20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1273

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday, 20 March, 1991

The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m. The President offered the Prayers.

PETITIONS Ermington Shopping Centre Petition praying that the House ensure the retention of the Department of Housing shopping centre at Betty Cuthbert Avenue, Ermington, received from the Hon. R. D. Dyer.

Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf Petition praying that public money not be wasted demolishing the structurally sound finger wharf and establishing a walkway on the western side of Woolloomooloo Bay but instead that basic renovations be carried out on the wharf and an integrated multimedia arts centre be established, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

GOVERNMENT MOTOR VEHICLES FOR CROSSBENCH MEMBERS Personal Explanation The Hon. M. R. Egan: I wish to make a personal explanation. Yesterday during question time the Leader of the Government in this House accused a former Premier, the Hon. Barrie Unsworth, of offering him a car and driver at a meeting discussing the then Government's proposals for reform of the Legislative Council. The Leader of the Government in this House asserted also that Iwas present at that meeting, and therefore by implication was accusing me of being a witness and a party to the offer. The fact is that at no meeting that I attended did the former Premier of New South Wales, the Hon. Barrie Unsworth, ever put a proposal to this Minister that the Government of the day would offer or give him a car and driver. I recall two meetings that I attended with the present Leader of the Government of this House, one on my own in his office, which is now the office of the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Jack Hallam, and another, when the Hon. Barrie Unsworth was Premier, in the Premier's office. They are the only two meetings that I attended with the Hon. E. P. Pickering and the Hon. Barrie Unsworth. I find it incredible that the Leader of the Government in this House should say that the Hon. Barrie Unsworth had called him to a meeting in the Premier's office and that the Leader of the Government would then trip over himself later in his answer to the question and say that the Hon. Barrie Unsworth then stormed out of the office. One does not storm out of one's office. That meeting that I attended with the Hon. E. P. Pickering and Mr Unsworth ended by the Hon. Barrie Unsworth becoming bored with what the honourable gentleman was saying, starting to watch the television COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 news program and forgetting all about the Hon. Ted Pickering, who then meandered off. It is true that on at least two occasions, though my memory could be faulty, the Hon. Ted Pickering did raise with me the question of the Government providing him with a car. Taxi Ted Pickering was always pleading for a car and driver. The reason he never got one was that the then Oppositionwas suppliedwith three cars, just asthis Opposition is supplied with three cars. I think when we were previously in opposition we were supplied with three cars. What he could not get over was the fact that the three cars allocated to the Opposition at that time were all allocated to the lower House and his lower House colleagues, including the present Premier, would not give him one of them. That was his objection. Continually, for four years, Taxi Ted pleaded with me for a car to be provided to him. However, no such reference to a car was raised at any meeting- The Hon. E. P. Pickering: On a point of order. I have been very constrained because of the substance of the honourable member's explanation, but he has obviously strayed well beyond the standing orders with regard to a personal explanation. The IIon. M. R. Egan: I have said everything I need to say.

CONSTITUTION (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL) AMENDMENT BILL

CONSTITUTION (REFERENDUM) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 19th March. The IIon. ELISABETH KIRKBY[2.39]: As Leader of the Australian Democrats in New South Wales, I support the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill. This bill has the simple intent of reducing the Legislative Council from 45 to 42 members immediately after the holding of a referendum, if that referendum is successful. This will mean that the Council will consist of a total of 42 members from the time of the State election which is due to be held by June 1992. The term of a Council is also to be reduced from three terms to two terms of the Legislative Assembly. In future, if the referendum is successful, instead of 15 members being elected at each election, 21 members will be elected. To permit reconstitution of the House immediately after the next State election, the bill provides that the last three members elected in 1984 and the last nine members elected in 1988 will not serve their full terms-three terms of the Legislative Assembly. Instead they will lose their seats after only two terms. The latter fact seems to have been conveniently forgotten by some critics. Another fact that is not being strongly enough emphasised is that this situation can come into effect only if it has been approved by the citizens of New South Wales at a referendum. When the Government first moved to change the composition of the Council, it was proposed to reduce the size of the House to 40 members, with 20 being elected at each election. On that occasion I attacked the proposal because it would have been possible for any party to win half the seats with less than half the vote. This would have had extremely grave implications for the upper House by making it much easier for either major party to control the House. Indeed the Legislative Council could then have 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1273

returned to being a rubber-stamp. Once this fact is realised, it is quite easy to understand why the Australian Labor Party was seeking to amend the bill so that the House would comprise 40 members. That was its original intention, and then there was some suggestion that it might move an amendment so that the House would comprise 41 members. The Australian Labor Party is desperate to return to the situation where the Legislative Council is a rubber-stamp. The Government acknowledged the justice of my concern and had the bill redrafted. If 21 members are to be elected at each election, 50 per cent of the vote will be needed to win 11 seats, and to me that is a much more just outcome. I am sorry, however, that my attempt failed to get 46 members in this Chamber, to allow 23 members to be elected at each election. If it had succeeded, quite obviously much of the discussion, dissension, innuendo and slander that has been put about over the past week would have been avoided. However, I am firmly of the opinion that the redrafted bill is a fair and balanced attempt to reform the New South Wales Legislative Council. Other members of this House have called this bill disgraceful, both inside and outside this Chamber. They have stated that I am thinking of my own self-interest in supporting this bill. I categorically reject any such suggestion. I agreed to support the bill once the bias against minor and third parties was removed, with the Government agreeing to the size of the House being reduced to 42 members, the odd number of 21 members being elected on each occasion. This change will benefit not just the Democrats, and it cannot be claimed to benefit me personally. It will benefit any small party or any interest group with a following in the community sufficient to warrant the election of its members. I refer to such groups as the Green Alliance, which stood in 1988; the team that was put up by the Total Environment Centre, headed by Milo Dunphy; and other responsible groups in the community. The Opposition has asked why the Government has changed its position from that contained in the 1991 bill. My opinion is that it has realised the justice of my concerns expressed at that time. Yesterday there was much discussion about the terms of the agreement with the Government. I wish to place it on record again, as I did yesterday, that I have always been motivated by a desire to improve the health of the New South Wales electoral process. I have attempted to deal with the proposal to reduce the number of members of the Legislative Assembly and the proposal to reform the Legislative Council as one package. I have been seeking to restore the propriety of the electoral process. Once again I categorically reject any suggestion that I have been bought off. The electoral process has been manipulated and was manipulated immediately prior to the last State election in a desperate attempt by the Unsworth Government to restrict the electoral process to the major parties by making it extremely difficult for minor parties and Independents to run for either the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. On that occasion I strenously opposed the amendments moved by the Australian Labor Party, and since then I have continued to work to have those amendments removed. A suggestion has been put forward that one of the arguments against this bill is that the Parliament does not have the power to abolish itself. Those opposed to this bill originally attempted to just@ their opposition by arguing that as a principle the Legislature cannot pass a bill abolishing part of itself while those seats are still legitimately occupied. In other words, the majority's power to harm the minority is 1274 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

restricted. Such an argument could rest upon the concept of fundamental common law rights which are so basic to our legal system and to our society that they cannot be touched by legislation or by the Legislature. The concept of fundamental common law rights is attractive because if it was to enjoy judicial support a common law bill of rights would come into existence and there would not be the same pressing need for legislation encapsulating a bill of rights. In other words it may be argued that the concept of fundamental common law rights will act as a limitation on the grant of legislative power to the New South Wales Parliament. The Legislature's ability to make laws is founded on section 5 of the Constitution Act 1902, which provides that "The Legislature shall, subject to the provision of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare and good government of New South Wales in all cases whatsoever". The High Court, in Clayton v. Henon, reported in volume 105 of the Commonwealth Law Reports, found that the Legislature had power under section 5 of the New South Wales Constitution to pass a law abolishing part of itself, on that occasion the entire Legislative Council. The proviso was that the bill's passage had to satisfy the manner and form requirements of the Constitution. In Clayton v. Heffron, where the High Court followed Trethowan's case of 1932, Chief Justice Dixon, Mr Justice McTiernan, Mr Justice Taylor, and Mr Justice Windeyer, stated in a joint judgment: To confer upon the Legislature of New South Wales a full constituent power. . . What it- Meaning section 5: -means is that the power to legislate, including the power to legislate for the abolition of the Council, may be exercised by the Crown with theconsent of the Assembly provided the proposed law is approved by the majority of the electors voting at a referendum. That judgment in the case of Clqon v. HeRon appears in volume 105 of the 1960 Commonwealth Law Reports at page 252. It should be noted, however, that the power to abolish the Legislative Council does not find its justification in the fact that the majority of electors approve. If the New South Wales Constitution did not require the referendum, the Legislative Council could still be abolished, provided all legal steps- for example, all manner and form requirements-were fulfilled. In other words, it is submitted that Claytonv. HeDon is authority that a bill to abolish the Legislative Council that had not passed the Council and that did not satisfy the imperative requirements of section 5B of the Constitution, even if ratified by referendum, would be invalid. That ruling of the High Court can be said to rest on the great Victorian principle of the supremacy of Parliament-Dicey's theory of parliamentary omnipotence. This was explained by Professor G. de Q. Walker of the University of Queensland in an article entitled "Dicey's Dubious Dogma of Parliamentary Sovereignty: A Recent Fray with Freedom of Religion". Professor Walker said: According to Professor Dicey's theory of sovereignty, the Parliament had absolute power. By way of legislation, it could (provided of course that the relevant legislation was valid under the Constitution) do anything at all, and there was no person or body in the Kingdom with power to set its Acts aside. Honourable members should note that Professor Walker is one of a vocal minority opposed to parliamentary omnipotence. It is the theory of parliamentary omnipotence that is the foundation of the Legislature's power to pass legislation changing the composition of the Legislative Council by abolishing seats that are not vacant. Indeed, there has been critical judicial consideration of the concept of parliamentary 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1275 omnipotence and, therefore, by implication, of Clayton v. Hejfji-on,including obiter from the very learned Sir Laurence Street while he was Chief Justice. The criticism of parliamentary omnipotence is based on the realisation that by accepting that the courts cannot overturn an Act of Parliament, but are restricted to interpreting it, the courts cannot protect a minority from oppression by legislation by the Parliament. However, that is comment; it is not law, and it does not enjoy the status of precedent. The most recent judicial consideration of this issue in this State was the Builders Labourers Federation deregistration case, Builders Labourers Federation v. The Minister for Induszrial Relations and Anor. Former Chief Justice Sir Laurence Street discussed at length and in detail whether section 5 is liberating or restricting upon the New South Wales Parliament and the present applicability of Dicey's theory of unqualified sovereignty of Parliament. The comments of the former Chief Justice remain obiter only. He upheld the Act and its application. The other justices also dealt with the issue in varying levels of detail. Volume 61 of the Australian Law Journal Reports of February 1987 at page 54 contained a discussion of the implications of the judgments. The Hon. M. R. Egan: On a point of order. I do not doubt that sometimes it is appropriate for members to give some historical account or legal background to bills under debate in this Chamber, but specific bills are under debate at the moment. The honourable member has been speaking for quite a long time and has not addressed the provisions of the bills. Honourable members are not at the University of Sydney attending a lecture on first-year constitutional law. If they wanted that, they could get it from an expert, not an amateur like the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: What is the honourable member's point of order? The Hon. M. R. Egan: The point of order is that the honourable member is not speaking to the bills. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: On the point of order. May I say, first, that the House is dealing with legislation that is based on the Constitution of this State. Therefore, honourable members need to refer to learned authority that deals with the Constitution of this State. Iamnot putting my views forward asan amateur; Iam quoting from learned legal authority, from the Australian Law Journal Reports and also from judgments and comments of one of the most eminent legal men, Sir Laurence Street, until recently the Chief Justice of this State. He could hardly be considered an amateur, as the Hon. M. R. Egan is suggesting. The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order. [Interruption] The PRESIDENT: Order! If I cannot hear the point of order, how can I deliberate? The Won. M. R. Egan: The House has before it bills that seek to amend the New South Wales Constitution in specific ways. Honourable members do not need a half-hour lecture on constitutional history or the legislative power of the Parliament to debate the bills. All the material that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has been delivering for at least the past 15 minutes is irrelevant. 1276 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: On the point of order. The Hon. M. R. Egan deals only in the most simplistic of concepts and is unable to understand the legalistic arguments of my colleague the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. I, for one, am fascinated to hear the historical background, which provides support for the honourable member's voting in the way that she will. The PRESIDENT: Order! I can see no reason for my intervention at this stage. The Hon. ELTSABETH KIRKBY: I refer to page 54 of volume 61 of the Australian Law Journal Reports of February 1987, which reads: Kirby, J. did not find it necessary to hold that there was such a power of judicial review, and indicated that theState'sprotection against any manifestviolation ofsection5 remained"fundamentally, a political and democratic one". Glass, J.A explicitly reserved his position on the point. Mahoney, J. rejected judicial review, holding that under New South Wales constitutional arrangements it was for Parliament alone "to determine the propriety and desirability of a particular exercise of legislative power". Priestly, J. expressed the view that it was "at least arguable" that if a really extreme situation arose of a statute manifestly not for the peace, welfare and good government of New South Wales, it would be open to a court so to hold and to rule that the Act was "ultra vires the written authority of the Parliament to make laws". The Chief Justice's opinion was not even held by a majority of justices. Mr Justice Kirby said in his judgment in the case of Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation v. The Minister for Industrial Relations and Anor., reported in volume 7 of the 1986 New South Wales Law Reports, page 396: There are a number of answers to this stream of authority, at least so far as it is said to apply to the present case. The appeal to natural law and to a principle higher than parliamentary sovereignty is certainly out of line with the mainstream of current constitutional theory as applied in our courts. Therefore, if there is to be a challenge against the legislation before the House, as has becn suggested by the Hon. Marie Bignola and her supporters, it is obvious from those past judgments that the courts will accept that the Parliament can pass these bills. So long as the manner and form requirements aremet, this legislation is fully constitutional. For all of Malcolm Mackerras' protestations about its being a sham and a fraud and all the other things he said at his press conference-ofwhich I now have a full transcript-it remains legal and within the power of the Parliament to legislate, in the way it seeks to do in the bills, to reform the Legislative Council. I shall now turn to the opposition of Malcolm Mackerras to the bill. The highly critical comments of Malcolm Mackerras which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald have been seized upon by those opposed to the bill in its present form. I submit that his argument is logically inconsistent and intellectually dishonest. By refusing to apply his thesis or premise to the 1988 election and by addressing only the 1984 election, he destroys any legitimacy his argument may otherwise have had. I contend that if the Malcolm Mackerras argument is followed to its logical and consistent end, the earliest the number of members of the Legislative Council could have been reduced to 42 would be in the year 2000. That would be plainly ridiculous. In addition, the number of members of the Legislative Council could only be changed at that date if section 129H(3) of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912were amended before the 1991 election to require that the 1991 Legislative Council ballot-papers be kept until that date. That would be necessary so that the six who retain their long term, to be added to the 15 elected in 1996 to make 21 continuing members, could be selected by re-counting the votes. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL

Mr Mackerras has argued that the 15 members should be retained because a re-count cannot be held to decide which three members elected in 1984 should lose their positions. The only election for 21 members would be in the year 2000. Twenty-one members could not be elected in 1996 because the continuing 21 members would comprise 15 members elected in 1991 and six elected in 1988 who could not be ranked or have the votes they received re-counted. If the 15 members elected in 1984-which include the Hon. Marie Bignold, the Hon. G. R. Ibbett, and the Hon. Judith Jakins-continue to serve as members of this House because they cannot be ranked-and the ballot-papers are destroyed as soon as objections to the results of an election have been sorted out-then the 15 members elected in 1988 should fulfil their terms because they cannot be ranked either. Mackerras' argument as to the last three members elected in 1984 must hold in regard to the first six members elected in 1988. They may not be three members of the Australian Labor Party and three members of the coalition parties. His proposition which was published in the @dneyMomingHerald on 6th March assumes that picking the first six members elected in 1998, rather than re-counting thevotes they received, to reduce the number of members of the Legislative Council to 42 following the election due in 1996 is the procedure that should be used. That is exactly the same trick as picking the last three members elected in 1984, and he is opposed to that. The argument that the class of 1988 knew, which has been used as one justification, does not get around the argument that the method of picking the six has the same lack of a statistical basis as picking the last three. If one uses the argument that the members elected in 1988 knew that their terms were to be shortened, one might as well say that when I was elected in 1981 I, together with everyone else who was elected in 1981, believed that our terms would be shortened because at that time the then Premier, Neville Wran, was loudly putting forward the idea that he would shorten the terms of Legislative Council members as he did not want anyone to serve for what could technically be 12years. That was the position when I was elected in 1981, so it could be said that I knew that my term might be shortened. I certainly was of that very opinion.

The Hon. G. R. Ibbett: Were you in favour of it?

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I can remember having long conversations at that time with the former Clerk of the Parliaments, Les Jeckeln, about the implications of my term being cut short. The Hon. G. R. Ibbett asked if I was in favour of it. Of course I was in favour of it because I do not believe anyone should be able to serve three terms without having to face the electors. I was of that belief then and if honourable members go back through Hansard, I am sure they will find that I have said that on many occasions. A back-of-the-envelope examination of the 1988 election results will show that the six members could comprise two Australian Labor Party members, three members of coalition parties, and one member of the Call to Australia group. In effect Mr Mackerras' model of implementing a House of 42 members after 1996-and he has not fully explained this-may deprive those who voted for Call to Australia in 1988 of a representative in the Legislative Council. On the other hand, it could just as easily be three Australian Labor Party members and three members of the coalition parties, depending on the flow of preferences. But that will never be known. It can never be known accurately unless the ballot-papers can be re-counted. As all honourable members know, that is totally impossible because they do not exist. COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

Mr Mackerras' argument contains other flaws. I am surprised that at his press conference he quoted over and over again what happens under the Commonwealth Electoral Act as it pertains to the Senate. That is ridiculous. Honourable members know that in the Senate there is provision for short-term and long-term senators and they are ranked at the time of election by the way the vote is counted. The New South Wales Constitution contains no such provision, so it cannot be said that what happens under the Commonwealth legislation should be followed when New South Wales does not operate under that legislation. That is what is so spurious about his argument. He said also that he could describe several ways in which the bill could be redrafted consistent with proper and democratic principle. However, he never explains that statement. He has never, either at his press conference or in any of his published articles, explained what he believes the Government should have done to achieve the same result in a proper and democratic way. He simply says, "I could explain it to you", but he never gives that explanation. He told the press-and I presume this may be fairly insulting to them:

I can think of several ways in which they could have reduced the number of politicians to 41 if you like, 42 if you like, whatever number. I can think of several ways in which it could have been done with effect from the date of this election if the Government wanted to. I could describe to you lots of ways that could have been done but I don't want to waste your time.

