 years. That is not good enough. If a court says life, it means incarceration for life.

So far as I am concerned, the victims of the actions of any criminal who has taken another's life and in respect of whom the court has determined that that person will serve a life sentence deserve nothing better than to have this Parliament reaffirm what the judge said. They deserve that. I believe that we, as members of Parliament, have an obligation to our constituency to ensure that truth in sentencing means truth in sentencing, that it does not mean that someone sentenced to five years for armed robbery gets out of gaol in two years, and that someone sentenced to life imprisonment gets out in 30 years.

If someone commits a robbery at the age of 18 and commits murder at the same time and is released after 30 years, that person will be out of prison when he is 48 years of age. Anyone who could take the life of another human being does not, so far as I am concerned, deserve any leniency from this House, or from any court or parole board. That person has taken a life; let him give his life. Whilst we do not have capital punishment in Australia, incarceration for life is what was meant by the judge and it must be adhered to. Whilst supporting the legislation, because it is somewhat better than we have had to date, I ask the Minister to support the amendments proposed by the Coalition. The Minister should stop playing politics and give the people of New South Wales legislation that they can have faith in. Unfortunately, the bill before this House is not something they can have faith in.

Mr GREENE (Georges River) [8.36 p.m.]: I support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill, the purpose of which is to amend the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to prevent the release of offenders who were sentenced to life in prison prior to 1989 with a non-release recommendation comment by the sentencing judge. It is indeed time to right the wrongs of the past. It is time to make sure that prisoners who were sentenced to life in prison remain in 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14369 prison for life. The bill will correct the mistakes of the Coalition when in government, and right its wrongs. It builds on this Government's sentencing laws, which were introduced in 1997 and which are the toughest in Australia.

In 1989 the Coalition Government introduced legislation that provided for the redetermination of life sentences. The deficiencies in the truth in sentencing legislation allowed prisoners to be considered for release after applying for their sentence to be determined by the Supreme Court. That applied to prisoners who had attracted never-to-be-released comments by the sentencing judge. The Coalition's legislation allowed the Supreme Court to replace a life sentence with a sentence for a fixed term. The Government, acting to right the wrongs and put some meaning into the term "truth in sentencing", amended the Coalition's 1989 legislation.

The 1997 amendment was designed to ensure that a judge who heard the redetermination application of a prisoner was required to give substantial weight to the recommendation and observations of the sentencing judge. That amendment also enabled a judge to order that a particular offender never reapply, or not reapply for three or more years, for a redetermination of sentence. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill will tighten the law even further. It gives more certainty to the families of victims.

The legislation proposes that prisoners sentenced to life with a non-release recommendation prior to 1989 will not be eligible for a redetermination until they have served 30 years. This is an increase of 10 years on the current 20-year provision. The bill also provides that if the prisoner has his sentence redetermined by a court, the court is excluded from being able to set a specific term of sentence. That is, the head sentence must remain life. Importantly, new section 154A allows the Parole Board to release a prisoner only if it is satisfied that the prisoner:

(i) is in imminent danger of dying, or is incapacitated to the extent that he or she no longer has the physical ability to do harm to any person, and

(ii) has demonstrated that he or she does not pose a risk to the community, and

(b) is further satisfied that, because of those circumstances, the making of such an order is justified. I repeat for the benefit of the honourable member for Lachlan that the prisoner cannot be released unless he or she poses no risk to the community. All three of those conditions, not just one, must be satisfied. Unlike the position with the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentence Confirmation) Bill proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, the Solicitor General advised that this law can be validly made—a most important point to highlight. This Government has a responsibility to ensure that legislation that it passes will stand the test of time and, most importantly, the test of the courts. I quote from the advice of the Solicitor General:

In my view there is no reason to doubt the capacity of the New South Wales Parliament to prescribe the matters on which the Parole Board must be satisfied before it directs the release of an offender on parole. It has done so, of course, since the Parole Board was established by the Crimes (Amendment) Act 1950. Accordingly, there is no legal basis in my opinion on which the validity of the proposed section 154A might be challenged. As the Premier said in his speech, the Solicitor General's advice makes it clear that this bill is within Parliament's powers. If there were a simple way of achieving its objective the Government would take it, but it is no use arguing in the public domain purely on emotion. As a Government, we have to act responsibly. We have to ensure that the legislation gets it right. It is time to fix the system and tilt the balance in favour of the victims and away from the criminals. It is time to put things right and ensure that violent and dangerous criminals remain in gaol never to be released. That is what the bill will do. It is time that commonsense prevailed so that prisoners sentenced to life for heinous crimes actually serve life. I not only commend the bill; I commend the Premier and the Attorney General. Mr MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [8.44 p.m.]: The atmosphere in the Chamber tonight has been charged with emotion, and rightly so. The bill and the amendments we are debating are of vital importance to our communities, certainly to my community and the electorate of Wagga Wagga. I will support the amendments to be put forward by the Leader of the Opposition for reasons I will explain. On 4 May I stood at this very lectern and moved a motion with regard to a repeat killer by the name of Matthew James Harris. Harris was sentenced to 40 years gaol with a minimum non-parole period of 25 years for the murders of Ronald Galvin, Yvonne Ford and Peter Wennerbom. I urged the Government to implement tougher and consistent sentencing guidelines for repeat killers such as Matthew Harris. There was outrage in our community that such a short sentence had been handed down. To the relief of the community the sentence was changed to life on Crown appeal in the Supreme Court, at the instigation of the families of the victims and me. The life sentence reflected the expectation of the community and the people in 14370 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 my electorate. I make that point because of another event that affected my electorate. Janine Balding was abducted in Sydney by people who defy description but Janine's mother, Beverly, lives in my electorate. Janine's godparent is a very good friend of mine. The crime that was committed against this young lady has absolutely horrified our community and, more importantly, had a profound effect on the friends, families and parents. I hope that I will never know what they have felt. I can only begin to try to understand the pain and suffering that these people go through when such a tragedy occurs.

As the honourable member for Lachlan clearly said, the people that perpetrated this terrible murder knew what they were doing. They were in control of their decision making. They decided to act in a particular way. They were not influenced. They have a conscience. At the time of the offence they disregarded any kind of emotional feeling for their victim. This applies to Matthew Harris and the many other people we have talked about tonight. They made a decision that resulted in their incarceration.

I think that many speakers have missed the point in this debate. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour said that he understands that the problems with legislation that was brought in when the Coalition was in government may have contributed to the legislation having to be amended by this bill. I also recognise that there were unintended consequences. But now we have the opportunity to make things right. We have the opportunity to work together, to put forward legislation that will ensure that these people never see the light of day again.

Before I walked into this Chamber tonight I telephoned Beverly Balding because of a newspaper article that appeared in the Daily Advertiser. Beverly was of the opinion that the legislation was finished and that these people would never see the light of day. But she did not understand that they have the right to apply every three years to the Parole Board. I think that is something that they should be denied. I think we are missing the point. Prisoners who contract cancer or another disease or suffer an amputation still have a responsibility to the wider community. Their deeds should not be forgotten and they should not be released.

Offenders seeking to be released have to prove three points, as has been referred to by other honourable members. But the fact is that they committed the crime; they made a conscious decision when they perpetrated the crime. The fact that the offender is ill, or is on his deathbed, does not change the circumstances. The circumstances of them being incarcerated do not change whether they are ill or whether they live to be 110. They were to remain behind bars for life, and to let them out whether for one day, one week or one month before their passing is not right.

The judge said to Matthew Harris that he would be gaoled for life. To the community the word "life" means a life sentence. If people in the gallery or people in the street were asked what they understood by a judge handing down a sentence that stated that the offender shall stay behind bars for life, the answer would be that the offenders should not be released because they are ill, have contracted lung cancer, have had an amputation or have suffered from a stroke. The offender was deemed to have committed a crime against humanity. For the life of me I cannot understand how some crimes could have been perpetrated.

Present in the gallery tonight have been people with an interest in this legislation. I cannot begin to understand what they must feel about members of this House bickering about changes to the legislation. I am trying to debate this issue in a bipartisan and constructive way. Often during debate we tend to take sides, but on this important issue I appeal to members on the other side of the House to vote with their conscience and support the amendments that the Opposition will introduce in this place or in another place. The real point I want to drive home is that the offenders committed the crime, they made the decision, and nothing changes if they get ill. Nothing! They still committed the crime.

Why should we let them out? Why should we let them see daylight? Why should we let them have the privilege of visiting a park or open space to enjoy nature's gifts? From the people they murdered they robbed the very joys that they would experience in the last days of their life if they were released. They robbed from Janine Balding the opportunity to have children. They robbed from Beverly Balding the opportunity to go to her daughter's wedding or to hold her grandchildren. They robbed from Beverly Balding the opportunity to do all the things that most of us will get to do. I have not met Mr Morse, but I intend to do so after I speak in this House. They robbed from him and his family years of happiness and joy.

As I said at the outset, this is an emotional issue and I understand that the Government and the Opposition have to put forward legislation that is acceptable to the community. In this case the Government has got it wrong and really has missed the point. I appeal to members on the other side of the House to reconsider 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14371 their position after listening to tonight's debate, to reconsider the points made by members regarding the legislation put forward by the Premier. I ask honourable members to think about the offenders, such as Matthew Harris, who have been guilty of the most dreadful crimes, to think about whether they should be allowed to smell the roses. Are they to be given that opportunity in the last days of their life if they meet the three conditions? No doubt one of them will.

Quite clearly the community does not want that to happen. The Government has read the community's message very wrongly. I could say a lot more, but I hope I have brought to the attention of all honourable members the point they have missed. I appeal to their conscience and ask them to reconsider, and to give serious consideration to the proposed amendments, because that is what the community expects from them, and that is what the community deserves.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [8.55 p.m.]: I would like to highlight the essential hypocrisy of the Government in introducing the bill and claiming that it is the saviour of society, that it alone has the answer to keeping some of the most heinous criminals in Australian history behind bars. It was, of course, the Leader of the Opposition who originally introduced legislation designed to achieve what this bill purports to achieve. Indeed, it was the Government that refused, time and time again, to allow that bill to be debated. I have twice attempted to have dangerous offenders legislation passed through this place and twice the Government has used its numbers to defeat that legislation.

I put an enormous amount of work into researching my bill, which was very comprehensive. The second time I attempted to introduce dangerous offenders legislation the Government was so cavalier in its attitude towards it that it brought a junior minister, the Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism, into the House and had her speak for all of three minutes against my bill. In that time the Minister addressed none of the substantive issues addressed by my legislation. When I hear the honourable member for Georges River, for example, extol the virtues of the Government, and the toughness of the Government towards serious violent offenders in our gaol system, I laugh. The essential hypocrisy of the Government is exposed for all to see. The legislation shares many of the elements of the bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. It is interesting to note that certain conditions relate to the release of non-release offenders. I will correct something the Minister for Public Works and Services said. In this bill there is provision for the release of a non-release offender on parole. Certain elements of the legislation echo the provisions of the legislation I introduced in 1999 and which the Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism so flippantly dismissed in her short contribution at that time. The essential elements of the bill are that a non-release offender may only apply for redetermination of a sentence after serving 30 years of the sentence—previously an offender had to serve 20 years—and that the Parole Board may release a non-release offender on parole if, and only if, three conditions are met. Those conditions are, first, that the Parole Board must be satisfied, on the basis of a report prepared by the chief executive officer of the Corrections Health Service, that the non-release offender is in imminent danger of dying or is incapacitated to the extent that he or she no longer has the physical ability to do harm to any person. The second condition is that the Parole Board must be satisfied, on the basis of a report prepared by the chief executive officer of the Corrections Health Service, that the non-release offender has demonstrated that he or she does not pose a risk to the community. Third, the Parole Board must be satisfied that, because the first two conditions are met, the making of a parole order is justified. My Community Protection (Dangerous Offenders) Bill 1999 sought to amend section 17 of the Sentencing Act so that the Parole Board could release a person classified as a dangerous offender only if it was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the prisoner, if released into custody, would be able to remain law abiding and would not pose a threat to public safety, either individually or collectively. Honourable members would have picked up the similarity in the wording and intent of the provisions of my bill to the wording of this bill.

My bill required the Parole Board to provide a full and public statement of its reasons for deciding to release or not to release a dangerous offender. That was to provide openness and transparency in the decision- making process. More importantly, the bill sought to give the Crown, on its merits, the right to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal a decision to parole a dangerous offender. Currently, the Crown has only very limited grounds for making such an appeal, that is, that the board relied on information that was false, misleading or irrelevant. Despite some nonsense that the Government promoted at the time, that is why the Crown did not appeal the decision to release John Lewthwaite, the murderer of Nicole Hanns. The reason was that the board did not rely on information that was false, misleading or irrelevant. 14372 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

There has been a significant, ongoing debate for many years over dangerous offenders legislation. My great concern—apart from the fact that there is still a possibility that the Murphy brothers, Kevin Crump, Allan Baker and Shorty Jameson may well be released one day, contrary to the express wishes of the sentencing judge—is that a substantial number of other people in the system will not be covered by this legislation. They will be released some time in the future and they may potentially pose a danger to the community. That was the reason I twice attempted to introduce dangerous offenders legislation. As the name of the bill suggested— Community Protection (Dangerous Offenders) Bill—the sole intention of introducing the bill was to attempt to protect the community from serious violent offenders.