This is the eminent psephologist. Why does he not want to waste the time of the press? Why does he not want to explain to the people of New South Wales how it could be done? He is supposed to be an academic. He had the opportunity to give an explanation. If he did not want to give it to the press, he could have done it per medium of articles to all the newspapers. At another point in his press conference he stated that he writes articles for newspapers all over Australia, not just in New South Wales or for the Sydney MomingHerald. He could have put forward the method by which he claims it could have been done and I am perfectly certain the Sydney MorningHerald, the Daily Telegraph Mirror, theAge or theAustralian would have accepted his article. Then we could have understood his method. But we have never been told.

My position has been attacked, both inside this Chamber and outside this Chamber, by representatives of the Australian Labor Party. It is with a certain degree of amusement that I remark on the amazing change in the opinion of the Australian Labor Party on the role and existence of this Legislative Council. The change of opinion is all the more remarkable given the party's long history of opposition to upper Houses over its 100-year history throughout Australia. Any examination of the figures and the possible permutations of the composition of the Legislative Council shows that if the result at the next election for the Legislative Assembly is seven coalition members, six Australian Labor Party members, one Democrat and one Call to Australia member, the Call to Australia will hold the balancc of power, not the Democrats. That result is the most likely result, especially given the latest Morgan gallup poll which was published in the Bulletin on 12th March. So to claim that the Democrats have given away power or are supporting this proposal out of self-interest is to ignore the fact that given the likely election result the Democrats did not have anything to give away. This will apply whether the Legislative Council remains at 45, is reduced to 42 or 40 or, as the Labor Party wanted, is reduced to 41. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1279

There is considerable confusion as the matter is complex. If there is confusion in this Chamber among members of political parties, there is certainly confusion in the minds of the general public about the impact of the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill 1990 and the effect of the reduction of the House from 45 to 42 members elected to serve two terms only of the Legislative Assembly. It is obvious that the next election for the Legislative Council, which is due before March 1992 or at the latest June 1992, will almost certainly be for 15 members. For anything else to occur, the referendum to approve the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill 1990 would have to be held before the next State election. Unless the Government is prepared to run until March 1992 and have the referendum held concurrently with the local council elections in September, that is impossible.

If the Legislative Council were to remain at 45 between the election due in 1992 and the election due in 1996forwhatever reason, therewould be 30continuing members. This is complicated, Mr President. The table setting out this information will appear in Hansard but for the benefit of members I shall also read it now. The continuing members at the next election will be: for the Australian Labor Party, 13; for the Liberal and National Party, 14; Call to Australia, one; the Australian Democrats, one; and the Hon. Marie Bignold. If the 1991election brings in six Australian Labor Party members, seven coalition members, one Call to Australia member and one Australian Democrat, there will be 19 Australian Labor Party members, 21 coalition members, two Call to Australia members, two Australian Democrats and the Hon. Marie Bignold, making up a Ho~ise of 45. The election result of six Australian Labor Party members, seven coalition members, one Australian Democrat, and one Call to Australia member is most likely on present indications. With that scenario, the coalition and the Call to Australia would command a total of 23 votes and an absolute majority in the House of 45. The combined total for the Australian Labor Party, the Democrats and the Hon. Marie Bignold would be 21, unless you, Mr President, resigned to give a total of 22. But Mr President, whatever you or your party might decide to do, the Australian Labor Party-Democrat-Bignoldgroup would not beable to prevent the passage of any coalition legislation that was supported by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile or the Hon. Elaine Nile. Thus, the Call to Australia Fred Nile group will hold the balance of power in New South Wales.

We are assuming that the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill will be implemented immediately after the successful referendum. After the publicity that it has attracted in the past few weeks and particularly the past few days and the allegations of bribery and corruption, electoral fraud and so forth, I believe that it is likely that the referendum will not be passed. But if the referendum is passed, the House will be reduced to 42 members. The seats currently held by the Hon. Marie Bignold, the Hon. G. R. Ibbett and the Hon. Judith Jakins would disappear and of the continuing members there would be 13Liberal-National members. If the election result gave them another seven they would have 20 members in this House. There would be 12 Australian Labor Party continuing members. If another six were elected, they would have a total of 18. If Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile were, returned the Call to Australia would have two. If I were returned the Australian Democrats would have two-a total of 42. Assuming the same result at the election for the 15 due to be held in 1992, as I have just COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

shown in that example, the Call to Australia would hold the balance of power and the coalition would be in a position to have one of its members as President of the Council as well. The total conservative vote would be an absolute majority of 22. Given these facts, it cannot be claimed, as the Opposition has claimed, that the Government changed its proposals for a Legislative Council of 42 only to give control of the Council to Call to Australia. If the Government decided that this matter was too difficult--or the option of an early election would be delayed-and thus abandoned the bill, the Government would have to rely only on Call to Australia. The voting record of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile is that on practically every occasion they vote with the Government. There are very few occasions when they have not voted with the Government. The occasions on which they part company with the Government involve the introduction of casinos and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile fighting for the abolition of the sale of pornographic videos, for which he has my full support. He also has my full support for his position on the introduction of casinos. On every other issue Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile vote with the Government. I draw to the attention of honourable members who wish to support the foreshadowed amendment of the Hon. Marie Bignold that delaying the change to 42 until after the State election due in 1996 would strengthen the hold of the National Party over the coalition in this Parliament. It would allow the National Party to force the Liberal Party into adoptingsome of the National Party's extremely conservative policies, which many people-and I am sure members of the Australian Labor Party are among thcm-believe would be to the detriment of New South Wales. It is to the considerable advantage of the National Party to have the implementation of change to the Legislative Council delayed until the 1996 election. Strangely enough, that is something that has escaped the notice of Malcolm Mackerras. At a press conference he spoke about going to a National Party management committee meeting. He said: I explained the bill. It took me a couple of hours, . . . and I finished up by saying look, you're a mob of stunned mullets you silly people, theLiberal Party is putting one over on you, can't you see that. Why have you not kicked up the most honificstink about this? Then I said the choice is basically yours, you can do one of two things-you can either fight on principle which is what I expect the Democrats to debut you're different, you Nationals, you don't claptrap on about proportional representatlon onevote onevalue. The other thing you can do is to kick up this terrific fuss in the hope that the liberals w~lloffer you some concessions. Well if you do that, then I'm not going to attack you. That does not seem to me to be a scholarly way of putting it to the National Party, and I gather there is no doubt that his way of describing what happened at that meeting is what took place. Later at that press conference Mr Mackerras said: But I think that the behaviour of the Government subsequent to presenting the bill is of a magnitude of corruption which causes the corruption of the bill itself to pale into insignificance. So I think basically that what they've done is they've bribed the Nationals, not necessarily Mrs Jakins personally, I'm inclined to accept her assurance that there is no guarantee that she will get a position on the ticket. The National Party, as a party, has been plainly bribed into making sure that all its members vote the right way. So the mechanism of the Government is bribery and thuggery. Bribe~y for the Nationals and thuggery for the Democrats. Frankly that does not seem to me a scholarly exposition of a piece of legislation by, as the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, the most highly renowned psephologist in Australia today. Therefore, it is to the advantage of the National Party to have the 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1281 implementation of change delayed. If the referendum were not to apply until the 1996 election, the National Party would be even further entrenched in the Legislative Council and would become 40 per cent of the total of the coalition. If that happened, its influence on the coalition would have to be increased but its representation would be out of all proportion to its vote. If the coalition only elects nine members, the National Party increases further to 42 per cent as a proportion of the total coalition representation. When I came into this Chamber today I told the Deputy President of the National Party, the Hon. D. J. Gay, that I was going to point out in my contribution to this debate how these changes were to the benefit of his party. He said, "Well I hope you can do that because I do not see it that way". I can give him a more detailed breakdown on how it will entrench his party and Ishould be happy to provide the information to any member of the Opposition. At one time I was thinking of recording the information in my remarks today but as it would be a lengthy explanation and would require detailed tables to follow it, I felt that would not be proper. In conclusion, this bill is one part of a total package of reforms. One reform is the reform of the Parliament, the reduction of members from 109 to 99 in the Legislative Assembly and a reduction of members from 45 to 42 with the associated removal of the obscene 12-year term for the Legislative Council. In the past 10 years it has been described as obscene by honourable members and other people. That part of the process should have been changed long ago. It should have been changed when the former Wran Government reformed the Legislative Council by reducing the number of members from 60 to 45. The other reform is the reform of the electoral process, to improve the system of elections for the voters and to improve the system of elections for candidates by removing the anti-democratic changes made by the previous Labor Government, and to clean up the system of electoral funding and disclosure by once again removing the built-in bias towards the major parties. It is my belief that the package will improve government in this State. Once again, I reject any suggestion that my actions or those of my colleague the Hon. R. S. L. Jones or the actions of my party are corrupt. If the process of negotiation compromised and that representation is corrupt, then the entire edifice of government is corrupt. It is ludicrous to suggest that a parliamentarian cannot make representations on behalf of lobby groups or sections of society that would benefit from that process. Commissioner Roden certainly did not suggest that it was wrong for parliamentarians to lobby, so long as they were independently and personally convinced of the justice of the issue and did not personally benefit. In addition, I have not been secretive. I have always placed on the public record details of any negotiation. I would like to place on the record also that I have kept my word. Because the Minister said that the letters were Cabinet papers and should not be revealed, and in spite of the pressure under which I was put by the media, I kept my word and I did not reveal them. When I signed that letter on behalf of the Australian Democrats, to me that was a solemn and binding promise that I made to the Government that I would keep my word. I come from a part of the United Kingdom and from a background of people who believe that their word is their bond, and I am not going to break it now. Whether I sign a letter or not, once Imakean agreement with the Government Ido not break it. Iremind members of the Australian Labor Party that I have had similar discussions with them on pieces of legislation to which the Australian Democrats and the Australian hbor Party have introduced amendments. 1282 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

,TheWon. M. R. Egan: We have never offered political inducements, though. The Won. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I have not been offered any political inducement and I would ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark. That is a direct slight upon my integrity.

The Won. M. R. Egan: I would only withdraw that if I were directed to withdraw it because it happens to be the truth. There has been an arrangement between the Government and the Democratson this matter. There are two sides to the deal and that is crystal clear from theinformation that has been tabled in this Parliament by the Leader of the Government in this House. I certainly do not intend to withdraw this statement. It is absolutely 100per cent true, and if the honourable member takes offence at it, then that is her fault.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am sorry, another member was discussing something with me at the time and I did not hear the remarks. Perhaps I could be reminded of the objection. The Won. Elisabeth Kirkby: On a point of order. I refer to Standing Order 81, which reads: No Member shall digress from the subject matter of any Question under discussion; and all imputations of proper motives, and all personal reflections on Members shall be deemed disorderly. To suggest that I have been offered an improper inducement- The Won. M. R. Egan: A political inducement. The Won. Elisabeth Kirkby: -a political inducement is impugning my integrity, and I believe it is an imputation of an improper motive. It certainly is a personal reflectionon me, and Iask you to direct the honourable member towithdraw it. TheHon.M. R. Egan: On the point of order. There are two aspects to the matter. First, I think it is a matter of public record that there have been political inducements in this matter. In fact, I think the words used were, "We did not offer you political inducements". They were my words; they are the words to which the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is objecting. That is a simple matter of fact. The Hon. ElisabethKirkby: Thereforesuggesting that the Government did offer me inducements. The Hon. M. R. Egan: I suggest, yes, the'~overnmenthas done that, and the honourable member has accepted them. If in a debate of this nature a member cannot make the point-based on the factual evidence that we have before us-that political inducements have been offered, then there is no free speech in this Parliament. I refer you, Mr President, to your own statements on offensive words in this Parliament. [Interruption] The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. M. R. Egan: It is quite clear from what you have said on numerous occasions that members of this Chamber should expect to take the political rough and tumble that their actionswarrant and call for. This is a very important political debate. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1283

If the Hon. Elisabeth JSirkby is not thickskinned enough to be able to take the true accusation that she has accepted political inducements, then she should not be in this place. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: On the point of order. I believe the Hon. M. R. Egan has confused this issue by referring to the standing order relating to offensive words. That is a different standing order and not the one to which the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby referred. She referred to the standing order that deals with imputations of improper motives. The standing order on which the President made a ruling is that relating to offensive words. This is a completely different matter involving a matter of important principle. The Hon. M. R. Egan must withdraw the remark or be charged with being disorderly. The Won. M. R. Egan: You are not the President. Sit down! Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: You just want to make cheap shots at everyone in this House. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is unbecoming of this House. The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order. I refer you, Mr President, to your own statements in this House on offensive words or reflections or imputations. The fact is that no personal reflection has been made on the honourable member. I have been talking about her behaviour as a member of this Parliament and as a politician. [Interruption] The PRESIDENT: Order! Please! The Hon. M. R. Egan: There surely is a distinction between saying someone has received political inducements and saying someone has received a monetary bribe. That would be a reflection, that would be an imputation. But it is certainly not a personal imputation against the member to say that she has received political inducements. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: On the point of order. The words used were "political inducements". If you were to look up in the Oxford dictionary the meaning of the words "induce"and "inducement", I think you would come to the same conclusion that I have; namely, that the Hon. M. R. Egan is absolutely right in his statement. To induce is to prevail on, persuade, bring about or give rise to some activity. It says that an inducement is what induces that, what attracts one to that situation. The definition of "induce" has nothing whatever to do with the hidden values that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby may be wishing to impose upon the words of the Hon. M. R. Egan. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The standing orders refer to imputations. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile should read the English language for once. The PRESIDENT: Order! We are going to settle this once and for all. When a point of order is being taken I expect to be able to hear the point of order. When a point of order is being taken, it is the Chair that is being addressed. If everyone tries to put in their twopence worth, it is quite impossible for me to give attention to the proposition 1284 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 that is being placed before me. Disorderly members do the Chair and the House a disservice. I plead with members, as I have pleaded for almost two years, to be silent when a point of order is being taken. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: The definitions make it quite clear that the word "induce" and then the word "inducement"do not have the implications that the Hon. ElisabethKirkby is seekingto imposeupon those words. Theyare quite clear: theymean to prevail upon, to persuade, to bring about and to give rise to. That is the precise mcaning of the word "inducement". Nothing in the dictionary definition of the words "induce" and "inducement" implies the meaning that the honourable member is endeavouring to impose upon this House. She is taking offence to meanings of words that do not exist. I submit that to rule that the words "political inducements",as distinct from other forms of inducements, are in some way offensive or cannot be used in the cut and thrust of debate is to narrow the use of the language that members may use in debate so dramaticallythat we will be taking offence to virtually every word used inthis Chamber. Reverend the I-Ion. F. J. Nile: It is an imputation. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile interjects once more about imputations. There is no imputation inthe words "political inducements". There is no suggestion in the dictionary of the sorts of meanings that he is trying to impose upon thosewords.

The Won. I. M. Macdonald: The honourable member interjects forabout the fourth time. The Hon. M. R. Egan is saying, in effect, that the Government had prevailed on, persuaded, brought about or gave rise to the actions of the Hon.Elisabeth Kirkby. If that is not sensible political languageand sensible language that one could use in this Chamber, I do not know what is. Some of the other words that have been bandied about in this debate over the past few days and have been bandied about in previous debates have been far harsher and far tougher, and the honourable member has not asked that members withdraw those comments. As a consequence, Isubmit that though the words "political inducements" might have a meaningto Reverend the Hon. F. 3. Nile, that meaning is not sustained in the dictionary of this land. The Bon. E. P. Pickering: On the point of order. Standing Order 81 clearly states that a person who makes imputations of improper motives is deemed to be disorderly. In the course of the debatethe Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby was making the point-I mention this so that you can get the context of her remarks, because Iknow that at the time you were talking to another person-that she is an honourable lady who, when she gives her word, whether in writing or verbally, keeps it. Shebelongs to that traditionalschool that bclieves that one's word is one's bond. That is a school to which I happen to belong myself. We probably both come froma Yorkshire background. The lady was indicating to the members of the Australian Labor Party in this Chamber that on many occasions she had so given her word to them and had always stuck by it. It was at that time that the Hon. M. R. Egan interjected by saying, "We did not give you any political inducements". The clear implication of those words is that the Government has given the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby political inducementsin order to enter into an agreement. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1285

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Precisely. You have read out the deal. Here it is. The Hon. E, P. Pickering: The implication of those words is that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has entered into a political deal for political advantageto herself or to her organisation. Indeed, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has entered into an arrangement with the Government which is proudly before this Chamber,which she believes and which the Government believes is to the overall benefit of the people of New South Wales. And she takes offence at the suggestion that she would have dealt or negotiated for a narrow sectionalinterest of either herself or her party. As a representative in this House of the people of New South Wales, she is entitled to be massively offended by the suggestion of the Hon. M. R. Egan. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is more than entitled to ask you, Mr President, to decide that the honourable member has been disorderly and to take appropriateaction against him. The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order. Yesterday the Minister for Police and Emergency Servicesread into Hansard the following very brief letter from the Premier of New South Wales to the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, and it is this letter that contains the political inducement: I have been asked to provide you with a clear assurance regarding the Government's intentions regarding the various agreements between yourself, as leader of the Australian Democrats, and the Government with respect to electoral and parliamentary reform. I would like to state unequivocally that, assumingyourpartydeliverson itssideagreements, theGovernment intends to uphold ouroriginal agreements in full. In other words, legislation which has been passed but not proclaimed will be proclaimed, and the remainder of the package processed in the current session of Parliament.

That is the inducement. It is a political inducement, it is clearly covered by the word "inducement". It is a matter of fact. If honourablemembers are precluded from referring in this Parliament to matters of fact simply because particular members are peculiarly thinskinned, I am afraid that is their fault.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Further to the point of order. I believe that two members of this House, the Hon. M. R. Egan and the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, are creating confusion about Standing Orders 80 and 81. In accordance with precedent in this Chamber, Standing Order 81 provides that imputation of improper motives is decided by the member to whom theyweredirected. TheHon.Elisabeth Kirkby believes that was the imputation, and that is why she objected. It is not a question whether a harsh or offensive word was used. That is nothing to do with Standing Order 81 but rather with Standing Order 80. Standing Order 81 deals with what was being imputed in the view of the member, who may request that imputation be withdrawn. Under ordinary precedent a member automatically would withdraw. The Hon. M. R. Egan does not decide whether there is imputation of improper motives; the Won. Elisabeth Kirkby decides that. The Hon. M. R. Egan and the Hon. I. M. Macdonald are attempting to change the bearing of the standing orders by blurring Standing Orders 80 and 81.