Back in 1999 I sought information from the Parole Board. I do not have the most recent figures but at that time 436 serious violent offenders in the New South Wales prison system were eligible for parole one day. In three years from April 2000 there will be 105 serious offenders, including 74 murderers, due for possible release. This bill does not cover those people and people like Kenneth Johnson, who murdered 10-year-old Michelle Allport at Mittagong in 1974, and who then sent a bloodstained letter to Michelle's mother Shirley in 1986 threatening to kill her husband and her son. Patrick Horan, who killed Constable Paul Quinn in Bathurst in 1986 and left Sergeant Ian Borland permanently disabled, could be released as early as next year. The legislation does not deal with Earl Heatley, who killed a young man aged 19 at Granville in 1966, was released in 1981 and then murdered two other men, including his own brother, during an armed robbery in 1994. That is graphic evidence of the danger that certain individuals currently incarcerated in New South Wales gaols pose to the community.

Obviously I will not oppose the legislation, but I believe it should be amended. The Government has not addressed the dangerous offenders currently within the gaol system who will be released one day and who pose a threat to the community. I call on the Government to take heed of what I have said tonight and perhaps reconsider the legislation I introduced into this place, much of which was based on the report of the Law Reform Commission on sentencing. The legislation was not dreamed up out of thin air but has a substantial legal basis. The original bill I introduced was praised in a Sydney Morning Herald editorial about Gregory Wayne Kable, a case which honourable members would recall. Once again, I can see nothing in this legislation that will deal with those other serious violent offenders. Indeed, I am a little horrified to realise that the bill does not achieve what the Premier said it would achieve. It certainly does not cement Allan Baker, Kevin Crump and others in their cells. In fact, the cracks are already visible in the concrete.

Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [9.07 p.m.]: I have listened to the comments of Opposition members and basically the Opposition agrees with the bill but would like to amend it. However, the honourable member for The Hills listed other people who are in gaol for very serious crimes and proposed that the Parliament revisit everybody who is in gaol for anything of a serious nature, re-examine all their sentences and apply stronger sentences to them in every case. The honourable member for The Hills stood up and rattled off the names of many people who are already serving very lengthy sentences. If such a bill were passed, it would be struck down by the High Court.

Mr Richardson: You don't know what you are talking about.

Mr ASHTON: Yes, I do.

Mr Richardson: Do you know what my legislation was all about? You don't know what you're talking about.

Mr ASHTON: I am not interested in what your legislation was.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Beamer): Order! The honourable member for The Hills will resume his seat. I remind him that he is not allowed to interject while standing. His contribution was heard in silence. He has alluded to the fact that this debate is heated, and I therefore ask him to refrain from interjecting.

Mr ASHTON: I have never seen a performance like it. Honourable members can all stand up in this Parliament and name people such as Crump, Baker, and the killers of Janine Balding. We are all aware of those heinous crimes but the honourable member for The Hills has rattled off many names and not everyone is familiar with those cases. Their sentences cannot be revisited by the Parliament. I refer the honourable member to what happened under Joh Bjelke-Petersen. There is a separation of powers between the Executive Government, Parliament and the judiciary. The honourable member for The Hills should try to remember that principle when he seeks to make a serious contribution to this debate. All honourable members can speak 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14373 emotionally about crimes that have happened and will continue to happen in society. Parliament and government are about enacting legislation that will stand up to any challenge in a court.

Opposition members will say anything to make headlines. Last year the Leader of the Opposition, taking a tough, anti-crime stance, referred to some of the worst crimes committed in New South Wales in the past 30 or 40 years. All honourable members will be aware that there has been a serious deficiency in the determination of life sentences. It is common knowledge that, under both Labor and Liberal governments, life sentence terms became 11 years or 12 years. The Coalition Government failed in its 1989 attempt to make the system tougher.

As the honourable member for Wagga Wagga said about 20 minutes ago, an unfortunate unintended consequence of the Coalition Government's legislation was that people such as Baker, Crump and others were allowed to go before the Parole Board and seek to have their sentences overturned by a judge. When Justice James considered the Baker case last year the newspapers ran stories saying, "Labor wants to let this bloke out. Only the Opposition can keep him in." But, as Opposition members know, that determination was always in the hands of the judge. When he made a decision a week or two ago—that is why this legislation is before Parliament now—the Premier quickly said, "Now Parliament is free to take a decision that will be binding." Twenty years has been increased to 30 years.

Mr R. H. L. Smith: Sit down while you are in front.

Mr ASHTON: Those opposite are rattled. They have a political agenda; they have one case in mind but they do not really care about individual cases. Opposition members have not even argued that those convicted of the Morse killing were sentenced for conspiracy to murder, not murder. Even if they had been allowed to walk free, they would have been arrested as soon as they left the dock. This argument is a sham orchestrated by the Opposition as part of last October's "Get Kerry up there and make her strong" campaign.

Mr Martin: Mission impossible.

Mr ASHTON: I know. Opposition members have been humbled by the actions of the Premier, who has introduced strong legislation to keep prisoners in gaol. Yet they still pretend to be tougher. Those opposite say, "We'll add some extra years and make it even harder; we'll make sure they go out in a box." They do not want prisoners to be technically free, even though they are lying in a hospital bed connected to a life support system; they want them to be taken out in a box. It is part of the Liberal-National tradition: they must be seen to be harder than us. What can be harder than making prisoners serve 30 years before they can even apply for parole? They must then satisfy three criteria. First, that they are virtually incapable of walking, thinking and breathing; second, that they pose no danger to anyone; and, third, that they are fit and proper people to be granted some kind of limited parole.

Mr Windsor: What about Ronnie Biggs?

Mr ASHTON: He has returned to England. I remind the honourable member for Tamworth that he was not in gaol when he decided to leave Brazil and return to England to enjoy some pudding in his last few weeks; he was a free man. I must continue with my speech. The honourable member for The Hills has been interjecting rudely; I thought people were better behaved up there. Opposition members talk about amendments to the bill, but we have not seen them. They say they support the bill in spirit but they will seek to amend it in another place. So we will not see those amendments in this House—I have not seen them yet. We might reject a few of them. These prisoners will be locked away for a determined period. This legislation is correcting the Coalition's mistake. Some Opposition members might not have been here then, but the 1989 Coalition Government got it wrong and now we are correcting its mistake.

I urge honourable members to read in Hansard tomorrow the speech by the honourable member for Wagga Wagga. The legislation says only that prisoners may be released; it does not say that they have to be released, or that they will be released. Opposition members claim that this Government will be fooled somehow and that someone such as Ivan Milat will suck down some razor blades and be released on the grounds of ill health. That guy will never get out of gaol; everyone knows that. Some prisoners will never be released from gaol. Milat will not get out, even when his eyes are barely flickering.

The Opposition tried to be smart and gazump the judge last October. It cannot do that. Governments must be responsible, whereas Opposition members can say anything because they are irrelevant. At least they 14374 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 are passionate—I will give them that. Emotion is very important to this argument. We have picked the worst cases. I was only a school kid when Virginia Morse was murdered and I remember the outrage I felt when I read about that crime.

If life sentences do not mean incarceration for life, we will have to send prisoners to the gas chamber, as they do in America. However, recent surveys in the United States have revealed that about 30 per cent or 40 per cent of those executed—especially in States such as Texas—were innocent of their crime. DNA has been used to prove their innocence. Someone serving a life sentence could be proved innocent. This legislation is a credit to the Government because it was introduced after Justice James made his determination. The bill will stand up to challenge in the courts and Parliament will not have to revisit this issue in 10 or 11 years to correct any mistake. We will not get it wrong like the Coalition Government did in 1989.

Opposition members are trying to do something really tough. The passion that I have aroused in those opposite tonight is proof that they want to up the ante. They want to be seen to have won this debate. The Premier was correct to say that we should listen to the Solicitor General's advice, and the Attorney General was right to seek advice and to act upon it. Cabinet carried a motion regarding this legislation last October and, unlike other Cabinets in this country, stuck by that decision. It would have been easy for the Premier to bow to pressure and say, "We've got the answer; we've already carried something in Cabinet and I'll tell that judge what to do."

The Government has a responsibility both to enforce the laws of this State and this country and to see that justice is done. It cannot simply react to the daily screamers or the radio shock jocks, on whose comments the Opposition bases most of its public policy. I commend the legislation to the Parliament. Others will consider the Opposition amendments. I can tell without looking at them that they will seek to impose harsher, more brutal penalties to ensure that prisoners are carried out in body bags. I am sure that that sums up the Opposition's amendments. Judging from the Coalition's actions in 1989, the amendments will prove worthless and will end up in the bin.

Mr OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [8.18 p.m.]: I acknowledge that Brian Morse is in the public gallery listening to what I imagine must still be for him a difficult debate. I do not claim to be an expert on the law. Many lawyers had been involved in the debate and I defer to their greater knowledge of the many technical legal points. I simply hope that the legislation will observe two general principles: first, that sentences should reflect prevailing community standards; and, second, that sentences should reflect the original judgment. In looking at the detail of such issues, we are concerned that those principles are not being met. Although the Coalition does not oppose this legislation, our amendments would strengthen the two general principles, that is, reflecting community standard and reflecting the original judgment.

Without doubt, discretion is an important part of the law. However, when a judge sentences a prisoner to life—as the sentencing judge did in the case of Baker and Crump—I would hope, even today, that this Parliament would uphold that sentence. I would regard it as a sad reflection on the direction of society if we were to have retrospective discretion and start to second-guess judicial decisions of years gone by. I want to quote something that will add value to this debate. In a book entitled Punishment and Modern Society, David Garland wrote:

Punishment is, on the face of things, an apparatus for dealing with criminals—a circumscribed, discrete, legal-administrative entity. But it is also an expression of state power, a statement of collective morality, a vehicle for emotional expression, an economically conditioned social policy, an embodiment of current sensibilities, and a set of symbols which display a cultural ethos and help create a social identity. At once an element of social organisation, an aspect of social relations, and an ingredient of individual psychology, penalty runs like a connecting thread through all the layers of social structure, connecting the general with the particular, the centre with its boundaries. What appears on the surface to be merely a means of dealing with offenders so that the rest of us can lead our lives untroubled by them, is in fact a social institution which helps define the nature of our society, the kinds of relationships which compose it, and the kinds of lives that it is possible and desirable to lead there.

I believe that is an important contribution in this debate, because legislation such as this is not only about the individuals involved. It is also a reflection of the society we live in and the society we want to live in. I would hope that we will uphold those general principles and do everything we can in this place to reflect community standards. Reference was made previously to the separation of powers, but it should not be left unsaid that many magistrates today do not reflect community standards. There is a desperate need for judicial officers to reflect the needs and wishes of the community that we live in.

The original sentencing judge in this case—I believe it was Justice Taylor—made a very clear statement in his sentence. I hope we do all in our power to uphold that original sentence and not try to second- 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14375 guess or distort in any way the judge's original intention. I can see worth in the bill, and I can also see worth in the amendments. I hope the Government accepts our amendments, that we deal with this legislation in a bipartisan way, and that we do what we are supposed to do in this place, that is, build a better society to live in.

Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [9.23 p.m.]: Much has been said in the debate and it is pointless for me to reiterate what has already been said. Sentencing has often been referred to in this Parliament. For the 10 years that I have been a member, the issue has constantly plagued the Parliament. Various attempts have been made to amend legislation to express the community's expectations in relation to the more heinous crimes. I was involved in one such attempt some years ago when I introduced legislation in this Parliament for a referendum on capital punishment. Approximately 400,000 to 500,000 petitioners expressed a desire to put that issue to the people, but this Parliament did not accept the proposal. Mistakes have been made in the past in truth in sentencing legislation and the Parliament has made half-baked attempts to express not the view of the community but what the Parliament could get away with—hopefully without making an impact of any political note within the community.

I watched with some degree of interest when the Leader of the Opposition introduced what became known as the Baker bill last year and the delaying tactics that took place. At the time the Government handled the matter in an appropriate manner because determinations were to be made in the courts. When those determinations were finally made, I was pleased to hear that the Government was going to introduce legislation to express the community's wishes in relation to that individual. I listened attentively. I was at home when the Premier made a statement that this legislation was to be introduced and that it had been held back whilst the court made determinations. He said that the Cabinet had looked at the matter some months ago, and I considered that to be a positive approach that one could logically understand. I heard a number of people on the radio—and I believe Brian Morse was one of them—express some degree of satisfaction that at last something was going to be done. They expressed some gratitude to the Premier and the Opposition for the way this legislation had been achieved. That was my first glimpse of what was happening. I was glad that the Premier had grabbed the nettle, that he was going to do something about this individual and introduce legislation that had meaning. However, I am disappointed. I believed the Premier when he said that legislation would be introduced, that there was no need for the previous Baker bill, that the Government had the matter in hand, that the legislation would reflect the original judge's sentence, and that a life sentence meant "life". This legislation does not do that. I am disappointed, and the individuals who believed that this legislation would reflect a life determination must also be disappointed. Having said that, I will support the amendments to the legislation. I ask the Premier to reconsider what he is doing, because he is doing exactly what the honourable member for East Hills criticised the Opposition of doing. He is leaving the door open once again. There is no need to leave the door open for this individual. I understand that the Attorney General may say, as I believe the honourable member for Georges River said, that whatever we do in this place has to stand the test of time and the test of the courts. That is what the Attorney General would say. He would say that this legislation is appropriate to test in the courts. However, I suggest that this Parliament should express the view of the people, not try to second-guess the courts. That is where we have gone severely wrong over many years. I do not mean this in any offensive sense, but I believe that we have too many lawyers in this Chamber who try to second-guess the courts and produce legislation that they know their mates in the courts will find acceptable. We do that too often. It is about time the Parliament started to express the views of the community. If there are problems in the courts it is the job of the Parliament to revisit the law, and that is exactly what we are doing tonight. The courts have found flaws in the 1989 and 1997 amendments. Mr Debus: No, they haven't. Mr WINDSOR: The Government is revisiting the legislation to plug those holes. I suggest that we look a little further than what the Attorney General thinks will be acceptable to his mates in the courts and, instead, reflect the views of the community. The community wants Baker never to be released, regardless of whether he is sick, whether he has been in gaol for 30 years, or whatever the legislation prescribes. "Never to be released" is what the people expected when the Premier first made statements about Baker, and that is what the legislation should provide. When the bill reaches the upper House I hope the Opposition amendments will be fully considered. It is important that members of the Labor Party revisit their decision to oppose the amendments, because they express the views of the community. We are not here to express in legislation what the courts want to deal with; we are here to reflect the views of the community. As I said earlier, I introduced legislation calling for a referendum on capital 14376 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 punishment. An example of one of the horrendous crimes that a number of honourable members have spoken about tonight is the crime committed on Virginia Morse. One night in my office—honourable members know how small our offices are—I had a very emotional meeting with 15 people, 14 of whom had had a relative who had been murdered. Gwen Hanns, whose daughter, Nicole, was murdered many years previously by Lewthwaite, lived in absolute fear of his being released. Her daughter was dead and her life was gone, but the family continued to suffer not only from the loss of the daughter but from the fear of this maniac getting out of prison.

I implore members of the Labor Party not to leave open such an option. Fear will remain through the system, the interpretation of the judge of the day or possible amendments to the legislation. This Parliament must express the view that "life" means "life", not life with a bracket, question mark, and another bracket—with the question mark to be determined by a judge, a magistrate or whoever, or even another government. "Life" must mean "life". I implore members of the Labor Party to seriously consider the amendments. I know it is very easy to say that the Opposition is trying to upstage the Government, but I do not think that is the case here. Plenty of that certainly goes on in this place, but in this instance I believe that the Opposition is genuinely trying to reflect what the community wants. The Premier and the Government have the opportunity to get on the front foot, accept these amendments and produce legislation that the community wants. We do not want the door left open once again.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.34 p.m.]: I support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill, but with the concern that perhaps the Government could have done it a little better. It has already been noted that Virginia Morse's husband, Brian Morse, is sitting in the gallery. I have met Brian and I have had the opportunity, albeit briefly, to talk to him. If someone like Brian Morse can still feel the pain nearly three decades after the horrific death of his wife, that is a clear message to this House that we, as members of Parliament, must ensure that legislation, which for technical reasons, would not guarantee that criminals who commit the most heinous of crimes will stay in gaol for life, is changed so that it does give that guarantee. Normally, I would be the first to say that criminals should be given a reasonable sentence and if, in the appropriate circumstances, there is any chance for rehabilitation, we, as a community, must ensure that they are rehabilitated.

But, sadly, some people commit such heinous crimes that they give up their right to be a part of the community. It is clear, and I am sure that members of the Government would agree, that criminals who have committed some of the more horrific murders have given up their right to be let back into the community. It is common to all of us. It is a pity that the bill has attracted a sense of argument about one-upmanship. The Opposition has been genuinely committed to trying to ensure that criminals who commit heinous crimes are locked away for the whole of their lives. When judges indicate during the course of their decision making that criminals should be kept behind bars for life, that is what should happen.

I could analyse the legislation and do what lawyers do, but I am not particularly interested in doing that. I am more interested in asking the Minister a couple of questions. I understand that we are going through this rather tortuous process of requiring applications for parole every three years because the Minister has legal advice that the Opposition's proposal of a nice, simple requirement that those who commit heinous crimes remain behind bars is not workable. If that is the case it is only fair to the community and this House that the Minister produce that advice.

My understanding is that that advice has not been produced, although it has been talked about. The Premier said that advice had been received about the Opposition's proposal and that it could not be implemented. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister will enlighten the House. The Government is obligated to make it simple. If I or the Minister were in Brian Morse's position, or if we had a relative who had been murdered by one of the small number of murderers who are in gaol under the pre-1989 legislation, we would want to know—

Mr Debus: That is not worthy of you, Brad.

Mr HAZZARD: What?

Mr Debus: To suggest that I don't understand that feeling any better than you do.

Mr HAZZARD: I am not suggesting the Minister does not understand that feeling. I would suggest that to him. I am suggesting that as the responsible Minister he has an obligation to produce the advice that he 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14377 says indicates that the Coalition's position is not correct. I believe that if the Opposition were in a position to do so, it would not want to have to sustain the possibility, as remote as it may be, of these criminals seeking redetermination of their sentences every three years. The Minister and I might believe that the end result of this legislation is that they will not have their sentences redetermined but, if I were a relative of one of the victims, I would want to know that I did not have to go through that procedure.

I accept that it may not be solely the Minister's decision and I am not for one moment reflecting on the Minister personally in that regard because I am sure he would share my concern. However, I would like to know, and I am sure the House would like to know, precisely why it is that the Minister says we cannot use the simplest method, that is, ensure that any inmate whose file was marked "Not to be released" prior to the 1989 truth in sentencing legislation is not released. That should be the end of it. I merely asked a question. It is not intended to be a reflection on the Minister personally, who would undoubtedly share my view about the end result.

Without going into detail, it has already been said that the debate has involved one-upmanship in regard to the 1989 legislation—who got it right and who got it wrong. That was good legislation. It was legislation that at the time made a vast difference, a sea change of difference, in that prisoners who had been given life sentences were dealt with. It produced the result that any person after that time who was given a life sentence in fact had a life sentence.

Mr Debus: That is true, but it did not introduce the changes that give rise to the problem we now have.

Mr HAZZARD: I agree with what the Minister has said, but without the Opposition and the Government fighting about it, the reality is it did that. However, it did it because at that time it was a sea change. We were not prepared to make things retrospective. I recall the debate at the time, although I was not a member of Parliament. It was essentially a civil libertarian argument which I would usually have some sympathy with, as I am sure the Minister would, that we should not make the law retrospective. There is a small group of people that the community thinks are no longer worthy of the term "human", who should be kept in a cage all their lives. Mr Debus: That is what we have done. Mr HAZZARD: The Minister interjected to say that is what the Government has done. If, as a Parliament reflecting the wishes of the community, we can find a simple way to achieve it, that would be better. If we have to accept this rather tortuous way of doing it, I suggest that, as the Premier has made the point on a number of occasions that he received legal advice, that legal advice should be released. Mr TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [9.43 p.m.]: Debate on this matter has undoubtedly been emotionally charged. I believe some of the exchanges have been unfortunate, while others have been quite productive. I was pleased that this bill was introduced into the House and I believe the intent of members on both sides of the Chamber is very positive. The Attorney General, the Minister at the table, is keen to correct the anomaly that occurred as a result of the previous legislation. I took the opportunity to read some of the Hansard reports of the earlier debate and there is no doubt that retrospectivity was well and truly debated at length in this Chamber, long before I was fortunate enough to be elected as a member. The decision not to proceed down that path was deliberate. Parliament debated the matter at length and the government of the day—I do not draw a distinction, because I think the motives were pure—decided not to pursue that course of action. That brings us to today and to the particular problems that have arisen. I believe the Government's motives in this regard are positive but I believe the Opposition has also had a strong hand in bringing this matter before the House. I acknowledge the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition, who has been tenacious in pursuing her legislation. I believe that together the parties have brought about this debate. There were some unfortunate aspects to the debate about who was right and who was wrong, and about what might improve the legislation, but the message I have heard is that members on both sides of the House wish to pursue the issue of a sentence of life meaning life. That is certainly what the community expects and what the Attorney General wants. I know he is very aware of the community's view in this regard. I am equally aware of the advice and the other issues that arise that cause governments to steer a particular path to produce an outcome. But it is clear that the community expects a life sentence to be a life sentence. It is unfortunate that there are some in society to whom we can show little, if any, flexibility at all. With regard to some of the crimes we have heard about during the course of the debate, it is a sad fact that the perpetrators need to be locked away for life, which is what the sentencing judge has written down on 14378 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 many occasions. It is an indictment of society in some respects, but it is a fact that these cases have to be dealt with in that way. I am all for being compassionate when compassion is necessary. We should always try to be as compassionate as we can, but in the particular circumstances of many of the cases we have heard about, there is no room for compassion. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on having brought this legislation forward and I also congratulate the Opposition because I do not believe we would be debating this matter today without pressure having been brought to bear by the Opposition. I indicate that I will support the proposed amendments. Mr BARR (Manly) [9.47 p.m.]: An important debate has occurred tonight on an issue that affects us all, and in respect of which society has expectations of the judicial system. I believe the debate has been of a high standard and I believe that, even though there has been an element of politicking in it, all honourable members recognise the seriousness of it. Therefore, honourable members have debated the matter accordingly. In essence there is not a great deal of difference between what the Government has put forward and the proposed amendments, but I will support the Opposition's amendments. We are dealing with offenders who have gone so far beyond the bounds of regard for their fellow human beings as to have forfeited any consideration of a second chance. Their crimes have been so horrific that society, the public generally and the relatives of victims in particular, have the right to expect that they will not be put through another round of emotional turmoil years down the track. A sense of closure is needed in these sorts of circumstances, which we all recognise are of a different nature to run-of-the-mill things, if I could put it that way. We are talking about particularly horrific crimes in respect of which the court has recommended that the offenders never be released. The courts have done that because of the horrific nature of the acts committed by those killers. I believe we have a right to a sense of finality in regard to these sorts of matters. The relatives of the victims have the right to the expectation that the matters will not be revisited. It simply comes down to that. The Government's bill contemplates exceptional and rare circumstances in which these killers could possibly or potentially be released. A simpler way would be to say that they should not be released, that they have forfeited that opportunity because of their acts. I am slightly puzzled by what the Government is proposing but I think it is based on compassion; it may be based on legal grounds as well. But it seems to me to be a little cluttered. It would be simpler to say: These people have committed such crimes that the public generally do not expect them ever to be released. The consensus would be that we should lock them up and throw away the keys. We have to reflect that public sentiment, which is very strong. For that reason I will support the amendments. The bill is welcome and I am glad the Government has brought it on. Mr WEBB (Monaro) [9.50 p.m.]: I support the bill and will support the amendments by the Leader of the Opposition to reinforce the bill. I cannot believe that it took the Government so long to deal with the legislation. I cannot believe that the Government did not some time ago adopt the push that was coming and get on with introducing its own legislation or support the bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. The amendments will clarify some of the provisions of the bill. We need to get this right. We need principles to guide us in our daily lives. We need to set an example for our children and our communities. We need to live by certain commandments that can guide us all. The teachings to love our neighbour and to love our fellow man point us in the right direction. When somebody is guilty of committing a heinous crime, has been through the courts and his file has been marked "not to be released" that surely should be the end of the matter. We should set an example in the way we manage such cases. For those reasons I have no trouble in supporting the bill and the foreshadowed amendments.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [9.52 p.m.], in reply: The Sentencing Act 1989 was accompanied by the Crimes (Life Sentencing) Amendment Act 1989, introduced by the Minister for Corrective Services in the Coalition Government. These Acts put in place a series of reforms which gave legislative effect to a policy that is described as truth in sentencing. In case I should later forget, I point out to the honourable member for Tamworth that life now means life.

Mr Windsor: Unless— Mr DEBUS: Life means life for everybody who has been sentenced since that time. A Court of Criminal Appeal decision last year emphasised that a life term given since 1989 means just that. There can be no parole. The sentencing court cannot set a non-parole period. Life does mean life now. It may be claimed that it should always have been like that, but it is not as simple as that. When the Minister for Corrective Services in the Coalition Government in 1989, Michael Yabsley, introduced the bill he said these words:

The aim of these provisions is to ensure that existing life sentence prisoners — 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14379 such as the ones we are talking about today —

are not disadvantaged. Among other matters, efforts made by these prisoners to rehabilitate themselves must be considered by the court.

A number of Opposition members during this debate have talked about an unintended consequence of the 1989 legislation. It was not unintended; Michael Yabsley's intention was absolutely clear. The Supreme Court should have that right. The legislation that Yabsley introduced provided a mechanism for prisoners then serving indeterminate life sentences to apply to the Supreme Court to have their sentences determined: that is, to have their existing life sentence converted into an ordinary determinate sentence under the Sentencing Act 1989. This included the so-called never-to-be-released prisoners. It included people about whom the sentencing judge used the words at the time of sentencing, "This person should never be released." But before 1989 everybody knew that those words—

Mrs Chikarovski: You must be looking at your own legislation now.

Mr DEBUS: For heaven's sake! The sentencing judge could use those words, "This person should never be released." There are 10 people now in this category: the people who committed the heinous, horrifying crimes against Mrs Morse, Anita Cobby, Janine Balding —

Mr Hazzard: Ebony Simpson.

Mr DEBUS: Not against Ebony Simpson. Since the 1989 Act people who have committed horrible and comparable crimes—Milat and the man who murdered Ebony Simpson—have been given life sentences; it has been clear cut. However, it is necessary, given the confusion of most of the members opposite, to remind them that when judges said before 1989, "This person should never be released", those words did not have the force of law. The mechanism by which the process of conversion of life sentences could occur was set out back then in section 13A of the Sentencing Act introduced by Michael Yabsley.

This section entrusted the Supreme Court of New South Wales with the task of redetermination. It said that the court must do it. In 1993 the then Coalition Government introduced a bill which altered the procedure for redetermining life sentences for so-called never-to-be-released prisoners. The then Attorney General, the Hon. John Hannaford, referred to that bill as conferring power on the court in effect to confirm the life sentence by barring future applications for the protection of the community. When he introduced his amendments—this completely contradicts assertions made with altogether too much confidence by the honourable member for Cronulla and others—he said:

In summary, this bill —

Hannaford's bill —

reflects the Government's commitment to ensure that any decision to never release an old life prisoner will remain with the judiciary, where it properly resides, free of Executive interference.