The Hon, Elisabeth Kirkby: Further to the point of order. I believe that the interjection by the Hon. M. R. Egan and the tone in which he made it is merely an extension of the attitude that the Australian Labor Party has taken during the last 12 days in an attempt to smear my reputation. That was implicit in the press conference held by the Opposition. 1286 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Hon. G. R. Ibbett: On a point of order. I resent the remark that the Australian Labor Party has attempted to slur the reputation of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. The PRESIDENT: Order! No point of order is involved. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: Further to the point of order. At a press conference held two days ago the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament, made a statement to the press that he believed that the Australian Democrats had been bribed and that is why he demanded to see these secret letters. He talked about this secret deal. I have a copy of his press release about it. That pressure has been kept up on me. Yesterday the Hon. M. R. Egan interjected and made some suggestion about cars. Where is it in the correspondence that the Democrats were offered cars? I cannot remember his exact words but that provoked a response from the Minister. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Too right.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: I would like to point out, as I did yesterday when we debated the motion of the Hon. Marie Bignold, that I can see no difference between the Australian Democrats entering into a written agreement with the Government on a piece of legislation and negotiating amendments to that legislation, and Dr Bob Brown in Tasmania entering into a written accord with the Tasmanian Government, with Premier Field. For that accord Premier Field gave Dr Brown a car, extra staff and access to the Ministers at all times. Is the Australian Labor Party suggesting that Labor colleagues in Tasmania were offering Dr Brown a bribe? Is the Opposition also suggesting that, when Dr Brown found out that Premier Field had reneged on his side of the agreement, he felt fully able to withdraw from his side of the agreement? When it appeared that the Australian Democrats were reneging on a written agreement, the Premier said, "If you are not going to fulfil your side of the agreement, I feel relieved of all responsibility for fulfilling my side of the agreement". The Hon. G. R. Ibbett: But that was over legislation. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: No, it was a case of breach of contracts; it was not a political inducement. It is the way the words are being used. It is the way the word "deal" is being used, as if there is something underhand and secretive about it. It is suggested by the Hon. M. R. Egan and the Hon. I. M. Macdonald that Mr President should rule that I should not be so thinskinned, that I should accept it all. I cannot accept it because my reputation is at stake. Once again I ask the Hon. M. R. Egan to withdraw. The I-lon. I. M. Macdonald: Further to the point of order. In answer to the point made by Reverend the Hon. E J. Nile, Standing Order 81 states: No Member shall digress from the subject matter of any Question under discussion; and all imputations of improper motives, and all personal reflections on Members shall be deemed disorderly.

I submit that in this case it is upon your shoulders, Mr President, to make such a determination, given in particular the nature of the words, which by their dictionary definition do not and would not in any way imply, nor would honourable members in this House conclude that they imply, anything improper. The political inducement is quite different from talking about other forms of inducement. The other forms of 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1287 inducement cause difficulty but the Hon. M. R. Egan was referring to political inducement. Obviously, the Hon. M. R. Egan is referring to some forms of arrangement. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is rather upset with the use of the word "deal" but that word has been used throughout the community not only about this arrangement but about arrangements generally. I do not understand why offence should be taken at the use of these words. They are not offensive words. In answer to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, it is upon your shoulders, Mr President, to run this House and to determine whether withdrawal is necessary.

The PRESIDENT: Order! In the last few days there has been a different attitude in this House. We are discussing a matter that affects the future of this Parliament. There is no doubt, calling upon the standard reference books on offensive words, et cetera, that according to the practices normally followed in this House offensive words may not be used against any member, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections upon members are considered to be highly disorderly. Standing Order 81 accords with what these reference volumes say on the matter. The practice of the House, based on the practice of the House of Commons, is that members can direct a charge against other members upon their character or conduct only upon a substantive motion that admits the distinct vote of the House. That is not before us. I uphold the point of order.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I withdraw, Mr President.

The Elon. ELISABETH KIRKBE I thank the Hon. M. R. Egan for withdrawing his remark. I should like to conclude briefly by saying that it is obvious to all honourable members that I have not been secretive and have always placed on the public record details of any negotiation, except when I have been requested to keep those details confidential. I have been even-handed. I have done that when I have had negotiations over amendments with the Australian Labor Party, just as I did when I had negotiations with the Government over the amendments. I remain totally convinced about the merit of my attempts to reform the New South Wales electoral process, and I wish to place on the public record that despite what has been said in the media by people like Malcolm Mackerras, what has been said in the House, and what may have been said on talkback radio, my conscience is clear. I stand by my commitment to the Government and continue to support the bill.

The Hon. K. W. REED [3.52]: I support the Opposition's rejection of the proposed legislation. Much has been said about what the bills propose. Therefore, there is probably not a great deal that I can add. But one feature that is more identifiable than any other is the attempt by the Government to impose upon the people a change to this Chamber that the Government purports will be to the benefit of the electors. I put it to honourable members that there is no evidence to show that in any way, shape or form the community has been calling for further reform of this House. Putting to one side the political pressures on individual members, and setting aside the political conundrums and the political points being put in this Chamber to enable me to speak about this Chamber's role as a House of review, Isuggest that every single member would agree-and this would apply to past members of this House had they been 1288 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

watching-that the Legislative Council right at this moment, on this very day, and in this very debate has never worked more effectively as a House of review since the time that five people were appointed to assist the Governor of this colony. If I could digress briefly, today the National Party has shown how stupid it is by being conned again. But I shall not be sidetracked as the Hon. D. J. Gay would have me do. Members of the Legislative Council are being put in a position of defending specific positions. The community is being told by the Government that these reforms are for the benefit of the people. The Government has said that it will reduce the term of members of the Legislative Council, and that is a wonderful thing and it should happen. It has said further that it will reduce the number of politicians, and that is a wonderful thing and it should happen. Every member of the Legislative Council knows that apart from a general consensus of opinion that a 12-year term is too long-though it is only theoretically a 12-year term, because it is three terms of the lower House, and the term has never been 12 years since the time it was set-no one in society, apart from the keen political pundits, advocates a change. What is a reasonable term for a member of Parliament? I am not advocating that the State should maintain a 12-year term. I am simply saying that although it is popular to advocate reducing the term of members of the Legislative Council, I defy any honourable member to give me an example of the community saying the term should be reduced. People will always say that members of Parliament are worth less money and there ought to be fewer of them; they will say that about anyone in the public sector or about anyone who sets charges or rates. The Government is quite flexible about the number of members who should lose their seats. It has said that it will reduce the number of members in the Legislative Council by two or three. Honourable members will have to wait for the referendum to find out how many members there will be. There will be no saving to the community from a change. Anyone with any nous knows that the community will not benefit one iota from the reduction in the number of members of this House. What will happen-and the same thing will apply in the lower House-is that any savings will be eaten up by the workload of members increasing, resulting in the employment of more secretaries. Because members will have a larger workload, their salaries will have to be increased. In the lower House the honourable member for Port Macquarie, who will attempt to run for the seat or Oxley, is on the record as quite seriously saying that he will need a helicopter to run his seat of Oxley should he be successful. Therefore, there are two false issues. Yesterday evening the pious Hon. M. E Willis told this Chamber how unfair it would be to deny the people a voice at a referendum. He was quickly put in his place by the Hon. J. W. Shaw, who correctly said, "If that is the case, this Chamber would be abrogating its responsibility on every matter". Therefore, the honourable member's argument lacked logic. It must have stung the Hon. M. F. Willis to find that once more he has been caught out. In 1978 the Legislative Council was reformed by a Labor Premier, the Hon. Neville Wran. Listening to the Hon. M. F. Willis yesterday evening, one would have thought that the Labor Party had fudged a little bit on reforming the Legislative Council. But the honourable member knows the truth. For many years the coalition parties talked about reforming the Legislative Council, but did nothing. It was not until 1978 that the House was reformed under Neville Wran. Honourable members will agree that those reforms were for the better. Honourable members heard the Hon. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1289

M. F. Willis say clearly that the Labor Party did not get its way on those reforms. He said that the Labor Party was going to make it a fair and honest reform. Clearly, last night the Hon. M. F. Willis committed the Government to the fact that at the time of the reform of this House in 1978 the coalition parties had a valuable say in what this House would be. The PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to sessional orders, business is interrupted for the taking of questions.

QUESTIONSWITHOUT NOTICE

DEPUTYPREMIER'S INVERELLAGRICULTURAL COLLEGECOMMITMENT The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Deputy Premier. Is it a fact that on 26th February, 1988, the Won. Wal Murray wrote to the secretary of the Inverell Agricultural College Committee stating, "The National Party is committed to the construction of an agricultural college at Invercll and will get such a college under way in our first term of office"? Is it a fact that not a sod has been turned? Is it a fact that the Government has no intention of building that college and is it a fact that this is a broken promise of the Deputy Premier in his own electorate? The Hon.J. P. HANNAFORD: I represent theHon. Wal Murray in his capacities as Minister for Roads and Minister for Public Works. The question asked relates to a matter dealt with by the Minister in his personal capacity. Given that it relates to some other portfolio, the question should be directed to the relevant portfolio Minister.

POLICE SERVICE TELEVISIONCOMMERCIAL The Won. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council. Has the Hon. M. R. Egan recently made quite unwarranted attacks about a television commercial at present being produced by and for the New South Wales Police Department? Is there any truth in any of his attacks? The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: It is true that the Hon. M. R. Egan has made several quite baseless attacks on the Police Department which is involved at the moment in the preparation of a commercial supporting that department. His motives for these attacks are not terribly clear beyond his natural inclination to attack and denigrate anything and everything that has any merit in the New South Wales Police Service. The details of the filming schedule were a matter for the Police Service. I have now been advised of the facts of the matter and these are as follows. The filming formed a small part of the production of a new television commercial which will be a major impetus in the Police Service's strategy of community-based policing. Its entire purpose is to secure a greater involvement of all sections of the community in the essential task of crime prevention. The demonstration outside Parliament House involved 50 actors depicting a peace protest. The filming of the rally was intended to, and actually did, take place in 1290 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

Hyde Park. The director, in his pursuit of authenticity, made an on-the-spot and, in retrospect, very unwise and unfortunate decision to extend the scene to Macquarie Street.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I thought you said I was talking nonsense.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: No, I did not. The Police Service has subsequently reiterated certain procedures the director must observe in future filming, including adherence to the approved film location schedule. The total length of time of the filming which occurred outside Parliament was nine and a half minutes. The gates of Parliament were closed and the standard announcement was made by Parliament House security to this effect. However, in contrast to the assertion of the Hon. M. R. Egan, I am advised that the gates, although closed, were never locked and that they were attended throughout the brief filming period. Access to the House was not denied to any members of Parliament or the public.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The announcement went over the public address system.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING. I said that a moment ago. The Police Service has instructed its agency that no scenes ofparliament should appear in the final commercial. I can assure members that at no time was there any intention to breach privilege or in any way to treat Parliament with disrespect. So far as the overall communication campaign is concerned, there can be no doubt that crime prevention must become the key focus of the efforts of the police and the community if the enormous human and financial costs associated with criminal activity are to be reduced. The essence of Commissioner Avery's community-based policing strategy is the recognition that many of the solutions to crime and order problems can be achieved only when individuals in the community take on the challenge of and responsibility for crime prevention and work closely with the police. It is for this reason that the Police Service put forward the initiative to produce the crime prevention communication program based upon the successful New Zealand model and on similar work being carried out in London and many other parts of the world.

It is a great shame that the honourable member has attempted to generate a campaign of hysteria and misinformation under the guise of a so-called waste watching exercise. In a series of inaccurate and misleading media releases and press interviews he has made a number of claims which should now be set straight. First he claims that the New Zealand commercial was a failure. No doubt the extensive research of the Hon. M. R. Egan on this point consisted of reading the one-line comment from the New Zealand Police Association reported in the Sydney Morning Herald. The facts are that independent research commissioned by the New Zealand police involving a large sample of 1,500 people showed that the overall campaign was well received and generated a very high level of awareness and motivation to learn about, and participate in, crime prevention. In fact the New Zealand police have produced a further four commercials following the success of the first commercial. Some minorweaknesses identified in that research will be addressed in the New South Wales program-one of the benefits of building on the experiences of others rather than reinventing the wheel or pompously rejecting the benefits of an alternative approach. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL

Experience in the area of road safety plainly showsthe enormous benefits that can be achieved in changing public attitudes and behaviour when properly researched and produced advertising is built into an overall policing program. Other major successes in the use of advertising and the media to generate relevant community involvement in crime detection and prevention include Neighbourhood Watch, Operation Noah, Crimestoppers, Operation Paradox and the car theft program. In all cases the expenditure involved has been more than matched in the benefits that have accrued in intelligence received, arrests made, drugsseized and property recovered, not to mention the crimes prevented. It would be remiss of me to allow further allegations made by the honourable member to go unchallenged. In particular he has claimed that a police accident investigation vehicle wentthrough a red light for the purposes of the commercial,that policing serviceswere disrupted and that public safety was threatened in the filming of a traffic crash segment.Again the honourable memberhas not allowed the facts to get in the way of his run for the media limelight. The facts are that no police vehicle was driven through any red light. In fact no traffic lights were located withinhundreds of metres of the cameras. The accident investigationvehicletook up a position in a side street offRockyPoint Road, Sans Souci, with other emergency servicevehicles. On cue it travelled acrossCaptain CookBridge towards the scene of the "accident". During the trip the accident investigation carpassed through one set of green lights at normal speed. No police lights or sirens were used; it was simply a normal run. As the vehicle approached thecrest of the bridge, the lights and sirenswere activated forthe purpose of filming. Verylimited police resources were involved in the filming of this segment. Again the total filming period was quite short. Arrangementswere made for filmingto cease immediatelyif any urgent duty arose. All participating vehicles remained on call via the police radio during thefilming. Highway patrol police were in attendance to ensure that no traffic risks were created. The Police Service is committed to its mission of police and the community working together to establish a safer environment by reducing violence, crime and fear. It deserves the wholehearted support of each and every member of the community and of this place in achieving that very important mission.

POLICEHIGHWAY PATROL OFFICERDUTIES The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: I direct my question withoutnotice to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council. Is it a fact that since the highway patrol has been changed from a district to a patrol mode of operation, many highway patrol units are being rostered on day shifts only or are required to complete duty by 10 p.m. to avoid payment of shift allowances? Is it also a fact that patrol commanders are regularly using highway patrol officers to staff general duty vehicles? The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I am especially pleased that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised this matter because it enables me to draw to the attention of honourable membersone of the major success stories of the New South Wales Police Service over the past few months. Traditionally,highway patrol officers were known within the Police Service as a district resource. They tendedto be physically housed at patrol level and managed by a district organisation. Inthose circumstances one could imagine that the actual management of highway patrol officers was somewhat deficient COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

in the sense that there was quite some distance between the managers and the operators. Recently there has been widespread devolution of control of highway patrol officers to bring them under the control of the patrol commander. It is fair to say that when that program was introduced there was a great deal of resistance from highway patrol officers at the district level because there was concern that they would lose their identity and that, in effect, they would not be used as highway patrol officers but as general duty officers at patrol level and that the responsibility that they had for road safety would be deleteriously affected by virtue of the fact that they would not be maintaining a high profile role as highway patrol officers.

It is now simply a statement of absolute fact that all of those concerns have been groundless. Patrol commanders and highway patrol officers in the different patrols will all say that highway patrol officers are far more effective than they have been in the past. There is also no doubt that the general public of New South Wales has noticed the higher level of police on the road. I have noticed that and I am sure everyone else has noticed that. The bottom line is that last year as proof positive of the success of this program the road toll in New South Wales was the lowest since 1953. That is an incredible result. It in no way justifies the honourable member in this House mouthing the concerns of one or two disgruntled highway patrol officers in suggesting that in some way by better managing the highway patrol process we have brought about a poorer result in this State.

ELECTRONIC MEDIAELECTION ADVERTISING

Reverend the I-Ion, F. J. NILE: I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council, representing the Prernicr, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs: what effect will the ban on electronic political advertising proposed by the Australian Labor Party in Canberra have upon election campaigns in Australia, especially in New South Wales? In view of these anti-democratic, anti-free speech proposals by the Federal Australian Labor Party Government, will the New South Wales Government introduce legislation providing that no such draconian Federal laws will have Iegal impact in New South Wales until each such Federal law is ratified by both Houses of the New South Wales Parliament?

The IIon. E. P. PICKERING: The honourable member has asked a most important question. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would know, the question really seeks from me a detailed legal opinion as to what impact Federal legislation might have on the conduct of an election in New South Wales. I shall avoid trying to answer that question because I understand that the Premier is seeking detailed advice on that matter. I heard on, I think, radio yesterday the Hon. John Howard expressing his view-I respect his view-that if such a law is passed in Canberra it will prevent the use in New South Wales of electronic media at elections. It is a statement of obvious fact that the Federal Labor Government realises that it is in desperate political trouble. It has now alienated many powerful organisations within the community. It is not really worried about conventional political advertising; it is worried about the suggestion that, for example, the National Roads and Motorists Association might mount a campaign to expose the fact that the Federal Government has taken a large amount in petrol tax and not put the money back into roads. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1293

The Federal Government would bevery concerned about the very powerful green lobby mounting a series of television and radio advertisements attacking it on its discredited environmental policies. So I could go on and on. I have to say that when a government becomes so fearful of the political process that it has to start muzzling the media, we know that it is finished. There is no way in the world that the people of New South Wales will see their free speech curtailed. Such legislation might pass through the Federal Parliament-I would not like to predict whether it will get through the Senate; one would never know-but the Act would remain on the books very briefly because as soon as the election is over it would be removed. Any Government that is so fearful of the people that it has to curtail electronic advertising is finished. It is absolutely doomed. I say to the Prime Minister of this country that passing such legislation through the Parliament is cutting his throat politically.

INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE The Hon. R. D. DYER: Does the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council recall my question to him of 14th March when I referred the Minister to his statement the previous day in answer to a question from me that Mr Justice Lusher "specifically recommendedw-I quote the Minister's own words-the appointment of an inspector general of police? Has the Minister or have his officers checked the Lusher report in this regard? If so, does the Minister now concede that the Lusher report makes no such recommendation. The Hon. E. P. PICICERING. I did check the record. The Hon. R. D. Dyer well knows that the Lusher report recommends in a number of places that an inspectorate be created. The Hon. R. D. Dyer: You said "specifically recommended". The Hon. E. P. PICKERING:You know as well as I do that the recommendation of His Honour Mr Justice Lusher was the formation of this inspectorate. It would be self-evident that any inspectorate is headed up by an inspector general. I concede that His Honour has not used the words "inspector general" but he has been extensive in his recommendation that the inspectorate that we are now creating, headed by an inspector general, should be adopted. I suggest with great respect to my friend opposite, who usually asks quite good questions, that he is splitting hairs.

TOTALIZATOR AGENCYBOARD FOREIGNCONTRACTS The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is to the Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for Racing and Assistant Minister for Transport. Isit true that the New South Wales Totalizator Agency Board is currently trying to expand its business overseas? If so, will the Minister advise whether the Totalizator Agency Board has been successful in seeking foreign contracts? [Intermption] The Hon. D. J. GAY: Mr President, the Minister will have trouble hearing. [Intermption] The Hon. D. J. GAY: If so- 1294 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

[Interruption] The Hon. D. J. GAY: Mr President, I ask you to instruct Opposition members to cease their noise so that I can ask a question that the Minister can hear. If he cannot hear it, he cannot answer it. [Intemption] The PRESIDENT: Order! I appeal to honourable members to be more orderly. The Hon. D. J. GAY: If so, can the Minister advise of any benefits to the New South Wales economy from such a venture? The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Mr President, after the cackle of the voices of Opposition members trying to drown a very sensible question, I did hear the honourable member's important question. It is important to attract foreign money into the New South Wales economy in these difficult times. The New South Wales Totalizator Agency Board, which is the biggest off-course betting operation in the world-I repeat, in the world-has begun a policy of trying to supply its goods and services overseas. It is with pleasure that I can tell the House that the New South Wales Totalizator Agency Board recently beat off a number of strong international challenges to win a contract from the Hungarian Government to supply a complete Totalizator Agency Board system to Hungary. [Intemption] The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITE. It is a waste of time trying to answer questions in this place because of the noise being made by Opposition members. Hansard would like to hear the answer and certainly the media would like to hear, even if those idiots opposite do not. The Totalizator Agency Board was selected because of the proven quality of its system and the expertise and experience of its staff. This relates to jobs and it ought to mean something to the Opposition. The contract will result in millions of dollars flowing into New South Wales during an extended period. The Totalizator Agency Board is to be congratulated on its success, as is IBM Australia, which supported the TAB'S bid. The contract will involve the following: the TAB will supply its locally developed computer programs modified for Hungarian conditions. A large computer system and associated facilities will be leased from IBM Australia. Betting ticket terminals manufactured in New South Wales will be supplied. TAB staff will travel to Hungary to install the system and train local personnel. The initial phase will be to introduce the system to racecourses in Budapest with off-course offices in the familiar TAB style being established subsequently throughout the country. The New South Wales TAB will continue to seeksimilar contracts in other parts of the world. At present it is looking closely at another eastern European country.

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE The Hon. I. M. MACDONAID: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Ekecutive Council. Is it a fact that the new Inspector General of Police will have a personal staff of one superintendent and 10 constables? Will the staff and required funds be supplied by the Police Board or the Police Service? What is the projected cost of staff resources to be assigned and what programs will be cut to establish this new group? 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1295

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: Again the honourable member shows a lack of detailed knowledge of matters to do with the police budget. He should be aware that the police budget provides for the Police Board. The honourable member's question anticipates debate. With his indulgence I point out that I have indicated to the House that in my reply to the Police Board bill I intend to cover matters raised concerning the Inspector General.

SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH)AIRPORT THIRD RUNWAY The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: My question is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. If the third runway goes ahead against the wishes of many Sydney residents, will the Premier negotiate a deal with the Hawke Government to provide the necessary funds for insulating homes affected by the noise andvibrations? Is it not fact that these homes will need double glazing and sound insulation in the roof and ceilings to alleviate the noise problem? The IIon. J. P. HANNAFORD: That question should properly be addressed to me in my capacity as the Minister co-ordinating the Government's responses to the environmental impact statement on the third runway. The Government has put in a response to the environmental impact statement and the question of the insulation of homes in order to minimise noise has been addressed. In that response attention has been drawn to the Commonwealth Government's responsibility to address the issue of noise occasioned by the increase in use of the runway. The Federal Government's attention has been drawn to its responsibility to examine the concerns about aircraft noise raised by local residents.

POST-ADOPTIONRESOURCE CENTRE The Irion. ANN SYMONDS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs, representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, and Minister for Administrative Services. Where does the $350,000 for the post-adoption resource centre come from? What are the operation guidelines for the centre? What services will it deliver? Will it undertake searches? What role will the voluntary sector have during the phasing in of the new adoption information legislation? How will the expertise of the voluntary sector be utilised by the post-adoption resource centre? The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I should have thought that the honourable member would know that such a detailed question should be placed on notice.

POST-ADOPTIONRESOURCE CENTRE The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: May I ask the Minister for School Education where the $350,000 for the post-adoption resource centre and Youth Affairs came from? I will ask one question at a time. The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Iwill refer that question to my colleague for a detailed reply. I can only provide details up until July of last year. At that time the costs of the changes to the adoption laws had been identified from savings within the 1296 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

department. If there has been a change since that time I am sure the supplementation will have come from Treasury or other areas of the department's activities. I will ascertain that fact for the honourablemember.

POST-ADOPTION RESOURCE CENTRE The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: I ask a supplementaryquestion. Will the Minister give us any informationabout what role, if any, thevoluntalysector will have during the phasing in of the adoption informationlegislation? Has any consideration been given to allocating that sector any money for its role duringthis phase? The Hon. VlRGINIA CHADWICK: Again I must say as of last July, other than referring people to existing voluntary agencies,some of which already receive funding either from the Department of Family and Community Services or from other governmentsources, there was no intention to provide additional funding to cover any potential additionalduties. However, if that circumstance has changed, my colleague the Minister for Family and Community Services, and Minister for Administrative Services will no doubt advise me and in turn I will advise the honourable member.

TEACHER CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENDERS The IIon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for School Educationand Youth Affairs. Is it a fact that this week a teacher found guilty by the Wollongong DistrictCourt latelast year of a child sexual assaulthad no conviction recorded? Is that teacher still teachingat a Stateschool? Howmany teachers who have been found guilty of sexual assault againstschool children, where no conviction was rccorded or where a conviction has been recorded,are still teachingin New South Wales schools? What is the Government's policy concerning teachers foundguilty of child sexual assault? The I-lon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the honourable member for her important question,which clearly has been a matter of some interest and has received considerable coveragein the media in the past day or so. It is my understanding that prior to making a teacheran offer of employment the Departmentof School Education seeks the advice of the Police Service regarding criminaloffences and charges,including charges suchas child sexualassault. The security check forchild sexualcharges includes informationof charges that may not have been heard at the time of employment or have been dealt with under section 556A of the Crimes Act. Though onewould have concern whatever school or in whatever circumstancessuch charges and allegations had been made, it is my understandingthat the matter referred to by the honourablemember did not relate to a State school. However, informationabout convictionsfor a sexual offenceand any child sexual assault chargeswhich havebeen dealt with in the pre-trialdiversion program is provided to the Department of School Education. So the informationwe seek before an offer of a job is made to a teacher covers that wide gambit ofmatters, notjust whether the matter has been heard and the charge proven. So we cover ourselves in that regard. Upon receipt of advice from the police, cases are considered individually. The nature of the charge, the time that may have elapsed, criminal chargesor convictions that may have occurred in the interim, and the conduct and service of the individual are all considered 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL in deciding whether to offer employment to a person as a teacher. I would have thought that was a right and properthing to do, given the position of trust that a teacher is placed in. It is quite possible that the department has employed teachers who havebeen convicted, charged or dealt with under section55612 prior to being employed as a teacher. I make that point because of the wide range of matters that would fall within section 556k It would be quite unfair to imposea blanket rejectionon people whohad faced any charges in that regard.

The department's strong position onmatters relatingto child protection means that it is highly unlikelythat a person charged with child sexual assaultand dealt with in whatever way under section 556A would even be considered for a position within the Department of School Education. The Teaching Services Act requires all teachersto report to the departmentall criminal charges that may have been brought against them. Where theoffence with which the teacher has been charged carries amaximum penalty of 12 months' imprisonmentor more-that is for anykind of criminaloffence; I am not now referringonly to child assault of one sort or another-the teachermay be suspended from duty without pay until the charges have been dealt with; and the teacher is obliged to advise the department of the outcome of those charges. Where the offence carries a penalty of more than 12 months' imprisonment and the teacher is convicted, the director-general may impose penalties up to and including dismissal from the department. Wherethe offence carries a penalty of less than 12 months7imprisonment and the teacher is convicted or the offence is found proven but no conviction is recorded against the teacher or the charge is dismissed or withdrawn, the department may still proceed to formally discipline the teacher and bringits own internal charges under the TeachingServices Act. Where theoffence dealt with under section556A relates to child sexual assault,the teacher- The IIon. K. W. Reed: We will all be asleep in a minute. This is a ministerial statement. The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWCK: If the honourable member read the newspapers he would have noticed that this matter has attracted considerable interest. I am more than a little surprisedthat such a question was not asked by the Opposition, given the importance of the matter. However, I am not surprised at the consistency of the concern shownby Reverend the Hon.F. J. Nile and the Hon. ElaineNile about these matters, and I thank them for that.

The Hon. K. W. Reed: I am sure the Hon. Elaine Nile is fair dinkum but the Minister is not. She is wasting the time of the House. The Won. VIRGINIA CI-LADWCK: I am sorry that the honourable member thinks that I am wasting the time of the House. I conclude by saying for the information of evere endthe Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. ElaineNile that where the offence dealt with under section 556A relates to child sexual assault, the teacher, whether the charge was proven or dismissed, wouldmore than likely be dismissed from the teaching service.

EASTER RAIL SERVICES

The Hon. JS. W. REED: I direct a question without noticeto the Minister for Sport and Recreation,Minister for Racing and Assistant Minister for Transport. 1298 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Hon. VirginiaChadwick: This is important but child sexual assault is not. The I-Ion.K. W. REED: It is a matter of perspective. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. K. W. Reed will ask his question.

The Hon. K. W. REED: Isthe Minister aware that the important North Coast Port Macquarie rail link of Wauchope station will not be manned over the Easter weekend from Friday to Monday night? Is the Minister aware that more than 100 people burdened with luggage might join or depart each train at this station? Why will not the Government accept its responsibility and provide the travelling public with assistance at railway stations on such important rail links? What other important country stations will the Government leave unmanned on the Easter weekend without service to rail passengers? The I-Ion.R. B. ROWMND SMITH: I am unaware whether Wauchope station on the Port Macquarie rail link will be unmanned at Easter. I am unaware also of other stations that will be in a similar situation. I shall seek advice from the Minister for Transport and let the honourable member have an answer.

GRAINCORPPRIVATISATION The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I direct a question without notice to the Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for Racing and Assistant Minister for Transport, representing the Minister for Transport, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, and the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Is it correct that the Government has begun calling for tenders to privatise GrainCorp? In light of section 5(2) of the State Owned Corporations Act 1989, will the Minister inform the House when the bill to privatise GrainCorp will be introduced into Parliament? What guarantee, if any, has the Minister given to the tenderers that such a bill will be passed? The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITII: The Grain Corporation came into existence on 1st October, 1989, being the first government trading enterprise to be corporatised under the State Owned Corporations Act 1989. The provisions of the State Owned Corporations Act established the Grain Corporation as a fully commercial business whose board is responsible to the Minister and the Treasurer as the corporation's two voting shareholders. The Grain Corporation is subject to stringent accountability requirements, including delivering to voting shareholders a statement of corporate intent, an annual report, the Auditor-General's Report, and a half-yearly report on operations. In addition, it is a requirement under the State Owned Corporations Act that each House of Parliament has laid before it a copy of the memorandum and articles of association of each State owned corporation, a copy of the statement of corporate intent, a copy of the annual report and the Auditor-General's Report, and a copy of any notice given by a Minister directing the corporation to engage in a non-commercial activity. For the financial year ended 30th June, 1990, the Grain Corporation's financial results show for the operating company total income of $70 million; depreciation charges of $21 million; an operating surplus before tax of $5.2 million; a return to shareholders totalling $5.6 million, comprising company tax paid to the New South 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL

Wales Government of $5.2 million and a dividend of $400,000; and capital expenditure of $20 million. The Government has instructed the board of the Grain Corporation to examine the options for privatisation and make recommendations. Let me assure the House that this examination in no way locks the Government into privatising the Grain Corporation. Indeed, it is not possible under the anti-privatisation provisions, deliberately built into the State Owned Corporations Act, to do so without the consent of Parliament.

GRAINCORP PRIVATISATION The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY. I wish to ask the Minister a supplementary question. 1s the Minister aware of statements by the wheat committee chairman, Mr Bruce Crossing, that the Prime Wheat Association is displeased with GrainCorp's performance, accusing it of acquiring excessive profits and providing inadequate service because of its desire to look good for prospective buyers? I ask the Minister to answer my question: when will the bill to privatise GrainCorp, as announced by the Minister ' for Transport, Mr Baird, on 11th February, 1990, be introduced into the Parliament? The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITE I shall pass on the details of that question to the Minister and get an answer for the honourable member as soon as possible.

DEPARTMENTOF SCHOOLEDUCATION NORTH COAST OFFICE EXPENDITURE The IIon. M. R. EGAN: My question is directed to the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs. Is the Minister aware ofwidespread allegations regarding improper use of Government funds at the North Coast regional office of the Department of School Education? Do the allegations include excessive expenditure on alcohol and the purchase of an illegal radar detector for the assistant director-general's car? Does the failure to investigate these allegations have anything to do with the fact that the officer has close Liberal Party connections? The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Which officer? The Hon. M. R. Egan: The assistant director-general. The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I have not had those allegations brought to my attention because I cannot help but suspect that they are yet another figment of the fertile imagination of the honourable member opposite. However, like all the allegations that are raised by the Hon. M. R. Egan, unhappily I will use officers' time and taxpayers' money to vigorously have his allegations investigated. Given that the assistant director-general for the North Coast region is in Sydney today, because I attended a meeting with him earlier this morning, I will chase up those allegations as a matter of some urgency. In answer to the question whether the assistant director-general is or is not a member of the Liberal Party or indeed any other political party, not only would 1not have a clue whether that is true or not-though the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti who knows him better than I do and who lives in that area tells me that it is not-and given that the assistant director-general in the North Coast region was not a resident of New South Wales until his recent appointment, it is not surprising that 1 do not know whether he is a member of any political party. As is the case with all officers in the department, however, I have no intention of asking about his political affiliations. 1300 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

MOTOR VEIIICLE LICENCE EYE TEST The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN: I direct a question without notice to the Minister for State Development, representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Roads. Following an announcement by the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Roads that all drivers will have to take an eye test before renewing their licences, will the Minister inform the House if this test is the same as is currently given to new drivers in the registry offices, or is it to be certified by an optometrist? Would a driver renewing a licence annually from now on be required to take the test? Did not the StaySafe Committee report of December 1990 recommend the status quo in relation to eye testing? Isthe department planning to engage extra staff to cope with this additional requirement? The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I can say to the Hon. Dorothy Isaksen that I do not have an answer to her detailed question. Iwill obtain the answers and provide them to the honourable member. But one thing is certain about the way in which the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Roads administers his portfolio. At all times the interests and safety of the public are maintained. The Minister, during his period in the administration of that portfolio, introduced a number of measures which have added to those put in place by the former Minister the Minister for Transport, the Hon. B. G. Baird, to ensure that the safety of the public is the foremost consideration. Many honourable members are aware of the need for additional testing of persons of senior years to ensure that they are appropriately placed to maintain control of vehicles. I think that particular measure needs to be pursued, and I will make certain that that is done.

EASTERN CREEK RACEWAY GRAND PRIX TICKET SALES The Hon. G. R. IBBET'E My question is directed to the Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for Racing and Assistant Minister for Transport. Will the Minister advise the House about the present state of ticket sales for the forthcoming grand prix at the Eastern Creek Raceway? What approximate percentage of total tickets for sale have been sold to date-and not the value? The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Of all those members sitting opposite, the Hon. G. R. Ibbett takes the greatest interest in the Eastern Creek Raceway. The Hon. G. R. Ibbett: I told you that you got dudded with it when you started it.

The Hon. R. B. ROWAND SMITH: I am sure the honourable member will be present on 7th April. I have been informed that the status of ticket sales amounts to something in the order of 7,000 4-day passes, which is the equivalent of 26,000. In the corporate sector, I believe that sponsors have taken up 10,000 of a total of 100,000. Previously I made the point abundantly clear that many people will not buy tickets before the events but will go to the circuit on the day or days leading up to the events, the practice day and time trials on the Saturday, and the race day on the Sunday. As I said yesterday, the number of people present at the open day on Sunday was amazing. Thousands upon thousands of people were coming and going. I was not able to take a head count of those people but there were thousands there. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL

The Hon. G. R. Ibbett: Seven thousand. The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I repeat: be positive. This event will be one of the great events in the history of sport in this State, if not in Australia. Come along and see for yourselves and enjoy the day.

PUBLIC HOSPITAL CORPORATISATION The Hon. J. W. SHAW I ask the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs, representing the Minister for Health and Minister for Arts a question without notice. Has the Minister seen reports that the Federal Leader of the Opposition, Dr Hewson, is considering plans which would lead to the corporatisation and eventual full privatisation of the public hospital system? Will the Minister give an unequivocal guarantee that the New South Wales Government will preserve the integrity of the public hospital system by strenuously opposing Federal Liberal plans to privatise the hospital system in whole or in part? The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK. I thank the honourable member for his question and for the indication that the Australian Labor Party has now started to consider the development of integrity in the provision of health services in New South Wales. I notice that the honourable member's question has come from the re-emerging left-wing of the Labor Party, not the dead hand of the right which saw the demise and destruction of the health system in New South Wales during more than a decade. I welcome the support for the integrity of the health system that we have been struggling for and injecting funds into during the past three years. I will refer the further detail attached to the honourable member's question to my colleague.