Mrs Chikarovski: Do you agree with that?

Mr DEBUS: I am giving you the history. If you cannot understand the history you cannot understand the bill that is before you. You simply do not understand what you are talking about. In 1997, as the honourable member for Georges River has indicated, the Carr Government introduced reforms to the legislation dealing with the sentencing of offenders who had previously received life sentences. Those reforms allow a judge, in hearing a redetermination, to have regard to and to give substantial weight to the recommendations, observations and comments of the original sentencing judge. So for the first time the Carr Government introduced a bill which actually drew the attention of the redetermining judge to the remarks made in the original sentence: "This person should never be released". In addition, a judge could order that the applicant never again apply for a redetermination or could reapply after a period of not less than three years.

So back in 1997 the Carr Government made it possible for the first time for the redetermining judge to pay attention to the words of the original judge. For the first time it was possible to give legal force to those words: "This person should never be released." The redetermining judge was also given dispensation to tell an applicant that he could not again apply for redetermination. That provision still exists. The 1997 legislation allowed judicial decisions according to evidence properly admitted at law. It did not interfere with the 14380 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 independence of the judiciary; it built upon and continued the direction of the legislation that had been introduced by the Coalition in 1989 and amended in 1993. Of course I understand the terrible hurt that is involved in the matters we are discussing. I would prefer to not take a partisan position, but it is a little difficult to do so when the Leader of the Opposition constantly interjects and refers to me as a hypocrite.

Until recently, and for six years, I was the Minister for Corrective Services. I can say with confidence that I have met more of the victims of heinous crimes, and I know more about their feelings and I know more about some of the criminals that we are talking about, than do most members of this House. The emotion that is involved in this debate is not sufficient to determine the outcome of it. I am here precisely because of the feeling that I have for the victims and to ensure that we have a bill that works legally. Some members opposite have suggested that we forget about the lawyers, forget about the judges, and say whatever we want, whatever we think.

Every member of this House is horrified by the actions of the individuals that we are talking about, and everyone agrees that we should do everything we can to make sure that they do not get out of gaol. But I want to be sure that what we do is legally effective. For heaven's sake, what is the point of passing a bill that is struck down next year or the year after by the High Court and the very victims that we want to protect today are thrown back into the uncertainty that they experienced before 1989. What is the point of that?

Sooner or later, the bill will inevitably be scrutinised by the High Court, because this area of law is complicated. The Opposition's amendments, which I have seen again today, are obviously technically flawed; they are a mess. Even if the Government were to agree to them they contradict their apparent purpose. I will say more about that later. The Government wants to close as many as possible of the potential loopholes that may exist in legislation of this type. We want to get it right. We want to ensure that the legislation embraces never- to-be-released offenders such as Crump, whose sentence has already been redetermined. Nothing in the Opposition's amendments as moved will assist in catching Crump.

The effect of the amendments foreshadowed by the Opposition is to replace the Government's model concerning redetermination of sentences with a facsimile of the bill that the Opposition previously introduced. To some extent we are repeating an argument we have had before. In essence the Government is taking what it believes to be the best approach, first, because it is the approach that best resembles the sentencing court's approach in the context of what that court could do in 1989, and, second, because it is the genuine belief of the Government and myself, based upon careful analysis, that this approach would be more likely to withstand a challenge than an approach that cuts out redetermination altogether.

That is the essence of it; the Opposition can go for redetermination if it wants to do so. However, I do not want that, because the chances of a bill which goes for redetermination has a much stronger chance of being struck down by the High Court. There is no use railing against lawyers: if they do it, they do it. If the alternative is to cut off redetermination altogether, that is a flawed approach. The alternative may have the unfortunate effect of diluting the capacity of the States to legislate if the bill were struck down as offending the Constitution. That result could hamper the capacity of States to make laws in the best interests of people of the States generally.

The Leader of the Opposition has referred in the media, and perhaps in previous debates, to the Bachrach case, which was decided in the High Court a couple of years ago. That case showed that a State can legislate to make planning litigation obsolete. However, it certainly did not extend that principle to the criminal law. Indeed, it was pointed out in that case that the determination of criminal guilt remains the exclusive domain of judicial power. The Opposition can say that it does not want that to be so, but it would be unwise to test the extension of that principle unnecessarily.

The legislation is based on an assessment of the course of action which presents the least risk with the best outcome. A priority for the Government is to achieve an outcome: that a particular category of offender should serve a term of life in prison in accordance with the recommendation of the original sentencing judge. The means to that end should not contain identifiable witnesses who might jeopardise the achievement of that outcome. Thus the Government's model is the preferred model, because it has the effect of keeping this category of prisoners in gaol for life—which means life!

The Government believes that it has been vindicated in the stand of principle which it took in declining to seek to intervene in a criminal law proceeding which was under way. I refer to the recent application by Baker for a redetermination. Justice James, in his recent decision, has given most careful and detailed 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14381 consideration to the intricacies of the legislation as it stood at the time of the inmate Baker's application. The judgment provided valuable insights into the likely judicial interpretation of various clauses of the legislation. All along the Government maintained that the legislation was too important and too intricate to amend hastily without due thought and in the heat of political controversy. The Opposition model is a vacuum that offends against sentencing principles and would leave an anomaly in the category of prisoners it attaches to. That is, the administrative process by which a person's sentence could be determined prior to 1989, the old remission scheme, has been removed. If the process of redetermination which was set in place to replace it in 1989 were to be set aside, it follows logically that what is left is an indeterminate sentence. The 1989 legislation was designed to end indeterminate sentences. The aim of the legislation was to create certainty. It is highly arguable whether a natural life sentence can be created, as the Opposition seeks to do, by the simple expedient of failing to redetermine the original sentence. That uncertainty may possibly ground a High Court challenge founding a claim that the appellant is an indeterminate sentence prisoner in legal limbo. The model proposed by the Opposition relies upon a single point of intervention, that is, the point of redetermination. If the High Court decided to strike down that clause the entire amendment and its purpose would fail. On the other hand, the Government model has several limbs, and those limbs are, as it were, severable. In other words, if a High Court challenge succeeded on those parts of the Government scheme which relate to the Parole Board—and on the basis of the Solicitor General's opinion I do not believe that it will—those measures which relate to the redetermination would remain, allowing time to consider further amendments. The Hon. John Hannaford made a pertinent point in the debate on the Opposition's bill in the Legislative Council on 31 August last year. In relation to his 1993 legislation, amending the redetermination process, he said:

Legislation that is passed sometimes does not work the way in which it was intended.

No government has previously sought to impose a legislated life sentence upon these never-to-be-released prisoners. Instead, governments have sought to tighten the requirements for a redetermination of the sentences. The model proposed by the Opposition takes a dramatically, and I would say potentially flawed, new direction. The Government has learnt from the failed Kable legislation and is aware of the capacity of this place to make good laws within boundaries. Based on the example given by former Attorney General Mr Hannaford, I venture to suggest that if the Opposition were now in government, even it might respect those principles, instead of continuing on what I can only regard as a reckless course. The point of distinction with the Opposition proposal is that the Government is basically following as closely as possible the form of the original sentence under which these 10 never-to-be- released prisoners were sentenced. That is a key point. We must acknowledge that legal challenge is a real possibility for the legislation that is being debated. However, the Government is of the strong view that its model will achieve the intention of keeping Baker and his ilk in gaol and that it is the less risky path to travel in ensuring that that remains the case. The advice we have is that the Government model will work and I do not intend to get further into an auction over advice on the Opposition's model. I have expressed the Government's committed view that it is flawed. The decision by Justice Greg James in the Baker application shows that the present model for redeterminations is actually working. The Government is tightening that model. Justice James said that rehabilitation and the likelihood of reoffending were not, on their own, special reasons. Under the existing legislation special reasons did not, on their own, require a consideration of the application to redetermine. The Government endorses the approach and adds to that the words "inability for a head sentence of anything other than life in this category of offenders and the Parole Board restrictions on release". The existing system is working and we are making it tighter. As Attorney General I have examined the issue in some considerable detail. I have also had the benefit of briefings from the Solicitor General, the Director of the Criminal Law Division of the Attorney General's Department, and the Director of the Legal Branch of the Cabinet Office, and I have formed a view, in consultation with other members of the Government, that the model I am putting forward is the best possible model to put forward. The Government option is not weaker; it is stronger and better. It captures Crump, which the Opposition's bill did not do, it retains judicial discretion and serves the people of this State by ensuring that the 10 heinous criminals of whom we are talking will not see the light of day. There has been criticism that the bill permits reapplications for redetermination on an at-worst basis of every three years. However, in reality such an application will only be granted in special circumstances. In 14382 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

Baker's application the judge saw no special circumstances and even then consideration of all the issues, such as the circumstances surrounding the offence itself and all the offences for which an offender was ever convicted, must follow and then if redetermination is permitted—it may be denied for a limited period or forever—the head sentence must still be life. The prospect of parole following from any redetermination is so remote as to be negligible because of the parole requirements in this package. Some completely misleading comments were made by a number of speakers opposite about parole requirements. It is perfectly clear from new section 154A (3) that the Parole Board may make an order directing the release of an offender on parole if and only if it is satisfied that the offender is in imminent danger of dying or is incapacitated to the extent that he or she no longer has the physical ability to do harm to any person. That is about as tight a definition as one can get while still reflecting the structure of the original sentence. In debate on the Opposition bill on 31 August last year the Hon. Charlie Lynn said:

Both the Government and the Opposition could continue to get legal advice and there would be ongoing conflicting views. That was an accurate observation he made during that debate. It will end up being a matter for the Parliament as to which view prevails. The Government has put forward its advice and relies upon the good sense of honourable members to support this best option. It would be a great shame for the bill to fall apart on the basis that the debate was split between those who support the Government bill, which gets both Baker and Crump, those who support the Opposition, which seeks to cut off redetermination altogether, and those who oppose the concept of legislation in this area entirely, although I do not think there are many in the last category. The advantage of the Government solution over the Opposition approach to dealing with this difficult and unique group of prisoners caught by history, with judges saying that they should never be released under the laws for sentencing that existed before 1989, is that it does not interfere with the judicial process, it does not impose its own mandatory life sentence and promise a potential release on parole under highly restrictive conditions. I am concerned that if the Opposition approach is adopted and there is a successful High Court challenge, the legislative power of the State, as happened in the Kable case, will be further eroded, thereby diminishing the power of this Parliament to pass laws for the welfare of the citizens of this State generally. The Government has examined this issue for nearly a year. It considered the model put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and decided that it should not be debated as a matter of policy while proceedings concerning the law were on foot. It was of the view that the model has inherent flaws that may increase the prospects of a challenge. The Government has given thorough consideration to the possible options. There remain the problems with the Opposition option which I have addressed. They include the Parliament effectively sentencing people to a longer term, and that may be held to be usurping exclusive judicial power. We know that before 1989 the average term of a life sentence was 12 years. The Opposition model legislatively removes any possibility of release. It is likely that an argument could be mounted that the Opposition model involves the Parliament exercising an exclusive function of the judiciary by lengthening the real term of imprisonment for a category of offenders. The Government option, one settled upon after much discussion with the legal advisers to the Government, is aimed largely at re-creating the form of the original regime under which Baker and his ilk were sentenced. The maximum term is still life imprisonment. However, the court can set a non-parole period, after which the offender could be released under the stricter regime put in place at the executive Parole Board end of the equation. While the tightening of the parole provisions makes release in practice more than unlikely, the fact that the Parliament is not extending the sentence by denying the possibility that the offender will ever be released means that the Government approach is less likely to be challenged. I commend the bill. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. Schedule 1 Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove—Leader of the Opposition) [10.20 p.m.] by leave, I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1, lines 12-24. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead: 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14383

[2] Schedule 1, clause 2

Insert after clause 2 (3):

(4) The provisions of subclauses (2) (b) and (3) cease to have effect on the commencement of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Act 2001.

[3] Schedule 1, clause 9

Insert after clause 8:

9 Barring of applications for offenders subject to non-release recommendations

(1) On and from the commencement of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Act 2001:

(a) a disqualified person is no longer eligible to apply to the Supreme Court for a determination under clause 4 (1), and

(b) the Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction to make a determination under clause 4 (1) in respect of a disqualified person.

(2) Subclause (1) (b) applies to and in respect of a disqualified person even if an application for a determination under clause 4 (1) was made, but not determined, in respect of the person before the commencement of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Act 2001.

(3) In this clause, disqualified person means an offender who is serving an existing life sentence and in respect of whom a non-release recommendation is in force.

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1, lines 1-18. Omit all words on those lines.

I am absolutely gobsmacked by the hypocrisy of the Attorney General. He has just explained why his bill is not taking away judicial discretion and why the bill the Opposition proposed does. I remind the House that we are saying to the Supreme Court of New South Wales that it can say and do whatever it likes but the Parole Board, an administrative tribunal, will not implement the decision it makes. The Supreme Court of New South Wales can determine and allow people a period of parole but the Parole Board, according to the Premier's own words, will cement those people in their cells. The Attorney General is a hypocrite, because he is playing politics. He should be saying that the discretion of the Supreme Court—one aspect of which his legislation is taking away, that is, to allow this matter to come back before it—can be taken away by Parliament because Parliament does have that right. No, rather than taking the hard decisions, the Government is taking away the discretion of the Supreme Court ex post facto by taking away the discretion of the Parole Board.

Let me remind the Committee of something the Premier said in 1994. The Minister for Transport will remember the matter was before the Serious Offenders Review Board, a matter in which he had a personal interest. The Minister for Transport was standing with the Premier and Gwen Hanns when the Premier was saying he was going to make sure that people like Lewthwaite did not get out. He is out—honourable members should remember that. Honourable members should remember what the current Premier said in 1994 when he was criticising bodies such as the Serious Offenders Review Board. He said it was not a substitute for making policy decisions to refer these sorts of decisions to those bodies. He said:

All this is a substitute for government just making hard decisions. The governments are there to make hard decisions.

The Government has to make a hard decision about these. Do we want people like the Bakers of the world, the Cobby murderers and the Janine Balding murderers going back to the Supreme Court every three years and wasting the time of the court and the time of the families of the victims of those crimes? No! When the Supreme Court gives those people a determination, do we want them going before the Parole Board, however hopeless the situation may be? The answer is no. The Attorney General is a hypocrite. He said he is prepared to have his legislation challenged by the High Court. Why is he prepared to have his legislation challenged by the High Court but not put up the other option, which may also be challenged in the High Court? That will at least give the people of the State an opportunity to have this situation sorted out, to make sure these people do not come back before the courts. If the Attorney General is that confident about having his legislation challenged in the High Court, he should allow both pieces of legislation to be challenged.

Time and again we have heard about the legal advice that says this is unconstitutional. The Attorney General should table it and show us. He has not been prepared to show us the legal advice. The only legal advice honourable members on this side have seen—five minutes before we brought the legislation into the Chamber— 14384 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 was advice from the department of the Attorney General that we may in some way be influencing the case or could compromise the case. If there were legislation in Parliament that stopped the case going before the court in the first instance, there would have been nothing to compromise. It is as simple as that.

I am absolutely amazed that members of the Government can piously put their hands over their hearts and say that they have done everything they possibly can. Tell that to the families who will have to go through this process every three years. They should tell them they have done everything possible. The reality is, they have not. This legislation is before the Parliament today, not because of any high moral principle, not because the Government is committed to doing anything, but because Brian Morse and people on this side of the Chamber badgered and badgered the Government to do something about it. Brian Morse and people like him do not want to have to face the trial of having—

Mr Black: Kerry, are you all right?

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: Have you been drinking again? I would be quiet if I were you. We know we cannot get into a lift with you because the smell knocks everybody out. Please leave it alone and let us have a serious debate tonight. The Government says that he has been trying to do something about this since October. I remind honourable members that this determination started in June. If the Government were that concerned about it, it should have done something about it then.

Mr Brown: October?

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: It started in June.

Mr Brown: You said November.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I did not. I said it started in June. The Government has finally done something about it because people like Brian Morse have been publicly campaigning to get something done. They have been saying, "Please, God, do something so we have some peace of mind." I have already acknowledged that we accept the legislation in relation to the Parole Board because Crump has already been determined and he becomes eligible for parole in 2003. I believe we should do everything we can to keep him in gaol. One of the ways we can do that is to accept this part of the legislation. If honourable members had listened to my speech earlier, they would know I made it clear that we would support that part of the legislation because of that.

Like the Attorney General, I know a bit about these absolutely horrific criminals, because I, as shadow Minister for Corrective Services, got to know a lot of these people. I acknowledge Martha Jabour, who is in the gallery tonight. Through Martha and the good work she has done I have got to know a lot of the families of the victims of these people. I have sat in on meetings of the Homicide Victims Support Group and from listening to people I understand the trauma they have gone through. We are trying to make sure that that trauma is reduced to the absolute minimum and is not revisited upon them every three years and that, as the Premier has said, these offenders will be cemented in their cells. That means they should not have an opportunity to come back before the Supreme Court every three years and say they have reformed so please do something about it. We should take away from the Supreme Court the right to let them have that hearing.

Why should those people be given any chance? Why should they have an opportunity to stand in open court and appeal to the masses and say, "I have been a terrible person but now I have reformed"? They should not have that opportunity. They should have their life sentences that the courts set in the first instance—never to be released—and they should not have an opportunity to go back to the courts and ask the courts to consider giving them another opportunity. Time and again we have sought to have this legislation debated because we believe very strongly at the end of the day that the power lies with Parliament to take away these people's pain; we believe the power lies with Parliament to give them finality. The Government's measure does not ensure either finality or that these people will not have a regular opportunity to revisit pain on their victims. We can say that it is hopeless and that prisoners will not have that chance, but they will keep trying. What else do they have to do in gaol but prepare appeal after appeal? We should not give them even that opportunity. I remind Parliament that it has the power, responsibility and the opportunity to do something about this.

We have sought legal advice—which we are prepared to give to the Government although it has not extended us the same courtesy—and I refer to the judgment by Mr Justice Mahoney in The Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation of New South Wales v The Minister for Industrial Relations before the Court of Appeal. He referred in some detail to the role of Parliament, and concluded: 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14385

But in the end the power and so the responsibility lies with the Parliament and in my opinion it is proper that it be so. For the consequences of such legislation may be serious and it is the Parliament and those who comprise it who must be accountable for it.

Tonight we are asking Parliament to be accountable for the proposed legislation that it has the opportunity to pass. We are asking Parliament to stand up for the people who want us to be their voice. We are asking Parliament to pass our amendments to ensure that heinous criminals do not have the opportunity to appeal to the courts. I accept fully that we must pass the amendment regarding the Parole Board. However, we must also ensure that criminals do not have the opportunity to go, time and time again, before the courts and then to the Parole Board. Let us minimise those opportunities. Let us ensure that Crump is the only person who could do that; let us deny that opportunity to Baker, the Cobby murderers, the Balding murderers and others of that ilk. They have forfeited every single right to return to the community and they should forfeit every single right even to apply for that opportunity. It is not a big ask.

The Premier and the Attorney General have said that they expect the legislation to be challenged. We have also received legal advice. The Government claims to have legal advice about the Parole Board and the fact that the measure will withstand a High Court challenge, and we have legal advice to the same effect. The Premier, Attorney General, Minister for Police and the Minister for Corrective Services—wherever he is—have an opportunity tonight to ensure that every single thing that can be done to prevent the release of these prisoners is done. Parliament has an opportunity to ensure that they do not even have the chance to cause pain, grief, anxiety and concern to victims' families—all of which Brian Morse has been suffering for the past 27 years. We have an opportunity to give those families finality. That is what we are asking: Close the books for these people. Close the book for Brian Morse and for his children. Close the book for the families of Janine Balding and Anita Cobby. Do not continue the pain; do not continue to allow prisoners to go before the courts time and again and reopen old wounds.

This is an opportunity for Parliament to show leadership. This is an opportunity for the Premier to stand by his comments in 1994 that governments are there to make hard decisions. Have the courage to make that decision now. I urge honourable members to pass the amendments and the bill in a spirit of bipartisanship to protect the people of New South Wales but, more importantly, to stop the suffering of victims' families. Close the books; close them tonight. Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [10.35 p.m.]: There is little point my reiterating at great length my argument in respect of the bill. It is true that Parliament is sovereign, but the courts are a separate power and they continue to have sentencing powers. I began my summation of this debate by saying that we can speak with much emotion—we are all deeply emotional about this matter—but if honourable members think it is in any way beneficial to the victims of these heinous criminals to pass a law that will be struck down by the High Court— Mrs Chikarovski: Show us the advice that says that. Mr DEBUS: We listened to the Leader of the Opposition in silence. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Bega will cease interjecting. Both will have a further opportunity to address the Committee. Mr DEBUS: If the Leader of the Opposition thinks there is a lasting benefit in introducing legislation that is susceptible to challenge in the High Court, she continues to demonstrate her lamentable confusion. I draw attention to the amendment to schedule 1, clause 9 (3), which states:

In this clause, disqualified person means an offender who is serving an existing life sentence and in respect of whom a non- release recommendation is in force. They are the people who would be disqualified from any redetermination application by the Opposition's amendment. I simply point out that no recommendation can be in force in those circumstances. This amendment would fail ab initio because the wording is flawed. I understand the Opposition's intention, but the drafting is flawed. This amendment will not work in its present form. If there were ever a demonstration of the technical difficulties with which we are dealing, this is it. The Government does not support the amendment and, even if it did, the amendment would not achieve the Opposition's intended aim. Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [10.37 p.m.]: I said in my contribution to the second reading debate earlier this evening that, if the Government seriously believes it is providing the best outcome for the community and if the Minister wishes the community to accept his sincerity, he should explain why he is not 14386 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001 making the legal advice available. He need not provide the details if there is some reason why that legal advice should not be made available. However, at the very least he should explain to the Committee why he will not do so. Withholding that advice poses a serious question about the credibility of everything the Minister has said tonight. It is a serious issue.

As to the Minister's latter comments, the amendments moved in globo by the Leader of the Opposition were drafted using not only our expertise but that of Parliamentary Counsel. Proposed clause 9 (3) of schedule 1 was drafted with the benefit of that expertise and advice. I listened carefully to the Minister's comments, but I am uncertain at this stage why he claims that that provision will not achieve the Opposition's desired aim. The Minister said that he understands what we are trying to achieve. In that case I would be grateful if he will explain to the Committee precisely why this amendment will not achieve our objective.

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [10.39 p.m.]: I move:

That the Chairman of Committees leave the Chair and report progress.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 49

Mr Amery Ms Harrison Mr E. T. Page Ms Andrews Mr Hickey Mr Price Mr Aquilina Mr Hunter Dr Refshauge Mr Ashton Mr Iemma Ms Saliba Mr Bartlett Mrs Lo Po' Mr Scully Ms Beamer Mr Lynch Mr W. D. Smith Mr Black Mr Markham Mr Stewart Mr Brown Mr Martin Mr Tripodi Miss Burton Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Collier Mr McManus Mr West Mr Crittenden Ms Meagher Mr Whelan Mr Debus Ms Megarrity Mr Woods Mr Face Ms Moore Mr Yeadon Mr Gaudry Mr Moss Mr Gibson Mr Newell Tellers, Mr Greene Ms Nori Mr Anderson Mrs Grusovin Mr Orkopoulos Mr Thompson

Noes, 36

Mr Armstrong Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mr Barr Mr Maguire Mr Stoner Mr Brogden Mr McGrane Mr Tink Mrs Chikarovski Mr Merton Mr Torbay Mr Collins Mr O'Doherty Mr J. H. Turner Mr Debnam Mr O'Farrell Mr R. W. Turner Mr George Mr Oakeshott Mr Webb Mr Glachan Mr Piccoli Mr Windsor Mr Hartcher Mr Richardson Mr Hazzard Mr Rozzoli Ms Hodgkinson Ms Seaton Tellers, Mr Humpherson Mrs Skinner Mr Fraser Dr Kernohan Mr Slack-Smith Mr R. H. L. Smith

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14387

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bill: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [10.50 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the introduction and progress up to and including the Minister's second reading speech on the Passenger Transport Amendment (Transitways) Bill, notice of which was given this day for tomorrow.

When these bills have been dealt with, the interrupted consideration in Committee of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill will resume.

Motion agreed to.

PASSENGER TRANSPORT AMENDMENT (TRANSITWAYS) BILL

Bill introduced and read first time.

Second Reading

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads) [10.53 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In 1998 this Government issued Action for Transport 2010. That document set out a program to develop a network of transitways to provide a fast, safe and reliable alternative to car travel for people in western Sydney. Transitways will be special roads that will be used only by buses, police and emergency vehicles. During 2003 the first of the seven proposed transitways is scheduled to commence operation over 30 kilometres from Liverpool to Parramatta via Wetherill Park. The Passenger Transport Amendment (Transitways) Bill seeks to provide for the operation of high-quality bus services on the proposed transitways network. The bill is needed to provide power for the Director-General of Transport to contract transitways services with the operators who will provide services on designated transitway routes.

Transitways contracts can be for terms of up to 10 years. This permits a commercial investment period to significantly amortise the capital and start-up costs. Allowing the term to vary will facilitate management of the contract re-tendering program and integration of new transitways as they are added to the network. The amendments to the Act are consistent with the use of a competitive tender process for transitways services, both at start-up and at the end of each transitway contract. This will give the community greater value for money, provide a higher quality of service and promote innovation, including the introduction of new fare products. Current bus operators and possible new entrants will be allowed to participate in the process.

The bill provides contract flexibility to allow for the full range of service patterns, including the possibility that no one transitway operator will enjoy exclusive rights. Performance standards in transitway contracts will be used to uphold service quality. Existing contracts under the Passenger Transport Act have very limited performance requirements. Drawing on these current arrangements would be unlikely to achieve a transitway service that is up to expectations for this new public transport mode. This is because the present system is based on average service levels prevailing in the industry for comparable communities with similar population densities. The Government's investment in western Sydney requires that contractual performance standards be used to achieve higher service levels than the existing contracts produce, as befits this new mode.

Other sections of the Passenger Transport Act will continue to regulate ordinary passenger bus services. Existing regional contract holders will be able to participate in the tender process for transitway services, albeit for services contracted under these new provisions. As is already the case, commercial arrangements between operators could provide integrated services across contract boundaries. The bill lists the proposed transitways set out in Action for Transport 2010. Because subsequent government processes, including environmental and planning approvals, will affect the route of the proposed transitways, it is not possible to further specify the exact routes at this stage. Therefore, the bill allows for the determination, variation and removal of the transitways routes by order published in the Government Gazette.