WOMEN'S ADVISORY COUNCIL PUBLICATIONS The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs. Will the Minister inform the House why the very expensive glossy publication put out by the New South Wales Womens Advisory Council, on which the Minister is represented by a photograph and a statement, is being sent out-and it has been duplicated to me-by an organisation which apparently is not a Government organisation? The envelope states, "Postage paid by KDMS Australia". What is the reason for KDMS Australia being used by the New South Wales Womens Advisory Council, and at what cost? Will the Minister inform the House how much it costs to prepare these very glossy packages, and is it necessary for so much money to be spent on them at a time of national stringency? The IIon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby for her interest in the edition of Hersay. I would need to check the history of the Women's Advisory Council of New South Wales. Hersay is published regularly by the council. I believe the honourable member will find that the magazine has been published for more than 10 years in New South Wales, but I shall check that. It comes out three or four times a year. It is a tradition that the Minister who has responsibility for women's interests has a column in the magazine. For the past three and a half years I have had a column in every edition of Hersay. I am disappointed that the honourable member has not read any edition prior to the most recent edition. There is, and always has been, a budget within the Women's Advisory Council allocation for publications, including the COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 publication Hersay. That is a matter of public record. I shallbe happy to give the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby details of that budget. Given that I do not put the magazines in envelopes and send them out myself, I have no idea what the postal arrangements are. However, given the honourable member's interest, I shall check for her also the postal arrangements. I know I would speak for Renata Kaldor, the chairperson of the Women's Advisory Council, when I say that I am disappointed that a publication that has been published three or four times a year for approximately a decade has only now come to the attention of a female member of Parliament who is the Leader of the Australian Democrats.

POLICE DRAGON LINE The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I ask a question without notice of the Leader of the House, the Minister for Police and Emergency Servicesand Vice-president of the Executive Council. How many calls have been received on the Dragon Line since its inception on 12th February? Why are signs advertising the Dragon Line hotline printed only in English? Given the multicultural population of the area involved, will the Minister ensure that advertisements for Dragon Line and futureprograms are printed in appropriate community languages? The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I am sure that the honourable member would not expect me to know how many calls have been made to Dragon Line, but I undertake to obtain that information for her. I was associated with the launch of Dragon Line and am well aware of the program. I am somewhat taken aback by the suggestion made by the honourable member that the literature associated with Dragon Line is printed only in English. I well recall at the launch of Dragon Line that a beat patrol program brochure was handed out for the local beat patrol, and that brochure was printed only in Vietnamese. I should be remarkably surprised if the marketing department of the New South Wales Police Servicein advertising Dragon Line,which is obviously aimed mainly at South-east Asian ethnic communities, published a brochure in English only. I shall check out the honourable member's allegations. If she is correct, I shall fix it up and get back to her.

PRIMARYSCHOOL WITCHCRAFTLESSONS Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs a question without notice. Why does the Government permit witchcraft lessons to be taught in State public primary schools? On Sunday, 17th March, eight-year-old Rebecca from the Abermain Public School, near Cessnock, complained to me. What action will the Government take to protect little girls like Rebecca from being distressed by witchcraft lessons and projects? The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: To the best of my knowledge, witchcraft is not taught in New South Wales schools. I know it is not on the curriculum. The Hon. G. R. Ibbett: The Minister should go up on her broomstick and find out. The Hun. VIRGINIA CHADWICK. I shall pay that one. I think I can say with absolute certainty that New South Wales schools have no syllabus documents on witchcraft, and, to the best of my knowledge, witchcraft is not taught as a subject in any 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1303 school in New South Wales. However, ifsome person has construeda lesson or a course to be a lesson on witchcraft, which has caused the concern to which the honourable member refers, I should be delighted if he would provide me with the details. I should be more than happy to investigatethe matter, whetheron a broomstickor not, and keen to do so because if, as the honourable member said, the school is in Cessnock, that is not far from my home. Like the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, I, too, will be spellbound awaiting the answer.

TAFE ENROLMENTS The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Is the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council, ~epresentingthe Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment,aware that young people who are unable to obtain entry to universities find that the information reaches them too latefor them to enrol in a technical and further education courseas the course has already started? Will the Minister make arrangementsso that those unable to enter university are able to obtain lateentry totechnical and further education courses? The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: The honourable member has raised what appears to be a most interesting question. I have no knowledge on the matter. However, if his assertion proves to be a fact, it is obviously a matter that ought to be addressed. I shall bring it to the attentionof theMinisterfor IndustrialRelations, andMinister for Further Education, Trainingand Employmentas a matter of urgency in the hope that I can give the honourable member an answer tomorrow.

POLICE FOOTPATROLS The Hon. R. D. DYER: Is the Minister for Policeand Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council awarethat many beat policing units,although appearing on rosters as performing beats,are performing generaland other duties on a regular basis? Are supervising police complaining continuallyto their commandersthat they do not have sufficient police to comply with beat policing announcements madein press statements issued by the Minister?

The IIon. E. P. PICKERING: I totally reject the second part of the honourable member's question. The complaint has not been brought to my attention, and I have taken the trouble to travel extensively round the New South Wales Police Service and inquire about such matters as I go. It is a fact, however, that of the almost 1,000 beat patrol officers who are now on the streets, on occasions, because of policing developmentsthat occur in a given patrol, somewill be used on other duties. That is a matter of common sense. The honourable member would bethe first to recognise that if an emergency develops in a patrol, the commander would bring in all his resources quickly to deal with such an emergency. There may be unusual levels of absenteeism for one reason or another or heavy court loads. All sorts of events disrupt the well-being of a conventional police patrol. I have recognisedthat beat patrols may be disrupted andhave had the department monitor on a monthlybasis the percentageof hours duringwhich police are on the beat compared with the hours available. I am pleased to be able to inform the honourable 1304 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 member that over a period of months that percentage has been increasing steadily. One of the major reasons for that is that as the beat patrol program is put in place, more and more patrol commanders are becoming absolutely sold on the viability of the program. I know that the honourable member takes the trouble to talk to patrol commanders-and I encourage him to do so. He will get exactly the same message that I am getting: that after two to three weeks of instituting a beat patrol the patrol commander is absolutely amazed at the effectiveness of the system. Drawing from my memory, the last return I saw for the past month indicated that about 80 per cent of the time allocated to beat patrols had been taken up by beat patrols. The percentage will never reach 100 per cent, because various things happen. Similarly, officers who would not normally be put on beat patrol but on general duties at times would give a hand on beat patrols.

DUCK SHOOTING The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: On 14th March the Hon. R. S. L. Jones asked a question relating to duck shooting. The answer is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Themaximum penaltyon summaryconviction is two years' imprisonmentor $5,000,or both, and on conviction on indictmentfive years' imprisonment.

(3) Twenty-nine chargeswere preferred in the Albury District during 1990. (4) Police have advised duck hunters through pamphletsand the media of legislative and other requirementsduring the duck hunting season.

(5) Police and officers from the National Parks and Wildlife Service wdl continue to monitor activities during the duck season and any violationwill be dealt with appropriately.

CONSTITUTION (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL) AMENDMENT BILL

CONSTITUTION (REFERENDUM) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from an earlier hour. The Hon. K. W. REED:[5.1] Prior to question time I had commenced my comments in regard to the legislative reform before the House. I had taken a different tack to the proposals for the reform of this House. I had said that to my knowledge, by and large there has been no call from the community for reforms of the Legislative Council. I had said also that so far as the reforms were concerned, tKere has been no call from the community for the reforms to take the form they have, though I have said quite clearly that most people would seek to have the term of 12 years reduced and that people would always seek to reduce the number of politicians. So far as that aspect is concerned, I had said that I recognise that that should not be interpreted to mean that there had been a call to reform the Legislative Council. I had further stated that the Hon. M. F. Willis had postulated to this Chamber that reform was needed. I dealt with a number of aspects of that. I had indicated that clearly he, the Liberal Party and the 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1305

National Party had participated in previous reforms to this Chamber and he is on the record as having done so. He thought that the reforms that took place at that time were substantial and of significance. I had said also that at this time-and I include this very debate-the Legislative Council is operating at the most efficient level at which it has ever operated or at which it will probably ever operate as a genuine House of legislative review. I indicated that if the party political positions of each member could be put aside, most members would agree with the point of view I was espousing. The reforms that took place to the Legislative Council in 1978 were not minor reforms. They were sought- after reforms following many years of stagnation in this Chamber.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: Very substantial.

The Hon. K. W. REED: They were substantial changes. They brought this Chamber into this century and catered for the period ahead. They included the reduction of the size of this House and the important component of democratisation of this House, that is the election by the people at the polls ofthe members of this Chamber. As all honourable members know, those changes have been complemented by significant additional changes whereby tribunals set up by Parliament have recognised that members of this House have increased their workload. They have recognised also the role members of this Chamber play in the parliamentary sphere in New South Wales. Had the members of the Legislative Council continued in the same vein, had the Chamber continued to operate in the same fashion as was the case prior to 1978, and had there not been significant and valuable reforms, the people would have been well served by a government seeking further reform of the Legislative Council. I put it to honourable members, and I doubt whether any would disagree, that so great and so well thought out was that reform of the Legislative Council and so extensive were the nature of those changes that this Chamber has not yet seen the full development and evolvement of those changes.

The changes to the Legislative Council did not take place in 1978. Those changes were but the commencement. It was at the time of the 1984 election that those changes of the members and to the number of members of this House were completed. Some time after that members of this House were recognised by the tribunals set up by Parliament as full-time members. Everyone in this House knows that pressure has been placed upon the members of this Chamber by their individual parties to ensure that they can no longer be accused of being members of a club but belong to a working house of Parliament. One of the great evolvements to emerge from that reform was the commencement of the committee system. This Chamber did not make that move lightly. The Won. Lloyd Lange, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, played a significant role in advocating reforms to this Chamber. Acommittee was set up and chaired by the Won. R. D. Dyer. That all-party committee met at length and reported to this Chamber. In due course this Chamber was pleased to receive that report.

To its credit, the Government introduced what Government members themselves acknowledged was the commencement of the committee system. All honourable members know that some members of the Legislative Assembly, God bless them, think that this Chamber has gone too far. Members of the Legislative Assembly on the crossbenches say the Legislative Council is not needed. However, members of this Chamber who genuinely believe that this Chamber should benefit the people of 1306 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

New South Wales and who are genuine about the role they play as legislators and reviewers of legislation agree, and I am sure this is across-the-board, that the Legislative Council, when it undertook to consider the initial report from the select committee, did so with decisiveness and integrity. When the committee system of this Chamber was finally set up, it was done with the same integrity and consideration. The reforms of 1978 have come to fruition as a result of the emergence of the committee system. A number of reports have been made to this Chamber. TheStanding Committee on Social Issues brought down a report which resulted in significant changes to adoption laws. The same standing committee brought down a significant report on drugs and youth. The Standing Committee on State Development has brought down proposals for contracts and tendering. These proposals have been implemented by the Government, which has recognised that it does not have the time to see these matters through in detail. The committee system has allowed Parliament, as opposed to the bureaucracy, to maintain control of its destiny and direction. These committees have done that-in some respects at the expense to the bureaucracy, one might say, but to the benefit of the people of New South Wales. Hence I stress the importance of the Council committees. The State Development Committee will soon report to this Chamber on the question of coastal management. I cannot think of a more important task that this Chamber could undertake through committees. I cannot think of a more important expansion of our role as reviewers of legislation and Government performance. The fact of the matter is when a contentious matter being dealt with by this Chamber or the other place becomes too difficult for the Government, or perhaps even the Opposition, instead of it going into the bottom drawer of a desk it is referred to a Legislative Council committee for consideration. On the one hand, that may be a very convenient way for the Government to remove a matter from the immediate political spectrum, but on the other hand it may prevent the wrongful burial of matters of importance, allowing them to be considered and ultimately crystallised into recommendations of a bipartisan nature. That permits consideration of matters of importance which otherwise may not be acted upon or might be misdirected for necessary political motives at the time. That is adding greatly to the workload of this Chamber. Already, it would be fair to say, the committees are overloaded, not with references that they have sought but with references placed upon them by the parliamentary system. Indeed, as the Hon. R. D. Dyer correctly pointed out, social issucs is an area in which there is always great demand and various aspects need to be considered. I do not want to trivialise the point I am making. The real thrust of what I am saying is that the two committees set up by this House are conducting hearings and making inquiries three or four days a week when the House is not sitting. Its members are not always on exciting trips away; they are at times sitting in back rooms conducting public hearings. They are doing the footslogging that the Government does not have time to do, and are getting through the maze and minefields that many people set for parliamentarians. So I say that to seek to make further changes to this place by reducing the number of members of this Chamber at this very time, when the actual reforms of 1978 in terms of numbers were not completed until 1984, when those reforms have not been allowed to blossom and achieve their full potential, is to be politically, socially and fundamentally irresponsible. Every member of the committees of this House would agree that each of those committees could be subdivided into at least three committees. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: There should be a law and justice committee.

The I-Ion. K. W. REED: What about the scrutiny of legislation? There should be a scrutiny of legislation committee. The Hon. R. D. Dyer points out there should be a law and justice committee. Thisis what I would call a much maligned Chamber. People have this thing about the Legislative Council, and try to pin the tail on the donkey, becauseat one time this was a House that represented another position. This House will be what people make it. This is not a treasure to bring about trivial reform for politicalexpediency. Clearly,onceevery so often theway is open to introduce reform for the benefit of democracy. Whether it was appreciated by the Government or the Opposition at the time, in so far as this Chamberis concerned, that happened in 1978. As I have indicated, the present Governmentwas party to those changes. It had the chance then, because it had the numbers then,to make the changes that were desirable for this Chamber, andit had its say on this Chamber at that time.

I hope members of the Government realise that this is just not another Government bill. The two bills being discussed today, the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill 1991 and the Constitution (Referendum)Bill 1991,are not just another two pieces of the Government's programor philosophy that will just fade into oblivion; they are to do with the very hallmarks of the parliamentary tradition of New South Wales. Honourable members on the Government side and on the crossbenches must think more carefully-I know that a number of National Party members have-about this legislation. We are told that they are free to exercise their personal convictions. If they want to be fair to this Chamber and uphold the reforms that they agreed to in 1978-which have not yet been fully implemented-and if they want debate in this Chamber to reflect the views of a wider cross-section,then they will have to think more seriously and not, for party expediency,support this very much premature reform.

I would say this to honourable members: let us not talk about the term of members, because many would argue about that; let us talk about the number of members of this Chamber. Iput it to members of this Chamber that alongwith reducing the number of members in the other Chamber by 10, they might well do the people of New South Wales a favour by increasing size of this Chamber by five or more members. The reason is that this Chamber is accepting an increased workload and is producing results which are having a marked impact to the benefit of New South Wales. Is it a good argument to put to the people of New South Wales: I slashed two, three or four politicians, I did not save you any money but I did what you wanted. The politicians are all gettingmore now, and have better services and better conditions. We have not saved you any money but we have reduced their number for you, allowing the bureaucracy to have a bigger say in how we govern. Isthat a good argument? No, it is not. Every member of this Chamber knows that the real opponentsin many instances, so it seems, are not the Opposition or the Government;they are those in the bureaucracy who have vested interests. They are often harder to swerve than oppositions andgovernments. Because legislation has become socomplex, the detail of nuts and bolts these days in many instancesis contained in regulations rather than in Acts. Morein depth committee work is required. The reduction in the number of members of the Legislative Council is really to satisfy the lust for fewer members of Parliament in both Chambers. 1308 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

Yesterday a substantive motion was moved to refer the circumstances surrounding the legislation to the Independent Commission Against Corruption to determine whether anything improper had occurred. There have been statements by Malcolm Mackerras. A stench has developed from the Government's efforts on this legislation so far. There have been allegations of corruption and improper actions or motives and allegations that somehow the Government is acting against the Hon. Marie Bignold to satisfy the personal whims of the Call to Australia movement. It has been alleged that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has been subject to political inducement. The Leader of the Government fluffed the matter so badly that he could not even get National Party members together to tell them about their execution and to gain their agreement to the proposition. After all this has becomeknown to the community, does the Government really believe that it will succeed with this legislation? I think not. It is not just a matter of a vote in this House; unless the Government waits a substantial period it will not have a hope in Hades of the referendum being passed. People have been shown, and will continue to be shown, the false nature of this Government. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has taken serious objection to comments made in this House about her personal role in doing dealswith the Government. I have the greatest respect for the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and I cannot imagine her participating in any action that she felt was improper, immoral, wrong or corrupt. However, if the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is touchy about someone saying that she has been politically induced or that political inducement was provided by the Government she has become far too touchy and she really needs to further consider her position because that is what has happened. The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT(The Hon. Sir Adrian Solornons): Order! I draw the attention of the Hon. K, W. Reed to the President's ruling on the matter he is dealing with now.

The Hon. K. W. REED: Mr Deputy-President, couldyou advise me of the ruling? The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! The President stated that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby was entitled to object to the words just used and those words were withdrawn.

The Hon. K. W. REED: Mr Deputy-President, that is why before commenting in that area I made very clear that my remarks in no way were a personal reflection on the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. That is on theHunsurd record. I am not personally reflecting on the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. Mr Deputy-President, have I adequately covered my position in accordance with the President's ruling? The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Certainly, so long as you take the matter no further.

The IIon. K, W. REED: Thank you, Mr Deputy-President. I made the comment because the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, in signing the letter to the Leader of the Government, did so as the leader of the Australian Democrats in this Chamber. To the extent that it has been read on to the record, I personally do not object to the leader of a party entering into such an agreement. But there is a big difference between the leader of a party signingthe letter, in this case, and what Iwould term a "live"candidate signing it. By "live" candidate I mean an endorsed candidate of a political party for the next election. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Explain that. The Hon. K. W. REED: For the benefit of the Leader of the Government I shall do that with the example given by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. She challenged the House by saying that the Labor Party complains in this case but it did not say anything about Dr Robert James Brown of the greens party in Tasmania. He has signed agreements and the Labor Party has not complained about it. The difference in that case was that Dr Brown was an elected member who represented five green candidates. He was already elected. Whether the agreement signed by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is wrong in law or wrong morally is possiblya different matter. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby signed the letters as the leader of her party, but as a candidate at the next election. To give further clarification, the Commissioner of Taxation, for example, will not allow a member of Parliament to claim as taxation deductions amounts expended on electioneering unless they are expended in an election year. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: On a point of order. As the honourable member is not in the Chamber to defend herself- The IIon. K. W. Reed: She can come in. Must I defer my contribution to the debate?