Similarly, the bill allows new transitways to be added by regulation in case demand indicates that more transitways are needed. Such changes to the list could be made for significant socio-demographic reasons, such 14388 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

as a major new employment or commercial attractor, or for documented changes to transport planning priorities. The bill allows for transitional arrangements and will also permit short-term, off transitway re-routing for road construction, maintenance or in emergency situations. The Roads and Traffic Authority and the Department of Transport have programmed to complete construction of the exclusive sections of the Liverpool to Parramatta transitway in time to commence operations on this new western Sydney mode in 2003. Planning and research is already advancing for an additional 60 kilometres of routes to complete the western Sydney transitway network.

Because of the lead time an operator would need to procure the necessary buses of a quality and quantity to satisfy bus fleet and service specifications, the Director-General of Transport will need to enter into a transitway contract or contracts within the next 12 months. Passage of the Passenger Transport Amendment (Transitways) Bill is a key milestone in permitting the finalisation of the planning approval process so that the competitive tender process and construction of transitways infrastructure can commence. I commend the bill to the House Debate adjourned on motion by Mr O'Farrell. SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK AUTHORITY BILL Bill introduced and read a first time. Second Reading Mr MOSS (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Aquilina, [10.59 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time. This is a bill to establish the Sydney Olympic Park Authority and to build, literally, on the success of last year's Olympic and Paralympic Games. Just as importantly, this bill aims to ensure the environmentally sound management of the millennium parklands, a huge new area of open space in the geographic heart of Sydney. Homebush Bay before the Games was an area of environmental degradation; now it has been remediated, and under the proposals in this bill it will be managed to world's best practice standards as part of the overall operations of Sydney Olympic Park. As honourable members know, and as the whole world knows, the Olympic Games held in Sydney last year were a spectacular success. The Olympic Games, the sporting competitions, and the events held throughout the city were exceptionally well organised, held in great Sydney spring weather and provided a hugely enjoyable 16 days for athletes, spectators, volunteers, visitors and the people of Sydney. Just over a fortnight later the Paralympic Games provided another 10 memorable days. Both the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games are now known as the best Games ever. We know that this is not just flattery; it is the truth. The Games left Sydney a wonderful new precinct in Sydney Olympic Park. The purpose of this bill is to ensure we make best use of it—not just the venues and the nearby development areas but also the more than 450 hectares of open space forming the Millennium Parklands. It includes Bicentennial Park as well as the open space near the former Olympic Village—the new suburb of Newington—and the area along the Parramatta River foreshores, including areas to be opened up, which most Sydneysiders have never visited, despite the park having a rich history of both Aboriginal and early European settlement.

The focus of this bill is the future and the best use and best management of a large and unique area right in the geographical centre of Sydney, an area that has the potential to become a world-renowned destination. We will build on its Olympic image and create a special environment. The bill will establish on 1 July this year a new statutory authority, the Sydney Olympic Park Authority [SOPA] with the responsibility to manage the public assets of Sydney Olympic Park—open space, venues, transport routes and development areas. Part 2 of the bill establishes SOPA and part 4 sets out its functions. Part 3 vests land in the new authority.

The functions of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority are set out in clause 12 of the bill. In summary they are to manage the development and use of Sydney Olympic Park; promote and manage events at Sydney Olympic Park; protect and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of Millennium Parklands; operate and maintain public transport facilities within the precinct, and act as the contact point in the New South Wales Government on all Olympic-related issues. Division 2 of part 4, clauses 16 to 25, sets out the powers of SOPA in relation to planning matters and acting as a local council in certain circumstances. Most municipal functions, such as internal road management and waste services that are currently undertaken at Sydney Olympic Park by the Olympic Co-ordination Authority [OCA] will be continued by SOPA. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14389

The bill also provides SOPA with the necessary powers to ensure that activities inside venues such as Stadium Australia and the SuperDome comply with relevant building fire and life safety standards. At this stage it will be helpful for honourable members to refer to the five maps that are named in the bill. They are available for inspection by honourable members in the Speaker’s Gallery and will be kept in the offices of the new authority. The first map shows the area defined as Sydney Olympic Park. This includes both the holdings of the State Sports Centre Trust, which continues in existence as a business operation but without holding land in Sydney Olympic Park and Bicentennial Park, which becomes part of the millennium parklands. The second map shows the Sydney Olympic Park development area, where the notification power in clause 25 of the bill operates. The third map shows the millennium parklands and the fourth shows the way the roads in Sydney Olympic Park are vested in SOPA and Auburn Council under clause 7 in part 3 of the bill. The fifth map, referred to in clause 9 (3) of the bill, extinguishes some redundant encumbrances on title. I now want to speak at more length about the millennium parklands. I think it is fair to say that the people of New South Wales do not yet appreciate what an extensive and varied area of open space is becoming available for active and passive recreation at Sydney Olympic Park. Historically the Homebush Bay area was, to be blunt, a dump. It was Sydney's rubbish heap at the bottom of the backyard—except that as Sydney grew, Homebush Bay had stopped being at the bottom of the backyard. It is now in the middle of Sydney. Preparations for the Games began with what was formerly a quarry, an abattoir, a stockyard, an ammunition depot and a dump for waste including dioxins—in other words, environmentally degraded land. The area has been sensitively remediated to the highest environmental standards and recognised internationally as a case study in urban renewal. The process was undertaken by OCA, and SOPA will inherit the fruits of that work. Many of the key staff who have put years of their lives into the work will transfer to SOPA. The open space at Sydney Olympic Park is both varied and integrated. There is great variety from Bicentennial Park and the waterways of Newington, the Olympic Village, and the venues, to the Newington Nature Reserve in the north and the former Newington armaments depot, the riverside walkways, Wilson Reserve and Auburn Reserve. The Bicentennial Park Trust will be abolished under clause 80 of the bill and under clause 8 of schedule 8 its staff transfers to the new authority. Bicentennial Park will become part of the millennium parklands held by SOPA. Bicentennial Park is now a well-established recreation area, drawing thousands of visitors, especially at weekends and holidays. But there is much more to the millennium parklands and they will be progressively opened to the public and become equally well known, with the potential for millions of visitors each year . Millennium parklands, totalling 440 hectares, is bigger than New York's Central Park and nearly twice the size of Sydney's Centennial Park. Sydneysiders will soon have the chance to experience one of the world's great urban parks with the completion of further remediation and landscaping works. Whilst the sensitive areas of the parklands, including Newington Nature Reserve and the brick pit, will always be protected, the picnic areas, pathways and cycleways along the Parramatta River will be progressively opened to the public, particularly for those living in western Sydney. In fact, what is known as the Louise Sauvage Pathway is expected to be fully opened in the latter part of this year. The walkways, for example, along Haslams Creek with newly planted trees and shrubs, will be as attractive and as popular as any in Sydney. The bill renames the Silverwater Nature Reserve as the Newington Nature Reserve and includes it in millennium parklands. It was dedicated as a nature reserve on 15 September last year, the date of the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games. Its ownership will not pass to SOPA. This extremely sensitive parkland area with limited public access will remain a dedicated nature reserve protected by National Parks and Wildlife legislation under the care, control and management of National Parks and Wildlife Service. Clause 57 of the bill requires SOPA to establish a Board Advisory Committee for millennium parklands. Before appointing a person to that committee, the SOPA Board must consult with the Minister for the Environment. SOPA is also required to prepare a plan of management for the millennium parklands. Formal public consultation is required and all representations received through the consultation process must be referred to the advisory committee for its consideration and advice. The Minister must consider the plan of management, together with the advisory committee advice, and it can only be approved with the concurrence of the Minister for the Environment in his role as Minister responsible for national parks legislation. Clause 29 of the bill prevents the authority from disposing of the parklands in any way and provides that the parklands cannot be compulsorily acquired. These requirements provide extensive protection for the parklands so that Sydneysiders will be able to both participate in the development of policies for the parklands and enjoy this wonderful legacy from the Olympic Games, now and in the future. Near to the Newington nature reserve is the former Newington armament depot, a significant area of open space containing many buildings erected when it was a military establishment of the colony of New South 14390 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

Wales in the late nineteenth century. It includes numerous bunkers built by different armies—the British, Australian and the United States. It has almost seven kilometres of internal narrow-gauge railway. In clause 12 (d) the bill authorises SOPA to operate public transport facilities within Sydney Olympic Park for both recreation purposes and to get around this massive site. We expect this area, with its frontage to the Parramatta River, to become a very popular destination for visitors. Another significant part of the millennium parklands is the Wilson Reserve and the former Auburn Reserve. These open spaces have also been carefully restored to world's best practice environmental standards and will soon be available for regular community and sporting use.

Working closely with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, OCA developed and implemented a widely recognised management regime for preserving biological diversity across the entire precinct, including endangered flora and fauna such as the green and gold bell frog. Major events such as stadium football matches and the Royal Easter Show generate event management issues that affect the parklands. For example the Hill Road car park, the horse trail used during the Easter show, and pedestrian and bicycle access to major events all impact on the parklands. Because of the previous uses of much of the land a leachate management system has been established throughout the remediated lands. Leachate management will continue for some years and it, too, requires careful and integrated management so that the public can safely use and enjoy the parklands in the future.

The Government has decided to have the millennium parklands, with the exception of the Newington nature reserve, managed by SOPA to integrate parklands usage and care as much as possible to cope with the significant public usage predicted. The advisory committee on the parklands, along with the plan of management and associated provisions in the bill, provides the necessary protection of this exceptional parkland. Part 4 of the bill specifies other functions for SOPA. The new authority will have similar powers in relation to roads in Sydney Olympic Park as OCA had under the Homebush Bay Operations Act, which the bill repeals. These powers are necessary, particularly in connection with major events.

For the purposes of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, clause 45 of the bill provides that the Environment Protection Authority is the appropriate regulatory authority. A further significant function for SOPA is as the link with the major Olympic organisations, the International Olympic Committee and the Australian Olympic Committee. Clauses 12 (e) and 63 of the bill provide for this role for the new authority, appropriate because of the association that will always exist between Sydney Olympic Park and the Games of the year 2000. It is envisaged that Sydney Olympic Park will form alliances with Olympic parks around the world to form a unique circuit for both sporting events and international tourism.

I also want to refer to some other changes made by the bill. As I have already mentioned, the Bicentennial Park Trust Act and the Homebush Bay Operations Act are repealed. The Homebush Bay operations regulation, however, continues in effect and is renamed the Sydney Olympic Park Regulation 2001. A new Water Management (Sydney Olympic Park Authority) Regulation confirms SOPA's function as a water supply authority providing treated water to customers within the Sydney Olympic Park development area. As honourable members would be aware, the Water Reclamation and Management Scheme [WRAMS] has been in use at the Olympic venues since before the Games and is regarded as a major environmental legacy. WRAMS represents the first large-scale urban residential use of a recycled water system in Sydney, and Australia. The scheme uses waste water from sewerage and stormwater run-off from the Olympic venues and Newington, treats and disinfects the water and then distributes it for watering gardens and flushing toilets. The scheme complements the environmental initiatives at Sydney Olympic Park and has attracted considerable international interest.

I turn now to the development areas forming part of Sydney Olympic Park. In the coming months the Government expects to release a draft of the post-Olympic master plan for Sydney Olympic Park referred to in clause 17 of the bill. At the same time it will also release a request for proposals for private sector development in the areas adjacent to Olympic Park station, but excluding the Australia Centre. Integration of the venues and adjacent development at Sydney Olympic Park into the woven fabric of Sydney will not be a quick fix. Gradually areas around the venues, the Sydney Showground and Olympic Park station to the south of the millennium parklands will attract new businesses, including restaurants and cafes, to what will always be a unique part of Sydney.

At the same time the Government will continue to provide a legacy from the Games for those generally lower profile sports, such as table tennis and handball, which attracted such interest during the Games through the use of venues such as the State Sports Centre. The Government's aim in encouraging development at Sydney 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14391

Olympic Park is to create a more vibrant place and visitor destination. We need to inject variety into Sydney Olympic Park so that it is an attractive place to visit at any time, as well as an attractive place to live near or work in and not only a place for major events. Honourable members would appreciate that even with an average of 12,000 people already visiting the park daily, the area can look unfilled.

The site was, of course, designed to cope with both the once-in-a-lifetime crowds at the Olympics and the unprecedented temporary buildings and pedestrian facilities required. The huge sea of people that we saw walking the Boulevard during the Games averaged around 400,000 on the peak days. SOPA's role will be to manage the responses to the request for development proposals, and to negotiate and supervise the process of development. The consent authority for development at Sydney Olympic Park will remain the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning will remain closely involved with SOPA in planning matters. The master plan will provide a framework for private sector development at Sydney Olympic Park with which the major venues will interact so that our Olympic venues operate in the future in a vibrant urban area. It is not a master plan for the venues, for Stadium Australia, the SuperDome, the Sydney Showground and the other venues at Sydney Olympic Park.

The accumulating changes at Sydney Olympic Park will increase its quality as a destination and increase the variety and frequency of events, which the major venues can attract. In keeping with the concept of future support for Sydney Olympic Park the State Budget for 2001-02 provided for a $30 million capital allocation. Much of this has previously been included in the Olympic construction budget, with $12.8 million being a previous commitment of Government towards the post-Games reconfiguration of the Olympic Stadium and the repositioning of the cauldron.

Some $4.5 million is allocated towards the refurbishment of pre-colonial heritage structures in the millennium parklands, and the provision of basic site amenities for public use of those parklands. Money is also required for the one-off reconfiguration of the site for its long-term use, such as the provision of shade and shelter. The site has also been allocated some $33 million in support of its ongoing operating costs. In addition to this support the site is expected to generate $16.5 million of its own revenues. With the future development of the site, this extent of support from the public purse towards operating costs is expected to decline significantly in future years.