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: I am entitled to make the point of order that the Hon. K. W. Reed is again implying improper motives on the part of the leader of the Australian Democrats by suggesting that as a live candidate, as he describes her, her actions in signing an agreement with the Government were improper. I draw to the honourable member's attention that the elections for members of the Legislative Council to be conducted at the next general election are not altered one iota by this bill. Therefore, his analogy that in some way the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is affected as a live candidate is most improper, and I ask him to withdraw it. The Hon. K. W. Reed: On the point of order. I have not yet had an opportunity to link the relevance of my comments. Prior to commencing my remarks in relation to this matter, I said that I did not believe that the honourable member had knowinglydone anything wrong. I said that I believe the honourable member is a person of integrity. I could not have put her on a higher pedestal. I am not putting a slur on the honourable member. A person cando something that another person perceives to be wrong, which may or may not be wrong. If that person does it knowinglyor wantonly, that is different. Though the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby may not be aware that she had done anything wrong, in my opinion, which I am entitled to hold, she has, and I am attempting to outline that. However, I do not believe she has done it wantonly or with intent. There is a significant difference between my accusing the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby-and I am certainly not doing that-and my raising what is in my opinion a valid point. In due course my comments can be substantiated or othenvise. I am not reflecting on the integrity of the honourable member because I have said that I do not believe she acted with intent, malice or otherwise. I am saying that in my view this is the net effect of what has happened and I submit I am entitled to present my case in this Chamber. The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sir Adrian Solomons): Order! Earlier in the course of this debate the President indicated that it would be wrong in all the circumstances for the question of the imputation of the conduct of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby to be canvassed. The Hon. K. W. Reed has raised an interesting point. He said 1310 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 that without challenging in any way the motivation of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, he submits that he is able to put his opinion as to the propriety or otherwise of her actions, qualifying that submission by a clear statement that in his view the honourable member has not acted in any way dishonourably. In view of the ruling of the President, I find that the Hon. K. W. Reed is skating on thin ice but I am not willing to stop him at this juncture. I ask him to be exceedingly careful in what he says.

The Hon. K. W. REED: I submit the position is this: earlier in the parliamentary session the Constitution and Parliamentary Electorates and Elections (Amendment) Bill 1990 was dealt with. That legislation concerned a number of matters relating to political parties and one of those matters was to do with the fact that the name of a candidate of a political party will be placed on the ballot paper. That clearly creates a situation, which has been acknowledged in this Chamber, of a benefit to minor parties and therefore, ipso facto, candidates of minor parties, of which the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is a member. From the information contained in Hansard yesterday- The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! I indicate to the Hon. K W. Reed that he has no right to quote from theHunsurd of yesterday. I direct his attention to Standing Order 76 which provides- The Hon. K. W. REED: I shall desist. Honourable members have been advised that following negotiations by the Leader of the Government in this House, on 29th January the Premier wrote to the Hon. Elisabeth Klirkby. This House has heard a verbal rendition of what the letter purported to contain. The actual letter that was sent out is not on the record, ratherwhat was read to this Chamber, which we presume is an accurate record of the letter sent. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: The honourable member has my assurance of that. The Hon. K.W. REED: I may have the Minister's assurance but for the purposes of my argument, I draw to the attention of honourable members a comment by Commissioner Roden in the Independent Commission Against Corruption report on North Coast land developments when he referred to identical letters. If members were able to check the letters-and they could not as the letters were not tendered as documents-they would find that the commissioner was quite wrong. I point out that the letters were read into Hansard as opposed to being incorporated. On 29th January the Premier wrote to the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, who, as I have said, is a live candidate. On 31st January, about two days later, the honourable member replied. One could conclude that following the receipt of a formal proposition, that was a rather prompt response to such a heavy proposal. I have highlighted to honourable members and to the community the significant difference between what the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby referred to in respect of Dr Brown, a Tasmanian elected member who represented a group of members, and the actions of a live candidate here, who, quite unwittingly did what I consider to be an improper action in writing this letter. I say again that two days suggests quite an indecent time. Not only has the Leader of the Democrats, who is the live candidate, signed this letter on behalf of the other Democrat, she is the only Democrat in this Chamber who supports the proposition before the House. Honourable members will have to wait for the vote to see whether that is the case or not. Palatable or not-and I do not think that the Hon. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL

Elisabeth Kirkby has acted wantonly-it may not be illegal, but at the very least it is an immoral and improper contract over which the Government will hang its head. The Act- The Hon. E. P. Pickering: The bill.

The Hon. K. W. REED: The Leader of the Government corrects me. He says that the Constitution and Parliamentary Electorates and Elections (Amendment) Act 1990 is merely a bill. That is correct because, as the Leader of the Government well knows, it has not been proclaimed an Act. I reinforce what has been said. The benefits of passing the Constitution reform bills could be interpreted by those who are open-minded and honest as being set by this linchpin which benefits a live candidate. The Government does not cease to amaze me. The Government has its snout in the political trough. It has organised what is at best an immoral contract. It has duped the leader of a minor party but says that is okay. I suppose the Government believes it must have control at any cost and does not care how that is achieved. How does the Government achieve that? By this means. We will wait and see whether the Democrats reallywere duped or not. When the truth comes out shortly the Democrats will be shown not to have been duped. I support fully the moral attitude of the Democrats if they go against what is proposed in this Chamber.

If the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is the person of integrity that I have described today to this House-she is not in the Chamber but she or one of her staff may be listening in her room to this very important debate-I hope she gets Hansard quickly and reads what I said about how the Government has been willing to trammel the very foundation of democracy in this Chamber, about how the Government has put her in a position out in the community where without much difficulty, all her principles, which I believe to be genuine, are blown out the window. I hope that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby looks at this matter again and gives further consideration to it. Another aspect of the legislation deserves consideration. That is its impact on three members and the fact that these changes will be effective immediately following the next election, should the referendum be carried in conjunction with the election. The Government does not suggest-and indeed it will fight to the death to defeat such a suggestion-that it wants to start off on a level playing field without political advantage and reform this House on a fair political basis. The Government will take advantage of the flavour of the month and will effect changes to this Chamber within days, weeks or months of the election. That election will be held, without any foundation or reason, about one year early because of the atmosphere created by the Government. If the election goes as planned, the Government will set in place its control of this House. Judging by the Government's fumbling today, however, it probably will have forgotten half of what it should have thought about. Honourable members know that the Government is willing to do almost anything.

In the debate yesterday this House did not hear about what happened to the Hon. Judith Jakins and her set of principles. I cannot wait for honourable members' contributions on that aspect. What caused the secretary of the National Party to say, "You can have a free vote because we have been done in". Whatever happened to the Hon. R. W. Killen, who was opposed to this legislation, and to the Hon. Sir Adrian Solomons? Nothing has been heard from those honourable members, who will COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 go to the country and tell their electors that they are free-thinkers. We hear from the Hon. Judith Jakins that no deals have been done about a position on a ticket. I ask the Hon. Judith Jakins: Have any deals been done at all as far as her future is concerned? The Hon. Judith Jakins: Not about my future-nothing. The Hon. K. W. REED: There it is, a statement by the Hon. Judith Jakins that nothing has been done with regard to her future; certainly there was in terms of the measure before the House. She perceived that the other day but not today, which does not conform with concrete expressions by her National Party peers in confidential comment. Someone is telling an untruth. Last week the Hon. Judith Jakins could see many problems, errors and flaws with the proposed legislation, but this week she cannot; that suggests where the truth may be found. Yesterday evening it was suggested in the House that if the Hon. G. R. Ibbett, the Hon. Judith Jakins or the Hon. Marie Bignold could go to the electorate and get enough votes to be returned to this House, they should go and do that. The Hon. M. F. Willis conveniently forgot that he has been a member of this House for about 23 years and could not have done that once in that time. The Hon. M. F. Willis sets for those members, by postulation in this Chamber, standards which he knows he could not himself live up to if he was thrown out on the strcet. Some honourable members may have thought that the Hon. M. F. Willis should have had a go himself. One other honourable member, the Hon. Marie Bignold, will be immediately affected by the proposed legislation. She is almost a martyr in her time in this Chambcr because she has dared to do what every honourable member is here in this place to do: to question the actions of the Government and measures before the House. The Hon. Marie Bignold is going to face the axe because she has been willing to speak out individually and to challenge the Government's bandwaggon. She may get the axe because she would dare, and has dared, to have an open view, dared to differ from the day-to-day point of view, to allow this House to act as a House of review. I have not always agreed with the Hon. Marie Bignold, but the Government is attempting to cut her off because she dared to differ from its view. Everyone in the community knows about that, and the Government when it goes to the polls on this measure will find itself-not the Hon. Marie Bignold--cut off. I am pleased that Reverend the Hon. F. S. Nile is in the House, because I wish to make some comments that I should prefer him to hear. The other night I watched a television program, which I think was "A Current Affair". If ever I saw a very positive man stumble and appear to be the guilty party it was Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile during an appearance on that television program. It became clear that he had been given some information different from the tune he wanted to hear played by Piper Ted. When he was enlightened about the thrust of the proposed legislation, because of the division between the Hon. Marie Bignold and himself, he was hardly able to get out the words that he would have to reconsider his position. He had to struggle to do so. He knew he was down and out if he did not. In spite of that he struggled to get out the words to say that he would have to consider therefore whether he would let the guillotine fall. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile knows that though the bill is government legislation he could prevent its passage and stop it having an impact on the Hon. Marie Bignold. Honourable members will wait to see whether Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile was honest in what he said on the television program or whether-as he indicated he might be-he 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1313 is just a political opportunist. Because he might look good or bad, depending on his actions, he will base his actions on matters that he regards as justification for ridding this House of the Hon. Marie Bignold-a member who was elected to this Chamber democratically under the system. I do not intend to say any more about the proposed legislation. The Government has fouled the passage of the proposed legislation by the deals it has done with the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, whom I have called a live candidate because the Government has made her vulnerable in the eyes of many people in a legal or moral sense. The media has clearly exposed the Government's attempt to destroy a member of this House who speaks with a free and open mind. Because the Government is well aware of the love-hate war that continues in this Chamber between the Call to Australia party and the Hon. Marie Bignold and because people are aware that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has a preference for Jim Cameron, that well-known Liberal, I am confident that, irrespective of the passage of the proposed legislation in this House, when it is put before the people it will fail for all the reasons I have given, just as the Government will fail in due course.

The Hon. MARIE BIGNOLD [5.54]: I wish to speak to the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill and the Constitution (Referendum) Bill. However, before I get to the meat of what I have to say, I wish to deal in a little more detail with a matter mentioned in this debate by a number of members, as it may help to elucidate the situation. Those two matters are the position of the 1984 group and the position of the 1988 group in the context of the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill. That bill was introduced about a month ago. As honourable members are aware, for the past couple of weeks Dr Malcolm Mackerras, of his volition after reading the bill, approached various members of this Parliament or spoke to them by telephone and elucidated the electoral situation in regard to the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill. He telephoned me one Sunday and spoke to me on the matter. I had no idea of the situation from his point of view. At first I did not understand the propositions he put to me, but gradually, over a period, as he repeated his propositions and as I did some of my own research, I began to see that they fitted in with and illuminated the very thoughts that came to my own mind when I was informed that Iwas one of the three members in the 1984 group who would get the chop. I had questioned the large vote that Jim Cameron had got-166,210 votes-which flowed to the seat that I now occupy. Those votes pass to the No. 2 candidate, and I have taken his position. Jim Cameron received almost a quota ofvotes. I discovered subsequently that Jim Cameron received the highest number of votes after you, Mr President, and the Minister for State Development. Mr President and the Minister for State Development were the only two members to get a quota each because they were at the top of the Labor Party ticket and Liberal Party ticket respectively. Because Jim Cameron received the next highest number of votes, it puzzled me that he should therefore be regarded as being at the bottom of the list and that I should be one of the ones to go. I held that thought in my mind and thought it was strange. It seemed to me unfair also that the electorate-the people who voted Jim Cameron in for three terms in 1984, and who expected a Christian Independent member to be in the House for three terms-would discover after two terms that they would no longer have a representative in this House, that they would not have a Christian Independent voice 1314 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 for one term of the period for which they had voted in their candidate as a member of this House. I held those two thoughts in my mind, but I did not find a relationship between them or anything to fill in the picture until Dr Mackerras spoke to me on the telephone. He started to illuminate my mind in regard to electoral matters that I had previously not understood. I think I now have a grasp of what Malcolm Mackerrasexplained to me, though nothing like the grasp he has. He has been able to instruct me on these matters, and I know he has spoken about them to a number of members of this House. He found, generally speaking, that members were not cognisant of the matters with which he was familiar. In order that we could understand them, he had to repeat and repeatedly explain these rather complicated matters that he knows about. Personally I had never been terribly interested in the numbers aspect of electoral matters, so it was a little more difficult for me to understand them. However, because I now understand these matters only at a simple level, I might be able to help some members understand what I understand. In regard to the 1984 group, Dr Malcolm Mackerras said to me, "Marie, this bill is a bill of malice". He said, "It shows malice, and it shows malice against you". I thought that was an extraordinary statement from an electoral analyst whom I had not known previously. So far as I am aware, he did not know the situation in this House. In that regard one might think immediately of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. When he made the statement that the bill was formulated in malice, I said to him: "Howdo you know that to be so? You just looked at the bill and you now say to me that it has been formulated in malice." [ThePresident lejl the chair at 6.1 p.m. The House resumed at 8.30p.m.l The Hon. MARIE BIGNOLD: I mentioned earlier that I would preface my speech with some remarks about the respective positions of the 1984 and 1988 groups as a result of the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill. I thought that would be a good idea to reinforce the situation in my own mind and perhaps to assist other members to understand what I have learned from Malcolm Mackerras. In the debate yesterday the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said: The Won. Marie Bignold and Malcohn Mackerras have continued to trumpet the case for the last three members elected in 1984 but have totally ignored the last nine elected in 1988. She then said: I suggest that the refusal of the Hon. Marie Bignold in her own words in her submission to this House to address or deal with this issue is as open to the interpretation of being malicious as the interpretation Mr Mackerras seems to place on anyone who supports the bill. I asked the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby to withdraw that remark. She said she did not think she had made it and that she was not referring to me. She said that if she saw in Hiznsard that in fact she had said it, she would apologise and withdraw it. I had no particular reason for not previously explaining the position of the 1988 group. I had many other things to say, but I had not spokenin this debatein any event. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby was probably referring to the speech I made on the motion rather than on the bill. This is my first opportunity to mention the matter. It is important for us all to look at these two matters, as I have sought to do, with open and honest minds and to consider them on their own, unrelated to other factors. In that way we will not be blinded by our own prejudices or thoughts. If something comes to light that we do not want revealed, we need to examineand face those mattersand not try to make excuses or rubbish the things 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1315

Malcolm Mackerras has said. Prior to the last couple of weeks I had not met the man. 1 have now met him, had a few conversationswith him, attended a press conferencefor two hours with him and have heard his views several times. I have now become a little more familiar with those views. Having met him, he strikes me as being an honest man with somethingvalid to say. That is the way I responded to him and what he was saying. I know some members will say that is merely because it suits my purposes or because I have some ulterior motive. However, I assure honourable members and you, Mr President, that that is not the case.

When Malcolm Mackerras telephonedme and explained these matters to me, I was completely surprisedbecause I knew nothing about them. I mentioned earlierthat he said to me on the telephone, "Marie, these bills have been put together based on malice". I said to him, "Well, how do you arrive at that conclusion?" I did not know whether he was aware of what happens in this House among members or anything else. He gave me two reasons forsaying what he did. Hehad discovered these matters purely and simply by looking at the bill itself. He said that when he looked at the position of the 1984 group he realised that the mechanical order of selection had been used to remove the last three members. He said that was a discredited system that should not have been used. Hesaid that on a proper recount of thevotes,Jim Cameron's seat would have been amongst the first 12 and that I should not have been one of the three non-continuingmembers; I should not have been one of the last three. He explained that members of the Legislative Council have rotating terms. Members are elected for three terms, and the three groups of 15 members who are elected for three terms come to this House on an equal footing.

The Constitution of New South Wales contains no concept or provision for certain of the 15 members to be continuing or non-continuingmembers. Each group of 15 members rotates. Each is elected for an equal three terms and all 15 members in each group are elected on an equal basis. However, ifnow for the first time in our history the Government proposes that there will be 12 continuing members and three non-continuing members,Dr Mackerras said that the proper democratic system must be used to ascertain which are the 12 most popular members andwhich are the three least popular members. I gather that system would be similar to that which is used in the Senate and generally in our democracy. He said that on the application of that system, I would be placed among the first 12 members. In fact he thought I would be placed third. He said also that if that system were applied, the Hon. Beryl Evans, the Hon. Judith Jakins andthe Hon. G. R. Ibbett would be the non-continuingmembers.

Malcolm Mackerras saidto me that a proper re-count cannotbe undertaken because the ballot papers are no longer in existence. Because of that and because all the members are elected for terms of equal duration, the fairest and most just thing to do would be to allow all 15 members to remain for their full terms. Incidentally,he said that although a proper re-count cannot be undertaken, one could make an estimation of the votes. He made an estimation,which took him about half an hour. As a result of that, as I said, he discovered that I would be placed among the first 12 members. He contacted several other analysts to ascertain whetherthey confirmed his view, and they did. They said, "Yes,most assuredly,Jim Cameron's seat which Marie Bignold occupies would be in the first 12". Malcolm Mackerras' antenna immediately went up and he came to the view that someone was displaying malicetowards me because I am the one COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 person who shouldnot be included among the three. Hesaid that the way this legislation has been formulatedindicates that someperson or persons are deliberatelytrying to get rid of me. That was the first thing that struck him. The second thinghe noticed was that the 15 members elected to the upperHouse at the 1984 election represented the major parties, with the exception of one member who represented a minor party. The vote for the minor party represented 10 per cent of the vote and the vote for the major parties represented90 per cent of the vote. When Dr Mackerras noticedthat the 1991 bill sought to cut out the minority party vote, he said that if he were a man from Mars he would say that it looked like a big party plot to get rid of the minor parties. He came to the realisation, obviously from reading the newspapers,that the two minor parties hadgot together with the Government, and that, indeed, it was a plot of a minor party and the Government. He said that since only the 10 per cent of votes cast for the minor parties was involved, both Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby should have strongly objectedon behalf of the minor parties to the disfranchising of that parcel of votes cast for that one minor party in the election. Since neither of those members have objected,he concluded again that there was evidence of malice. Dr Mackerras told me, and I have heard it also within the parliamentary precincts, that the Australian Democrats favour the proportional representation system ofvoting, thatthey cling very strongly to that system. Hesaid that the Democrats would be very concerned about what was proposed in respect of this parcel of votes of the minor party, that the Democrats like to see candidates of minor parties elected. He said that it was most unusual that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile should allow this to occur in respect of his own electorate. He therefore concludcd that the malice was directed towards the person who represented the minor party. He wondered why a minor party would do such an extraordinarily strange thing. That is how he came to his conclusion.