The Treasurer has announced the composition of the Board of SOPA, which includes a mix of people with extensive board and corporate governance experience, public administration, commercial and urban planning skills, business and marketing skills, and environmental policy experience. The board will comprise David Richmond as Chair, with Gabrielle Kibble, Bob Leece, Herb Elliott, Penelope Figgis and Chris Christodolou as members. The board will also include the Chief Executive Officer of SOPA. The Sydney Olympic Park Authority will inherit many OCA staff and some buildings for its offices at Sydney Olympic Park, but it is not OCA. On and from 1 July and under schedule 7 of the bill, OCA will cease to have any planning development or management powers at Sydney Olympic Park. OCA continues its separate existence, working steadily to complete the administrative, financial and legal paperwork involved in winding up the world's largest peacetime event.

Already the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee has completed its work and has been absorbed into OCA. On 31 May the Olympic Roads and Transport Authority ceased to exist and its assets and liabilities have been merged with OCA. When SOCOG's final accounts are completed and audited, it too will have any remaining assets and liabilities transferred to OCA to complete the financial sign-off of New South Wales' great Olympic project, with OCA itself winding up in about December. The Sydney Olympic Park Authority is a new body with a new mandate and its own board. Its purpose is to manage and, where appropriate, develop community assets at Sydney Olympic Park, and to build on the best Games ever so that Sydney Olympic Park becomes one of the best places to work in or visit—not only for major events but simply for the enjoyment of the magnificent and massive new public parklands in the heart of Sydney.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr R. H. L. Smith.

BILL RETURNED

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:

Companion Animals Amendment Bill. 14392 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

FIRST HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 April. Mr O'DOHERTY (Hornsby) [11.23 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition and indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the bill. The first home owner grant is a very sensible policy measure initiated by the Howard Government to ensure that stimulus was provided to the building industry, at about the time when the New South Wales Government was leading the national economy through the downturn in the construction industry in this State. Honourable members would be well aware that the negative growth in New South Wales led to the national economy displaying negative growth of in excess of 3 per cent in the December quarter. This was because the New South Wales Government failed to provide the proper continuation of construction in New South Wales following the Olympics. Amongst other things, it failed to provide any significant public infrastructure projects to be carried on during the Olympics. Its capital works budget, which was recently released, is a very disappointing document. The first home owner grant is a very sensible measure because it provides stimulus in that area. Economists, politicians, journalists and members of the community all agree that the grant is directly linked to economic activity in the community. It allows people to get a start, to get their first home, which of course provides them with the means to go on and generate additional wealth in the community by employing builders, furnishing their homes, and so on. It is a very sensible policy initiative by the Howard Government, and the Carr Government is playing its part in enabling that to take place. The bill deals with the extension of the first home owner grant from $7,000 to $14,000, an initiative of the Howard Government. The Opposition commends the New South Wales Government's role in helping to facilitate that extension in New South Wales. Concerns have been expressed about delays, and serious concerns have been expressed about the way the Office of State Revenue processed many of these matters, including some rather odd advice that was apparently given to people about whether the extension could be processed in advance of the legislation coming before the House. I understand from advice received from the Clerk that the legislation was introduced on 11 April. Certainly, we have not rushed to have it passed through the Parliament. Nonetheless, tonight it will be passed, which is a good thing. In speaking to the bill I wish to raise a matter about which I have corresponded with the Treasurer today. It concerns some of the anomalies that we will probably deal with in this matter for some time. Some grey areas are not well clarified in the bill, and my colleague the honourable member for Wakehurst will touch on a couple of those matters later. One of the matters that needs to be clarified has been raised with me by a young couple who sought to purchase a property, their first home, in Thornleigh. Before the young couple sought to purchase the property—which to them was a new home; to all intents and purposes it was a first home owner purchase under the provisions of the scheme—they wrote to the Office of State Revenue seeking their $7,000 extension to the first home owner grant but were told that they were not able to receive the grant. It subsequently transpired that a purchaser had previously entered into a contract for the purchase of the property and had exercised the rights of occupation under that contract for just 18 days—there is some doubt about whether that purchaser had fully moved in. But that purchaser did not proceed with the contract. The contract fell through because the purchaser did not come up with the final amount, and therefore the house was put back onto the market. My constituents purchased the property as a new home and then moved in, only to be told by the Office of State Revenue that they did not qualify for the first home owner grant extension. That seems to be simply ridiculous.

Earlier I referred to the advice that comes from the Office of State Revenue on occasions such as this. In writing to the lawyers on behalf of the constituents, the Office of State Revenue did not refer to legislation, guidelines, or anything of that nature, but simply relied upon a press release issued by the Prime Minister in making a determination that cost my constituents $7,000. The Commissioner for the Office of State Revenue wrote:

In regards to your letter dated 24/05/2001 … the Prime Minister, in His press release, specified that the property purchased must never have been lived in previously. As your clients have purchased a property that has been lived in, they would not qualify for the additional $7000. Grant.

Unfortunately, the term that the property was occupied for, is of no consequence for this Grant.

Please do not hesitate to call our First Home Owners help line … for further information … 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14393

The further information was not helpful either; it simply confirmed the earlier information. The legal representatives of my constituents have appealed to me to provide assistance. I have requested that the Treasurer have the office redetermine the matter. I am sure it would seem very sensible to honourable members, and to members of the community, that a house that had never properly been moved into, which was occupied under licence for 18 days and on which the contract fell through, should still be considered a new home. When my constituents come to buy the home it should still be considered a new home, and therefore they ought to qualify for the grant and receive their $7,000. I trust that the Treasurer will do the right thing with the representation I have made on behalf of my constituents. I note that the bill clarifies certain appeal rights. People will be able to question the determination of the commissioner and, if necessary, appear before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. That may assist in cases such as the one I have referred to. That particular case should not get to that stage, but if it does those involved should be able to appear before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. The Opposition will not oppose the bill. It is important to inject stimuli into the Australian economy. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.30 p.m.]: As was indicated by the honourable member for Hornsby, the Opposition does not oppose the bill, which, least in a broad sense, reflects a major policy initiative of the Howard Government to encourage young people and people of more senior years to purchase their first home. It will encourage people into home ownership and that can only be good for the community. If we can encourage more people to build new homes, that will provide a boost for the New South Wales economy at a time when the Carr Government has failed miserably in respect of its infrastructure program. Honourable members will recall the Premier standing in this Chamber in his hard hat which had on it "Jobs 2000". The only thing I can say about that is that it was a great game on that day in this House, but jobs 2000 definitely did not appear and, as has been indicated by the economic figures, the so-called New South Wales powerhouse, as it was under the former Coalition Government, has begun to grind back. With initiatives such as this bill and the Howard Government's attempt to drive the economy forward, perhaps there is an opportunity for the State of New South Wales to return to the level it had achieved when the Greiner and Fahey governments were in office. The bill seeks to encourage people to purchase their first home or to build new homes by granting an increase in the maximum amount of the first home owner grant from $7,000 to $14,000. That is an admirable objective. In some areas of New South Wales, of course, $14,000 can make a huge difference to a person's capacity to buy a home. Indeed, in some parts of the State it would form a considerable percentage of the purchase price of the property. Unfortunately, it will not assist families on the Sydney's northern beaches or in other parts of Sydney, where it would be preferable if young couples making their way forward in the world could receive some additional benefit to enable them to stay close to their families. I hope, if there is an opportunity at some future time, that both the Federal and State governments might revisit that issue so that people, particularly those in my electorate on the northern beaches who are struggling to stay in the local area, might receive that extra boost. This legislation is interesting. I am not sure whether it is precisely the mirror image of the legislation introduced by the Howard Government, but I suspect that it may contain more than a fair proportion of State Government input. However, it leaves a few questions answered. One such question asked by the honourable member for Hornsby related to a young couple who purchased a home in which someone else had lived for 18 days under a licence agreement in circumstances in which a contract had been entered into but not completed. That is undoubtedly an anomalous situation. I hope that the appeal to the Chief Commissioner will result in a favourable consideration of the matter, because it is clear that any outcome other than giving the young couple $14,000 would be unacceptable to the Government, to the Opposition and to the community. It is strange that it has taken so long for this bill to come on for debate. It was introduced on 11 April and it is now 5 June. The bill refers to an operative commencement date of 9 March 2001. It certainly underlines the fact that the Carr Government has been slow off the mark in getting this legislation into the House and through the process of debate. As the honourable member for Hornsby said, that must have made it difficult for applicants. Honourable members will have heard and read media reports about that. Once the legislation has been passed there will perhaps be at least a broad framework, but a number of questions remain unanswered. Perhaps in his reply the Minister might have some answers; he might not. We will wait to hear what he has to say. Subsection (1) (b) of new section 13A deals with special eligible transactions and a comprehensive home building contract for new home if: (i) the building work starts within 16 weeks after the commencement date, or such longer period as the Chief Commissioner may allow for delay caused by circumstances beyond the control of the parties, and (ii) the contract states the building work must be completed within 12 months after it is started or, if the contract does not state a completion date for the building work, it is completed within 12 months after it is started, or 14394 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

There have been a number of reports in the media recently about the sorts of circumstances that would be beyond the control of young couples. I refer specifically to the collapse of the major insurance company HIH. The Minister should state categorically in his response that the chief commissioner would be expected to make major allowances for any delays occasioned to couples or individuals who may benefit from this legislation, so that they know that they will not be caught up in the mess of HIH and possibly miss out on getting the full amount of the special eligible transaction. The wording of the provisions in the bill is, at best, very simple. I ask the Minister in his reply to explain what would happen if a contract did not state a completion date and for some reason the contract went beyond the 12-month period due to extenuating circumstances. What does the Minister believe would occur in that situation? Subsection (2) of new section 13A states:

However, an eligible transaction mentioned in subsection (1) (a) that is a contract for the purchase of a new home on a proposed lot in an unregistered plan of subdivision of land is a special eligible transaction only if the contract states the building work must be completed before 1 May 2003 or, if the contract does not state a completion date for the building work, it is completed before that date.

On a literal reading of that provision it would appear that one has to have, in the case of an unregistered plan of subdivision of land, a specific provision stating that building work must be completed before 1 May 2003. Clearly that is a nonsense because there may well be contracts that contain a whole variety of dates earlier than 1 May 2003. I seek clarification from the Minister that a provision stating precisely those words that are mentioned in the subsection is not needed. Rather, if the contract date states that the building must be completed on any date on or before 1 May 2003, that will be satisfactory for an effective application and confirmation of the special eligible transaction. There are a number of other anomalies in relation to this matter which, in view of the lateness of the hour, I will not pursue. Perhaps I will have an opportunity at some later time to do so. I am keen to hear more about the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill and to hear the Minister's response to some of the questions raised.

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police), on behalf of Mr Aquilina [11.39 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Hornsby and the honourable member for Wakehurst for their contributions. The honourable member for Hornsby has raised an issue in relation to one of his constituents and the honourable member for Wakehurst has asked a series of questions. I am sure the Treasurer will deal with those matters when he addresses Her Majesty's upper House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (EXISTING LIFE SENTENCES) BILL

In Committee

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [11.42 p.m.]: In response to the intervention of the honourable member for Wakehurst I will further explain two matters that I have already discussed. First, as I suggested earlier, the use of the words "in force" in the amending clause is technically incorrect. A never-to-be-released recommendation has no legal force; it is not recognised at law. The recommendation never had any force and that is why we are debating the bill. I understand that was pointed out by representatives of the Bar Association to crossbench members when the Opposition bill was debated on 31 August 2000. At that time, I am told, representatives of the Bar Association said that the wording was flawed. A recommendation is not in force; it is merely a recommendation.

I understand that that issue was raised by the Hon. Richard Jones in the Legislative Council. He acknowledged that the bill was likely to fail because of that fundamental error. If I remember correctly, the Hon. Richard Jones spoke in favour of the Opposition bill at the time. I do not want to labour the point. I made my position clear previously. They are the technical circumstances. In relation to legal advice, the honourable member for Wakehurst may not have been in the Chamber when the Premier delivered the second reading speech on this matter, but when he did so he tabled legal advice from the Solicitor General on 28 May. We have tabled our legal advice.