Dr Mackerras says that no bill for reform should be based on malice, that true constitutional reform shouldbe based on all parties, particularly the major parties, agreeing to the terms of such reform and that all membersof the Houseshould be openly involved in determining how such reform shouldbe brought about. Reformproposals should be just and fair to all members,and all members should agree upon them. That reform process not having been carried out in that manner, it is sad to see what is happeningboth in the communityandin this House. Peopleare engaging in a cover-up. Members on the Government side have very little to say about the bill. In the light of what I have just said, I find it difficult to understand how the Minister in his second reading speech can say that the bill has been formulated in a fair, equitable and just manner and that it eliminates any suggestion of arbitrariness. The examination of the bill by Malcolm Mackerras revealed quite clearly that that is not the case. In fact, the opposite is true. There is a cover-up in respect of this legislation. Personally, Ifind that very sad. It would be much healthierif people stated their case in the open. That would be much better than peopledoing things behindclosed doors.

I turn now to the relative disadvantagebetween the 1984 group and the 1988 group. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby accused me of not looking at the situation of the 1988 group. I think she also accused Malcolm Mackerrasof not looking at the situation of the 1988 group. That is not so. Early in the piece, when I first spoke to Malcolm Mackerras, 1 asked him about the people elected in 1988. He told me that he had 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL examined also the situation of the 1988 group-the six continuing and the nine non-continuing members. He said that he had adopted the same system of estimating a recount in respect of that group as he had in respect of the 1984 group. It was interesting that the result was the same. He then realised that no malice was involved. He said that he saw no malice in the way that the bill deals with the 1988 group. So far as he can tell, the bill has been drafted according to proper democratic principles. But he does not claim to be perfect. Another thing he said was that the 1988 group knew when they were elected that the Premier intended to reduce the term and the numbers of members in the upper House. So the 15 members elected to this House in 1988, as well as the people who elected them, knew that their term would be reduced to eight years and also that their numbers might be reduced. However, that was not the case in respect of the 1984 group. When they were elected they expected to remain here for 12 years. They were voted in by an electorate that expected them to represent them in this place for 12 years or three terms. Another difference between the 1988 group and the 1984 group is that the 1988 group will have four years in which to prepare themselves to stand for election when their term ends. That is fair and just. However, the three members whose terms this bill seeks to cut short will not be able to stand for election at the forthcoming election unless they first resign. The election is now mooted to be held in approximately eight weeks. That is the latest information we have. Despite the pontifications of the Hon. M. F. Willis yesterday in the House on this bill-he said that they can stand for election-who would like to be put in the position of having only eight weeks to prepare for an election when other members who knew that they would be standing for re-election at the next election have had at least four years to campaign? The three members of the 1984 group whose term is being cut short are put in a difficult situation. If the referendum is not carried, they will remain members of this House after the election but, if the referendum is carried, their term will come to an end there and then. It is a half truth for people to say that there is no reason for the three 1984 people involved to complain because nine 1988 people will also have only eight years and will thereby be disadvantaged by not having the extra term. That sounds reasonablc but we must look at the whole truth, not half of it. Looking at the whole picture shows that I should not be in the 1984 group. There has not been a proper designation of the three anyway. The cut has been aimed at a minority party and the legislation is retrospective. It would be normal for the seats to be cut at the next election. The 1988 group knew when they came in that they would be there for only eight years. They have had four years to get ready for the election. There has been no malice whatsoever in the way that they have been selected. So they are in a much better position than the 1984 people who are put in a quite impossible situation which is very unjust. I believe it is something the courts would look at on more grounds than one. I find it very interesting that Malcolm Mackerras discovered all this purely through looking at the bill. Though people plot and plan behind doors and do their deeds in the dark, the truth comes out. The saying is that truth will out though tongues will never tell. It is inevitable that the truth will come out at some stage. The truth has come out through this man who is totally objective and has looked at the matter from a totally different point of view from the way in which we would have looked at it. His views have filled in the gaps for me. Jim Cameron received a very large vote of 166,210 1318 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 and I wondered why I was second last of the three to go. Of course, as Malcolm Mackerras points out, I should be on the list of 12 continuing members. Why should those people who voted for a Christian Independent to have three terms have a term cut off their representative? Is that fair on them? Are we not cheating those 166,210 people of representation in this House? Looking at the matter objectively, it is not a matter of cheating me of the my place here; it is a matter of cheating the electorate. I am here to serve the electorate. Whoever was in my place, if the term is chopped off the voters will be defrauded. That is the fraud that Malcolm Mackerras is talking about. He said that is a fraud on the electorate. How dare the Government suddenly disfranchised those people by reducing the term of their representative by four years? It is not a sound argument, whether or not this is a bad law, to say that the matter should be put to the electorate to let the people have their say. That is a very unjust proposal because the quota for election to this House in 1988 was about 179,000votes. That number of people voted for a representative in this House for three terms. How dare the Government ask the whole electorate whether that person should stay a member of this Chamber. Fifty per cent of the votes are required to decide whether the position willgo or not, but 6.2percent ofvoters electeda representative to this Chamber. Why should they be swamped by 50 per cent of voters saying that the position be abolished? Such a result would cheat the people who have a right to have a member in this Chamber. It is a furphy to say, "Let the people decide". I am sure that if it were put to the people that the Legislative Assembly or the upper House be abolished theywould agree. They love to get rid of politicians. However, I do not think they would agree to this present proposition at a referendum. As Malcolm Mackerras says-I am surc it is true-Australian people are not silly and there is one thing that they dislike and that is fraud. The Hon. J. W. Shaw wonderfully illuminated the principle of not compounding bad law and the electoral fraud by accepting the argument that the matter should be put to the people to decide. It is unfair for 179,000 voters to be swamped by four million voters. I trust that the Hon. EIisabeth Kirkby does not think that I have not dealt with that question. She was handed a memorandum from Armon Hicks of the Australian Democrats which goes on and on about the 1988 people not being considered and the House having to be reconstituted in years to come, and all the rest of it. Malcolm Mackerras had not seen the memorandum until the press conference on Monday. As soon as he arrived a member of the press handed him a copy and asked whether he had seen it. He had not, and after looking at it fairly quickly he said: "Oh yes, I have heard that argument before. I knowwhat it is all about and it is a lot ofpoppycockand rubbish". He later explained to the press the differences and the answer to that argument. I do not see that explanation in the copy of the transcripts of the press conference that I have. I may have missed it. Unfortunately I did not take a tape with me for the whole of the conference. I was given two tapes from two different reporters who were present at the conference, but there were gaps in them. Unfortunately I do not have the whole of the transcript of the two-hour conference. Some of the conference was repeated. When the conference was about to finish someone came along and wanted to start again so it was all done in bits and pieces. It may be that the explanation is in the transcript and I have missed it. I could not find it in the transcript I have. All I can say is that Malcolm Mackerras did address the argument and dismissed it, and I was present 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL when he did so. I do not want to denigrate the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, but in her contribution tothis debate she quoted from many judgments and all sorts of things about the Constitution and said that she believed the Parliament had the power to make this law. That is fine if she wants to believe that. She said she was quoting experienced lawyers, or words to that effect, giving me the impression that she was leaning upon, agreeing with or looking at the legal experts on this matter and that she was prepared to abide by what they said.

At the time I thought: Why is she not also equally eager to lean upon or look at the top political analyst in Australia and seek his advice? I do not think the honourable member contacted Dr Mackerras at all on this matter or spoke to him personally, yet he was available for people to see or to telephone. I am sure he would have been most happy to have spoken to her and explain the situation. It amazes me that people are not willing to have an open mind and listen to the experts in any field. Why choose one field only and say, "I listened to all the experts in the law but Iwill not listen to the experts in the field of electoral analysis". I know nothing about that area but I was amazed at Dr Mackerras' knowledgeand experience. He has been involvedwith electoral analysis for 30 years and he is cognisant of everything that goes on, not only in the Federal Parliament, but also in every Parliament in Australia. He has his finger on the pulse of all Australian parliaments. He writes articles all the time about what is going on. He said to me: "Marie, I have seen many bad bills in my time but I have never seen a bill as bad as this one. It is a real shocker. It is a cheat and a fraud on the electorate". I was quite amazed at his strong language. I did not realise the bill was as bad as it is. I was rather disappointed that the Government had gone about this bill in the way that it had. It is not very nice to become aware from various quarters that one is the object of malice in this place. That is not a pleasant thing to ascertain. Though I have been aware for at least three years that I have been the subject of Fred Nile's malice, I was a little disappointed that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby acted the way she did, when she is the champion of the minor parties. I was also a little disappointed to realise that obviously the Minister has malice towards me. He has not denied that. He has been the chief negotiator in all these deals. If that is the case, why can we not come out into the open and say so? Can the reconstitution of our Housebe done openly and above board, instead of being done behind closed doors and with hidden malice? I would much rather have it out in the open.

I assure honourable members that however much malice is held against me by any member of this House, I have no malice or personal thoughts of revenge or hatred towards any member, including those who might have sought my demise by means of this bill. I do not like the things that some members do. I do not feel happy when I discover that certain members malign me, through press releases or whatever, with untruths about what I do in this House. That makes me a little angry. Perhaps I have to get over that, but it is not pleasant to be misrepresented in the community when one is trying one's best to do the right thing in this House. Even so, I donot bear hatred or any sort of malice towards anyone who has done those things to me, because what is the point? To be hateful and revengeful to other people because they have been nasty only results in unhappiness. I say to all honourable members that I seek to have nothing but thoughts of love, the love of Christ towards all, including those who might seek to be malicious towards me. 1320 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

I came into this House in an unusual fashion, and, I believe, at the hand of God. If this bill were to go through tonight and I were to exit from this House at the next election in the fashion that has been designed by the Government andthe minor parties, I do not believe it would be by the hand of God but rather at the hands of evil plotting and planning. However, I wouldaccept that. Though I decry the fraudulent manner in which the whole thing has been done and I would be sad that the electorate has been deprived of someoneto represent them,I would accept it. I do not look for any money. I would go out and seek what then the Lord would have me do. I assure honourable members that I hold no malice or hatred in my heart towards anyone. It is up to people to use their consciencesand know in their ownhearts what they have done. They must live with that for the rest of their lives. I would not like to be in the position of some people, who, unfortunately,become eaten up with revengeand hatred. That would not be a happy life to lead and I would not like to be in their shoes. I would rather be in my shoes and be the object of their malice. I assure the House that whatever happens, as Saint Paul said: I have learnt in whatsoever state therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased and I know how to abound. Saint Paul learned, in whatsoever state one is, therewith to be content. I must say that in my life I have cometo that place, not now but a long timeago, where Itoo have suffered want and had plenty. I have had nothing and I have had plenty. I assure honourable members that in Christ I place my trust. I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. So I am content either to stay or to go, whatever this House decides to do with my term and the terms of the other two members. Whatever happens thereafter, be it court action or otherwise, I will follow out what I am supposed to do, but if in the end result I were to leave this House I would be content. Having dealt with those preliminaries, I intimate that in my speech I will again cover some of the same ground. I do not think that doesany harm. No matter how many times I have heard this, and I have heard it dozens of time duringthe past few weeks, I can listen to it again and again and I always learn somethingnew. I said to Malcolm Mackerrasthat I did not know what he was talking about, and I had to go back to him and ask him what this or that meant. I have sorted it out in my mind time and again, and gone back to him and asked more questions. So I am happy to listen time and again in the House to other honourablemembers. But let us have the truth, let us look at the truth, do not hide it. Come out and say what it is. Listen to Malcolm Mackerras: he cannot be ignored. Let us listen to him and say: "Okay, we havedone it in malice, we havedone the wrong thing. Whatwill we do about it? Will we fix it up? Will we go ahead with it? Will we try to get our consciences right or will we not?". Let us, as a House, really examine ourselves. The bill presents the greatest challenge to the integrity of this House as a collective body since it was confrontedin 1960withthe bill that proposed the abolitionof the Legislative Council. The bill also presents anacute challenge to the integrity and conscience of each individualmember who is invited and urged by the Government to support what has been publicly denounced as "a fraudulent and corrupt bill dripping with malice". How this can be the case in the light of the generally acceptable stated objects of the bill to reduce the number of members from 45 to 42 and to reduce their terms from three to two may appear at first blush to be a mystery. The mystery, however,is not difficult to unravel. Indeed, sincethe bill was introducedinto the Parliamentby the Government 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1321 just a fewweeks ago, political commentatorsin the media have quicklyand penetratingly exposed the bill for what it really is-not a genuine constitutional reformof the upper House but a classic case of political connivance and skulduggery contrived to give the Government control of the upper House, thereby effectively denying this House its cherished role and reputation of being a genuine House of review. Indeed, Dr Malcolm Mackerras at his press conference thisweek condemned the bill as a fraud and corrupt bill, dripping with malice. This description accords with what the Leader of the Opposition said in this House last week, calling the bill a bill of retribution. Because the bill has been so universally exposedby the media and the public as a tainted anti-democratic bill, I will not trouble the House with extensive reference to public comment other than to remind the House that Matthew Moore, commenting on the bill in the Sydney MorningHeraZd of 24th February titled his article "BignoldMay Fall to Nile Devilry". Malcolm Mackerras, writing inthe Sydney Morning Herald on 6th March described the bill as "nothing more than a political trick designed to give the Government control of the Legislative Council"and "as an attack by the Liberals upon democratic principles". Indeed, his political analysis was even more severe when he stated: Does the Greiner Government realise that it proposes to ask the voters of New South Wales to say yes to a bill which clearly cheats Labor, National and Call to Australia voters out of their proper representation? . . . If the Greiner Government understands the principles of the quota preferential count, then one can only assume that this bill is motivated by malice towards Marie Bignold. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald in his penetrating analysis of the bill during his speech last week quoted extensively from Dr Mackerras' article. I find myself in total agreement with the honourable member's views. Finally, I would refer to the editorial in the Australian of 7th March, 1991, which aptly described the Government bill as an "unacceptable way to a desirable end". Elaborating on this political analysis, the editorial stated: Once it was Labor governments which saw upper Houses of Parliament as little more than archaic obstructions to their zeal for reformist legislation. The Liberals and Nationals of New South Wales are not out to wreck the upper House, but they do risk the lesser charge that they would allow their frustration as reformists to dishonour the integrity of the Legislative Council.

In the course of reducing the number of MLCs and shortening their term of office, the coalition Government, if it has itsway,would cut short the term of three MLCs elected in 1984. Theywere elected to full terms, and they should serve full terms. That politicians who are not members of the coalition would connive at this retrospective abrogation of thevoters'wishes does not make it any less an assault on the Council's rntegrity. At his press conference on Monday Dr Mackerras further advanced his criticism of the bill and the Government's handling of it in these words: I consider that the Bill in question is a corrupt Bill but I think the corruption of the Bill pales into insignificance compared with the corruption of the behaviour of the government since the Bill was first introduced into the Legislative Assembly.

The Government is blackmailing the Democrats by holding a sword which is "Vote for this fraud" both of you, and if either of you dares notvote for this fraud wewill not proclaim this legislation which as I had imagined was a genuine democratic reform. Now if the Government doesn't proclaim this genuine democratic reform, I think you people and I think the Parliament should badger the Government, ask them to explain why they won't proclaim this genuine democratic reform. It is the Government's fault if the legislation isnot proclaimed. I thinkit's the most outrageous proposition that Ms Kirkby should dare suggest that it is Richard Jones who is somehow responsible for this . . . COUNCIL 20 March, 1993

Now I want say something about the Democrats. In this entire thing, the person who has most risen in my estimation is Richard Jones. The personwho has most fallen in my estimation is Lis Kirkby. When I say my estimation of Richard Jones has risen, that is conditional. If Richard Jones votes principle. If Richard Jones refuses to allow himself to be brow beaten by thuggery. If Richard Jones rejects the bribes. If Richard Jones says the Democrats are different from the Nationals we are not bribed, unlike the Nationals who are then in that event, Richard Jones goes right to the top of my popularity on this parliament. If however, he is bribed, thugged, into voting for this fraud, then I am sorry, my opinion of him then descends to the level of my opinion for Lis Kirkby.

Why do I have this view of the Democrats? The Democrats throughout Australia are the party of proportional representation. They are not merely a party that seeks to win seats under the system of proportional representation, they are the party of principle. That's the way they've always painted themselves. Most of them are members of the Proportional Representation Society itself. For that reason I expect them to adopt a principled position on this question just as I expected them and they did adopt a principled position on the changes on the ACT Electoral Act which are presently before the ACT parliament.

I expect the Democrats to have a principled position when it comes to proportional representation. The Democrats know perfectly well what I know which is, that the phrase oncvote-one value does not merely mean having lower house single member electorates with an equal number of electors. The phrase one vote-one value does mean that but it means a lot more as well. There is a one vote-one value in proportional representation also. The reason why this Bill is so offensive is that it is arbitrary retrospective disenfranchisement. Now let me tell you a few things about proportional representation. The principle that the Democrats adhere to. The Democrats as Marie would confirm, and I think Fred Nile would confirm this also. I haven't followed the Legislative Council debates but I understand it to be true that theDemocrats quite often talk about the Hare-ClarkeSystem in Tasmania. Now it's perfectly true that the Democrats and the Proportional Representation Society say that the I-lare-Clarke System is the best proportional representationsystem in the country. And they're in favour of proportional representation and have also said that the NSW system is the second best. Here is the return for the 1984 election.

Let me describe to you the count for 1984. The way the count takes place is this: The quota for election is deemed to be 179,747. What they actually do having declared elected Johnno Johnson and John Hannaford, they then set aside quotas of votes, 179,747 electing in chronological order, Johnson, I-Iannaford, Kite, Solomons, Dyer, Samios, Morris, Jobling, Symonds, Bull, Enderbury, Evans, Ibbctt, Cameron and Jakins.