Mrs Chikarovski: That's on your bill. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14395

Mr DEBUS: That is what the honourable member for Wakehurst was asking me about. The Opposition has not been listening. I made it clear in my reply to the debate to all speakers that as Attorney General I have been thoroughly briefed on the law and the possibilities. I have been advised, as I have said, on a number of occasions this evening that the Government model is the tightest model. I have spoken with the sort of smart, bright, legal people who any government has the benefit of consulting. I have taken advice from the Director of the Criminal Law Review Division, the Director of the Legal Branch in the Cabinet Office and the Attorney General's Department and, as I say, I have the advice of the Solicitor General. I do not see the point in engaging in an auction as to who has the best advice. I have my advice, which I have tabled. I choose, on the basis of that advice, to exercise the power that is vested in me. The Leader of the Opposition keeps saying that I should make a hard decision and that is what I am doing. It has not always been easy to keep a balanced and intelligent view in the atmosphere of tonight's debate. However, I have tried to do that and I stand by the advice that I have given the House. I do not think there is any point in commenting further. Honourable members can read Hansard tomorrow if they need a repetition of the advice I have given.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove—Leader of the Opposition) [11.45 p.m.]: The Attorney General has misled the House. The honourable member for Wakehurst was not seeking the advice of the Solicitor General on the Government's bill. For some months we have been seeking the Government's advice on the Opposition's bill. I remind honourable members that we have sought that advice on a number of occasions. In fact, we put in a freedom of information application to the Premier's Department seeking that advice and it was returned to the Opposition with the notation on it that no such advice existed. We have seen the advice on the Government's bill, which does not talk about the issues raised by the Opposition in relation to its bill. If the Attorney General has nothing to hide and his advice that our information is incorrect is so strong, he should table the advice. I will happily read it. The Attorney keeps on talking about it but we are yet to see it. He is now hiding behind his privilege as Attorney General not to release that advice. He should tell the public what that advice is. He should tell the people in the community what the advice is that precludes him from considering our bill. He has never been prepared to release that. When the Premier spoke in this House he did not speak about that advice. He should be fair dinkum and give it to us. I will address three other issues raised by the Attorney General. In the Attorney General's earlier remarks he talked about the decision in H. A. Bachrach Pty Ltd v The State of Queensland. He referred to the fact that in that decision in the High Court one of the judges said:

There are some matters which appertain exclusively to the judicial power. For example, the determination of criminal guilt. We do not disagree with that. The Opposition is saying that that determination has already been made. The determination was made by the jury at the original trial and the sentencing judge has made a determination of sentence. We are not seeking to interfere with the determination of guilt, as that has already happened. The Attorney General can quote, as I have been prepared to quote, that High Court case. I agree with the Attorney General that the determination has already happened. We are seeking to enforce the determination of guilt as made at the original trial by the jury. That is all we are seeking to do. The Minister talks about the Opposition denying jurisdiction of the court. I find that somewhat ironic when in its own bill the Government is seeking to deny the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The explanatory notes on page 2 of the bill states that the Government is trying to deny the Supreme Court jurisdiction to set a fixed period for the sentence. If the Supreme Court can be denied jurisdiction to set a fixed period for the sentence, the Supreme Court can also be denied jurisdiction to hear the matter again in the first instance. On the one hand the Government says it has the power to deny the Supreme Court jurisdiction in one respect but it does not have the power to deny the Supreme Court jurisdiction in another respect. There is an inconsistency in this debate. That is why, when I was speaking earlier, I referred to the Minister as being somewhat hypocritical in his arguments. The third argument of the Minister is that the Government is seeking to replicate the original conditions that were in place at the time of the trial. To respond to that I refer to the legal advice which was provided to us by Mr Peter Garling, SC, on 3 August 2000 and which the Opposition has been happy to table and provide to the Government. Mr Garling concluded:

... there was available to Mr Baker, at the time of his original sentence, a possibility that provisions then in place would have enabled his release on licence by action of the Executive. But this depended upon a variety of circumstances including the continued existence of the legislation which permitted this type of release to occur and the actual decision making process of the Executive. None of these could be regarded by Mr Baker, or anyone else in a like situation, as being exempt from the possibility of change or alteration.

The subsequent provisions of the Sentencing Act 1989 and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 either created a judicial process by which prisoners serving indeterminate life sentences were able to have a shorter period of imprisonment determined, or else amended that process. 14396 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

Since Parliament has provided those prisoners with a process which enables them to have their sentences determined by being shortened from that originally imposed, if appropriate, there is no reason in principle why Parliament cannot remove (or substantially amend or alter) that process either with respect to all remaining prisoners in such a position, or with respect to a particular prisoner. Let us understand what that means: Mr Garling is saying that as parliaments have already changed the process of determination previously in relation to these categories of prisoners they have the right and ability to continue to change those processes. It is that right which Mr Justice Mahoney referred to in his judgment. I quote again for the benefit of the Chamber:

But in the end the power, and so the responsibility, lies with the Parliament and, in my opinion, it is proper that it be so. For the consequences of such legislation may be serious. And it is the Parliament and those who comprise it who must be accountable for it. This Parliament has already changed the processes by which Baker was put in the position that he was. This Parliament has already changed the legislation: the provisions of the Sentencing Act and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 changed the processes by which Baker's sentence was originally determined. This Parliament has the right to change those processes again. We have done it on two previous occasions. This Parliament can do it on the third occasion and shut the door. It is not a very difficult argument. It is just a hard decision. I said earlier that governments make hard decisions. The Premier, as Leader of the Opposition, said governments make hard decisions. The Government has the opportunity now to make a hard decision. If all the Opposition's arguments are so wrong the Premier and the Attorney General have a very easy option: give us the legal advice that shows that we are wrong. Otherwise, they will wear the consequences of their failure to deliver to the people of New South Wales. Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.53 p.m.]: I confirm to the Minister that, as the Leader of the Opposition said, I was referring in my question earlier to the legal advice that the Minister purports to have— and that the Premier has certainly held out that he has—in relation to the assessment or analysis of the Opposition's bill. The same argument applies as I put earlier. If the Government has bona fides about its criticism of the Opposition's bill—which does reflect what the community wants; we do not want this business of going back every three years—there is a very heavy onus on the Minister to explain to this Chamber and to the community why it is that he will not produce the legal advice that he says he has. Secondly, to save having to deal with matters separately, in regard to the Minister's criticism of amending schedule 1 to insert a new clause 9, he referred only to subclause (3) as having some shortcoming. For that reason I said that I did not understand the basis of the Minister's assertion in relation to that shortcoming. I have just heard the Minister's explanation. I find it very hard to accept it as the explanation. I am not sure where he has received the advice from but if he has advice that suggests that we are technically wrong in the use of the words "recommendation is in force", I would suggest again that if he wishes his bona fides and the Government's credibility to be accepted he needs to present to us the written advice so that at least we can see— even if the Government is wrong and its advice is wrong—that the Minister is basing what he is saying to the Chamber on serious advice that has been given. It is clear on any reasonable and ordinary interpretation of words what the Opposition means. I refer to the words "in this clause, disqualified person means an offender who is serving an existing life sentence and in respect of whom a non-release recommendation is in force". I accept that there may be some esoteric legal argument about the use of the words "in force" but I suggest that where it refers to "recommendation is in force" it is not suggesting that an order is in force. We are not suggesting that it is an order; we are suggesting that it is a recommendation. In those circumstances, taking all the words together, there is a clear and apparent meaning from the words "recommendation is in force". To that extent I would suggest that the Minister has an obligation to the community, to Brian Morse and to the families that may suffer as a result of the Government's opposition to the Opposition amendment to explain the substance of his assertions. Where does it come from? Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [11.57 p.m.]: I am not sure how long we can go on playing this kind of legal ping-pong. I made it very clear with respect to the question of the meaning of the words "in force" that, whatever they mean, the Government does not propose to accept the amendment. Mrs Chikarovski: That is a different argument. Mr DEBUS: It is a different argument, but nevertheless that is the argument that I make. The explanation I made to you just one moment ago stands: the Bar Association gave advice at a crossbench meeting at the time— Mrs Chikarovski: Have you got that advice? 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14397

Mr DEBUS: It was verbal advice. It was referred to by Richard Jones in the upper House. My point originally was merely to demonstrate the great technical difficulty of the area that we are dealing with. I said that technical difficulty was something that ought to be borne in mind. That is the whole of the point that I was making. The Government—whether the words "in force" mean what the Opposition means them to mean or whether in strict legal interpretation they mean something else—nevertheless does not accept the amendment. That is all I have to say about that matter. The Garling advice is not on the bill either; it is on a concept. It is not on the Opposition's bill. I have had the benefit of advice from all those people whom I have previously mentioned. I have explained that advice at enormous length. It is in Hansard. Read it tomorrow if you did not understand it. Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.59 p.m.]: The Minister indicated that he will not discuss the detail of precise provisions and that he will reject the Opposition's submissions on the basis of some legal advice that he has received. I repeat that it is incumbent upon the Minister, if his Government is to have credibility at the end of the debate, to tell the House why he will not produce the legal advice on the Opposition's bill and amendments, particularly the amendments. I ask the Minister to direct his mind to the specific question why he will not release the legal advice in relation to this matter. The Minister raises his hands as an indication that he will not respond. Whilst I do not reflect upon the Minister's credibility, the Government's credibility should be of serious concern to the community. If the Minister and the Government were fair dinkum, the Minister would provide the Opposition with a copy of the legal advice. As the Minister will not provide that advice, the Opposition cannot trust the Carr Government on this issue. Question—That the words stand—put. The Committee divided. Ayes, 48 Mr Amery Ms Harrison Mr E. T. Page Ms Andrews Mr Hickey Mr Price Mr Aquilina Mr Hunter Ms Saliba Mr Ashton Mr Iemma Mr Scully Mr Bartlett Mrs Lo Po' Mr W. D. Smith Ms Beamer Mr Lynch Mr Stewart Mr Black Mr Markham Mr Tripodi Mr Brown Mr Martin Mr Watkins Miss Burton Mr McBride Mr West Mr Collier Mr McManus Mr Whelan Mr Crittenden Ms Meagher Mr Woods Mr Debus Ms Megarrity Mr Yeadon Mr Face Ms Moore Mr Gaudry Mr Moss Mr Gibson Mr Newell Tellers, Mr Greene Ms Nori Mr Anderson Mrs Grusovin Mr Orkopoulos Mr Thompson Noes, 35 Mr Armstrong Dr Kernohan Mr Slack-Smith Mr Barr Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mr Brogden Mr Maguire Mr Stoner Mrs Chikarovski Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Collins Mr O'Doherty Mr Torbay Mr Debnam Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr George Mr Oakeshott Mr R. W. Turner Mr Glachan Mr Piccoli Mr Webb Mr Hartcher Mr Richardson Mr Windsor Mr Hazzard Mr Rozzoli Tellers, Ms Hodgkinson Ms Seaton Mr Fraser Mr Humpherson Mrs Skinner Mr R. H. L. Smith Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendments negatived. Schedule 1 agreed to. Schedule 2 agreed to. Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages. 14398 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5 June 2001

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Routine of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Special Adjournment

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [12.10 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to provide:

(1) Government Business to have precedence of General Business at the sitting of the House on Thursday 7 June 2001; and

(2) at the sitting of the House on Friday 8 June 2001, the only business to be dealt with shall be consideration of the Appropriation Bill, and cognate bills, with no divisions or quorums to be called, and that the House adjourn without motion until Tuesday 19 June 2001 at 2.15 p.m.

I indicate that I believe that the motion will be by consent and by leave.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [12.11 a.m.]: I indicate to the Leader of the House that the motion is not by consent or by leave. Why are we here?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford has the call. If members wish to speak they will be given the call.

Mr HARTCHER: Why are we here if the only purpose of the Parliament is to rubber stamp Government legislation? We are to sit on Friday without question time, without the right to bring on motions, without the right to bring on private members' statements, and now we have the usual denial of private members' statements on Thursdays. There is not much point at this late hour to belabour the point, and I do not intend to. But I record the Coalition's strong objection to this continued trivialising of the processes of the House and the fact that tonight we have had a very important debate, brought on very late, which is vital legislation—the original legislation by the Leader of the Opposition, now adopted by the Government—but the Government has, through its Minister, refused to explain why it would not take the course recommended by the Opposition to ensure that there were no further applications to the Supreme Court.

Tonight the Minister is unable to explain his own legislation. Despite repeated opportunities he was not able to say why people could still appeal to the Supreme Court every three years, even though the Parole Board was going to be denied the right to release them if the Supreme Court granted them a determinate sentence. That has never been explained and the only reason for it is that the Government was not prepared to adopt every single clause of the Leader of the Opposition's bill. Significantly, the Premier of New South Wales was not—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford has had an opportunity to speak in the debate on that bill. Mr HARTCHER: I will close on that point. The Premier of New South Wales was not here to debate the bill, nor was he here to vote on it. This significant legislation denied to the people of New South Wales the appropriate forum, which is the Parliament of New South Wales. Let us look at the whole issue of private members' bills, and we have a stack of them. We have so many motions, more than 400, which will never be debated. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. Mr HARTCHER: The constant cry of members of this House when they give notice of motions every day— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. Mr HARTCHER: The constant cry of members of this House when they give notice of motions dealing with vital concerns of their electorates and the people of the State is that again and again motions are moved and allowed to go over by the Government, which is unwilling and unable to have them debated. On behalf of the Coalition I record our protest. We will not accept the motion and we reject it. Question—That the motion be agreed to—put. The House divided. 5 June 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14399

Ayes, 47

Mr Amery Mrs Grusovin Mr Orkopoulos Ms Andrews Ms Harrison Mr E. T. Page Mr Aquilina Mr Hickey Mr Price Mr Ashton Mr Hunter Ms Saliba Mr Bartlett Mr Iemma Mr Scully Ms Beamer Mrs Lo Po' Mr W. D. Smith Mr Black Mr Lynch Mr Stewart Mr Brown Mr Markham Mr Tripodi Miss Burton Mr Martin Mr Watkins Mr Collier Mr McBride Mr West Mr Crittenden Mr McManus Mr Whelan Mr Debus Ms Meagher Mr Woods Mr Face Ms Megarrity Mr Yeadon Mr Gaudry Mr Moss Tellers, Mr Gibson Mr Newell Mr Anderson Mr Greene Ms Nori Mr Thompson

Noes, 36

Mr Armstrong Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mr Barr Mr Maguire Mr Stoner Mr Brogden Mr Merton Mr Tink Mrs Chikarovski Ms Moore Mr Torbay Mr Collins Mr O'Doherty Mr J. H. Turner Mr Debnam Mr O'Farrell Mr R. W. Turner Mr George Mr Oakeshott Mr Webb Mr Glachan Mr Piccoli Mr Windsor Mr Hartcher Mr Richardson Mr Hazzard Mr Rozzoli Ms Hodgkinson Ms Seaton Tellers, Mr Humpherson Mrs Skinner Mr Fraser Dr Kernohan Mr Slack-Smith Mr R. H. L. Smith

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Wednesday 6 June 2001 at 10.00 a.m.

House adjourned at 12.20 a.m., Wednesday. ______