That is a purely chronological statement of the collection of bundles of votes, that's all it is. It is not an order of popularity. It is perfectly true that Johnno Johnson is deemed to be elected number one rather than John Hannaford, because his first preference vote is higher, but that statement of the chronological collection of theparcelsof quotasis not a statement of popularity as Iwill shortly describe.

What does this Bill do? Unfortunately the votes have all been lost but let's suppose the votes still exist, which they don't of course. This is what this Bill metaphorically does. It says In effect, that 179,747 bundles for Johnno Johnson, etc.. each of these bundles of 12 bundles, they are good votes, they continue to be representatives in the NSW Legislative Council. But the bundle of votes which elccted Jim Cameron in the first place, and Marie Bignold at the by-election held subsequently-

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: There was no by-election.

The Hon. MARIE BIGNOLD: I know that, but Malcolm Mackerras said that. It is like a by-election, but honourable members have heard ad nauseam that I came in on a casual vacancy. Malcolm Mackerras has used the term by-election as a manner of speaking.

-the bundle of votes that elected Mrs Jakins and the bundle of votes that elected Mr Ibbett, they are all thrown into the rubbish bin here and now. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1323

The remaining 12 bundles of votes are still represented in the Parliament but the three I've just described are thrown into the rubbish bin because the Parliament says so. If the majority of people of NSW were to vote yes, but I don't think they will, if they were, I would say, the people have no right to do that. The reason why I say that they have no right to do that, let me make an analogy. Supposing the Legislative Assembly was to be reduced from 109 to 99 and suppose instead of doing that in accordance with proper constitutional and democratic principles, which has been done of course, and I don't object to that, in fact I was in favour of that. Supposing there had been a Bill which said-we'll reduce from 109 to 99 by deeming from date of election that the following electoral districts are no longer represented. And then you name ten electoral districts and you reduce from 109 to 99 in that way. That would be exactly equivalent to what this Bill proposes. It proposes to throw into the rubbish bin, three bundles of quotas of the number of 179,747 votes, it proposes to do that. It is totally lacking in principle, it is a fraud it iswithout any form of precedent. Not only that, it is not true that the purpose of the Bill is to reduce the number of politicians. I can think of several ways in which they could have reduced the number of politicians to 41 or 42 or whatever, from the date of this election if the government had wanted to. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: He was never prepared to say what they were. The Ilon. MARIE BIGNOLD:The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has just repeated what she said in her contribution to the debate: that Malcolm Mackerras never spelt it out. However, had she or the Hon. R. S. L. Jones attended the press conference, as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile did-and I was there-in my presence he did spell out ways of doing it, which rather bamboozled me. I could not repeat them, but I thought when I heard the different ways what a pity it was that the Government had not consulted him as an electoral analyst and drafted the bill in a legitimate way he suggested and recommended. He would have been on side. That would have been more sensible than scuffling and whispering in the corner and negotiating behind closed doors thinking no one would ever find out. The Government could have come out into the open, consulted Malcolm Mackerras and asked him to find a legitimate way to eliminate three members at the next election so that he would not squeal and no accusations could be made of fraud or treachery on the electorate. I am sorry that I cannot repeat the suggestions Malcolm Mackerras made, because I heard them only once. They were complicated, and I do not understand what he puts to me unless he repeats it several times. Unfortunately, I did not take notes. I am sure that if the Won. Elisabeth Kirkby really wanted to know, she could ring Malcolm Mackerras and ask him to explain. The Hon. Eiisabeth Kirkby: Why does he not tell the New South Wales public by means of an article in a newspaper? The Hon. MARIEBIGNOLD: He may well do that. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: He has left it very late. The Hon. MARIE BIGNOLD:The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is the one who wants to know. I am sure that if she rang him he would be only too happy to explain. I am sure also that if she spoke to him and suggested that it would be a good thing to explain his suggestions to the public, he would consider that suggestion and make a decision. One cannot compel a person to write an article if the person does not propose to do so, but one can suggest and point out why it would be good. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby cannot ask me why someone will not do or has not done something. I am sure that it is not that he will not do it and that he would be open to suggestion from any member of this Parliament. I am not the only member who has been in touch with Malcolm Mackerras. He has rung a number of politicians. He explained that he attended a COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

National Party meeting and explained everythingto them. If the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, as the Leader of the Australian Democrats, had said to Malcolm Mackerras, "Would you be kind enough to come along and explain it to a meeting of the Democrats here in New South Wales, or to me or to Richard Jones", he would have done so. I gained the impression that Malcolm Mackerras was only too happy to speak to anyone. Heseems to love electoralanalysis and is never happier thanwhen he is talking to people about it. It forms a large part of his interest in life. Hewould keep one talking for hours. If he could find a few more politicians to talk to, he would be extremely happy. If the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby were to leave this Chamber now, I should be happy to give her his telephone number. I am sure he would spend any amount of time explaining to her anything she wanted to know that he was able to tell her. It is totally unfair of the Won. Elisabeth Kirkby to endeavour to suggest that he may be unwilling to describe these methods. I suggest she must first ask him and then find out for herself, I am sure he has no ulterior motive. I have only known him for a couple of weeks and that is the impression I have gained. He went on to say: The truth is that the Government went through all possible ways of reducing the number of politicians in New South Wales all of which would have been consistent with proper constitutional democratic principles and they rejected every properway of doing it. That iswhy I say this is a Bill which oozes malice against one person. ?he only explanation for theBill can be that it is dripping with malice against one person. Because it is so easy to work out proper bills that could have had exactly the same effect consistent with proper and democratic principles.

It is significant that the Government has totally failed to answer these charges of political skulduggery, political fraudand corruption made against it. Two weeksago on Andrew Olle's ABC morning radio program the Hon. Ted Pickering debated the matter with Malcolm Mackerras. He failed to answer Mackerras' charge that the bill was nothing more than an outrageous electoralfraud. The Minister, in an attempt to justify the bill, referred to the constitutional reform of the upper House in 1978 when the number of members of the House was substantially reduced and, for the first time in its history, the House was to be popularly elected, becoming fully democratically elected at the third periodic Legislative Council election held after the referendum in 1978 that approved the reform bill.

However, the present bill bears no resemblance to the 1978 constitutional reform, as I would have thought the Minister was well aware, he being a member in 1978. Let me remind the House of the 1978 constitutional reform andhonourable members will, I am sure, confidently conclude that the 1978 constitutional reform achieved its most significant constitutional reforms by a democratic process and in a democratic manner. In contrast, the bill now before the House is an entirely undemocratic measure and does not conceal the outrageously undemocratic meansemployed to achieve that undemocratic end. In short, the bill is an abuse of legislative power of such a magnitude that no self-respecting legislature could allow such a monster to emerge from the legislative process. Firstly,concerning the reduction in membership of the House, the 1978 reform achieved the reduction by agreement between all political parties rcpresented in the House. The selection of continuing members,both short-term and long-term, was ultimately agreed upon by the parties. For the Minister to say that the method of selecting the members to cease to hold office was the same as the arbitrary and undemocratic method chosen in this bill is nonsense. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL

It is well known that the reduction in numbers effected by the 1978 reforms involved many more Liberal Party and National Party members ceasing to hold office and the result was that each of the major parties had the same number of continuing members, namely 14, at the first periodic Legislative Council election held after the referendum where 15 members were democratically elected. The next point to make about the 1978 reform was that no member whose office was abolished had been democratically elected by the voters of this State. Prior to the 1978 reform members were elected by the other members of Parliament. The remaining substantial and significant difference is that the 1978 reform, in accordance with the recognised and respected democratic principles, reconstituted the House at the first general election following the approval of the bill at referendum, whereas the present bill in an outrageously undemocratic manner will disenfranchise three of the 15 members elected at the 1984 periodic Legislative Council election immediately it receives assent, assuming approval at the referendum. It is this last feature of the present bill which is outrageously antidemocratic and is incapable of being rationally or reasonably defended. The victims of this undemocratic act are not only the three 1984 elected members who are politically assassinated without having the opportunity to defend themselves in the forthcoming election but also the voters of this State who, at the 1984 election, voted for those Legislative Council members and whose vote put those members into Parliament. The bill commits gross electoral fraud on those voters; and the Government's defence that that fraud will be cured by the referendum is a dishonest and deceptive fallacy. This is because the referendum proposed would entirely negate the principles of the proportional voting system contained in the sixth schedule to the New South Wales Constitution Act 1902, which are the principles applying to the periodic Legislative Council elections of 15 members, including the 1984 election. In effect the Government is saying that the legitimate election result at the 1984 election can be retrospectively overruled and negated by the result of a 1991 election vote at the referendum. This involved the fallacy of attempting to equate the result of the 1984 election based upon the proportional representation voting system with the result of the 1991 referendum which will simply be based upon a quota of more than 50 per cent of votes cast. Thus the 179,000 voters at the 1984 election whose vote, representing a quota of some 6.4 per cent, resulted in the election of one member would be disenfranchised by the vote of some two million voters at the 1991 referendum election, representing a quota of some 50 per cent. It was the type of effect frustrating the purpose of the proportional voting system which led the High Court in 1988 to reject the suggestion of a separate State election to fill the vacant Senate place after the court had held that Senator Wood had not been duly elected as a senator at the 1987 general election. It is at this very point that the bill now before the House poses the greatest threat to our democracy and to the integrity and good standing of this House as a responsible legislative body. If this bill is passed tonight, let every member of this place recognise that for the first time a precedent will be established under which the same thing could happen to any member of this House. Who knows? It could happen to the Hon. Ted Pickering or the Hon. M. F. Willis at some time in the future. Surely we do not want to establish bad precedents in this Parliament and in this State. In effect the Government is asking this House to approve the Government's outrageously antidemocratic bill. If the House so approves the bill, 1326 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 not only will the House become implicated in the Government's politicalskulduggery and electoral fraud but the House will necessarily forfeit all claim to independent and responsible law making, because to approve this constitutional bill is tantamount to legislating, after avalid election result, that three of the 15 members duly elected are no longer members. Would this House seriously contemplate such an act of legislative piracy and sabotage? Surely not, because to do so would mean the death of democracy and the emergence of political dictatorship. RecentlyI was asked to imagine that in a lower House election 99 members representing99 seats were elected and the Government then decided immediately followingthe election that three of those electorateswould disappear,so it brought in a law to provide that three of those electorates would go, and out they went. Can anybody tell me that that it would not be unconstitutional or dictatorshipif the people out there just voted in 99membersand the Government a few weeks later said that it proposed to bring in a law to say that therewere now 96 members in the lower House. That is what they have done in the upper House. The electorate has said that it will have 15members there, but the Government has said, "No, you are going to have three less". It then chopped them off. That is dictatorship and not democracy. Members must not be deceived by the cunning means employed by the Government to cloak its act of electoral fraud and sabotage; namely, hiding clause 17in an otherwise apparently acceptable reformbillwith therespectablecover of referendum approval. I entreat all honourable members of all political persuasions tolay aside all party allegiances, personal animosities and malice and instead to do what is right and honourable in fulfilment of our high calling as democratic legislators, by rejecting the Government's unprincipledand antidemocratic bill which poses a great and sinister threat to the integrity of this House and to the cause of democracy. Let us resolutely defend democracy and throw out of this House this wolf dressed in lamb's clothing.

On the objective facts the Government is truly without excuse. It has wilfully abandoned its 1990 Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill which did encapsulate truly democratic principles whenit proposed the reconstitution of the House reducing the number of members from 45 to 40 and their terms fromthree to two but only where that reconstitutionwould take effect at the first general electionheld after the approval of the bill at referendum. It was on 27th February last year, or a little over a year ago, that the 1990 bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly. The 1990 bill to reduce the numbers in the lower House went through at about the same time. It had been proposed if that had not gone through that there would be a referendum at that time-12 months ago, halfwaythrough the four-year term-for the two matters. That would have meant that the upper House members-five from 1984-would have been cut off at the referendum. Although that was bad, that would not have been as bad as this one because those five people in 1990would have still had two years to campaign for the next election. Howeverthat did not come about because the lower House bill went through as a result of the Democrats deciding to vote for it.

I can remember being in this House when the Minister said to me, "This means your term will be preserved until 1996". What he meant was that if the 1990 bill were now to be put to a referendumat the next election-there was no need to have a separate referendumbecause the lower House bill went through-to reduce the numbers in the upper House, it would mean that the 1984 people would prospectively havetheir term 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1327 until 1996. That is the effect of the 1990 bill as it was drafted. That is what the Minister said to me in this House. No doubt he will deny it but he knows in his heart it is true. I can remember saying to him at the time, "Are you prepared to put that in writing?" and he said, "Not on your life". Look at him shaking his head. I would not have expected him to acknowledge it, unfortunately. It may be a lapse of memory, but I do not think so. It was a matter of some importance. Anyway he has not denied it-he is only shaking his head-it may be that the Minister is tired.

In Committee I will be moving an amendment which will remove the undemocraticcomponent of the Government bill and will, I believe, restore the bill to a proper constitutional reform bill-it is possible to save it-without the taint of political skulduggery and electoral fraud. In the words of Dr Mackerras, it will convert the Government's electoral fraud into an acceptable constitutionalreform. In effect my amendmentrestores the democraticprinciples contained in the Government's 1990bill. It was interesting that I drafted the amendment and hadit ready some time ago. When I was speaking to Dr Mackerras on the telephone, he said the bill would have to have an amendment. I told him I had one and he said he would like to see it. I think I then faxed him a copy. Hesaid: "That is just the amendmentyou should have. That will make it into a proper constitutional reform. I am perfectly happy with that amendment". I commented that it was interesting that I had done it separately from him and we both agreed that it was the right amendment.

I most earnestlyentreat all honourable members to support this amendment and thereby restore democraticprinciples and resoundingly reject the sinisterthreat to those principles and to the integrity of this House posed by the Government bill as it now stands. I appeal to all honourable members who take their significant legislative functions seriously and honourably to take prime and originalresponsibility for putting this bill on its right course. It would be a deplorable lapse in the execution of our legislative responsibilitiesto allow the Government's politicalskulduggery to dictate to us how we should exercise our high office as legislators, especially inrespect of a bill to reform this House. It would be an inexcusable perversion of our high office to allow personal malice, spite or vindictiveness to prejudice our decision on this bill. Finally, it would be an abdication of our legislative responsibilities to shirk our task and pass the problem over to the voters of this State-although I am confident they would be quick to detect the political skulduggery-who are being asked to subvert retrospectively the valid election results of 1984.

We are the duly elected legislatorsfor New SouthWales. Let us do our duty with honour, without fear or favour and with a clear conscienceand with a good conscience. Let us not inflict on the electorate the taint of the Government's electoral fraudwhich the Government seeks to inflict upon us. We have the collective power and responsibility to repel and strikeout the taint and thereafterto present to the electorate a wholesome bill. I have a feeling within me that if this bill is passed it will be the beginning of a watershed for thisHouse, the beginning of the end. If this House has reached the stage at which we as legislators pass a bill such as this which actually turns upon ourselves-a House divided itself cannot stand,the Bible says-the demise of this House is upon us. I appeal to all members to make the bill into a wholesome bill and a right bill by voting for my amendment in Committee. 1328 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Hon. JUDITH JAKINS [9.52]: It is said that a week is a long time in politics. I wholeheartedlysupport that view. Having heard the Hon. MarieBignold speaking for three or four hoursin the past two days, Iwouldsubmit thatmost membersofthis House would think that an hour is equally as long. It would be fair to say-my colleagues will bear me out on this-that I literally agonised overmy decision to supportthis legislation. It gives me no great joy now to succumb to the pressure of pragmaticpolitics. I suspect that the Australian Labor Party is opposing this legislation merely to gain political capital. In 1978it certainly did not possess the principles it is now upholding. It certainly could not care less about its member, the Hon. G. R. Ibbett, being deprivedof his full term with a few weeks' notice. If members of the Oppositionbelieve thatby crying "foul" they are being transformed frompolitical hypocrites to the saviours of democracy inone easy lesson, they havenot fooled anyone on this side of the Chamber.

I say, first, that I am not opposed to the reduction of the term served by members of the Legislative Council. A 12-year term is clearly not acceptable to the public, and this view has long been held by our colleaguesin another place. I believe Mr Unsworth will probably go down in historyas being the only Premier to complete a full four-year term. Mind you, that was not from choice as we all know. Mr Wran left poor Barrie with the hopeless task of saving a discredited government. He subsequently painted himself into a corner which he could not get out of. In reality, were there to have been no changes, the term of legislative councillors most likely would have settled at an average of about nineyears. Though a maximum of eight years, with an average of about six years, may be more publicly acceptable, it remains to be seen whether the change is tactically sensible. I have shaken my head in amazementwhen on a number of occasions I have heard the Premier credithimself with being the first Premier in histoy to reduce the number of politicians. Like many of his colleagues, he has, as usual, conveniently forgottenthat Mr Wran reduced our numbers by25 per cent, from60 to 45, thus enabling him to turn the Legislative Councilinto the rubber-stampwhich endorsed so many of the socialist bills rammed throughthis House without full or fair debate.

Only since the Greiner-Murray Governmentassumed office has this House become a proper House of review. At least the Opposition hasgiven us credit for that. This was not a House of review when we were in opposition. The Legislative Council now enjoys a workable and effective committee system which has successfully depoliticised decisionson many important and emotional issues-a system which was introduced with unanimous agreementfrom all sides of politics and which could be improved even further with additional staff and resources. I have yet to find a member of this Chamberwho really believes that this House will function more effectively with three fewer members. Once again the lower House majority has determined the future of the Legislative Council in the hope of getting a few brownie points. No one in this House really believes the numbers should be changed. I personally believe that short-term political expediency may ultimately result in long-term democraticdisaster for future governments in view of the implications of lower quotas. And this Government will wear the consequences. It will have no defence whensome time down the track the governmentof the day repeats the same process onwhich we are embarking today-that is, manipulating the upper House again-because it was done previously by Mr Wran. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1329

However, it is the retrospective aspects of this constitutional amendment that I have difficulty supporting. Most of us can see that this bill was really designed by the Government's backroom strategists for the purpose of disenfranchising a rather bothersome member of the crossbench and that it was just, presumably, a bit of bad luck that the Hon. G. R. lbbett and I happened to get in the way. Admittedly-let us all be honest-the Hon. Marie Bignold, because of her consistent and bloody-minded opposition to key legislation for which this Government had a clear mandate, has not endeared herself to this House. I have no doubt that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby was convinced to support the Government because the Democrats were not to be disadvantaged. A couple of days ago the Hon. R. S. L. Jones called me Judas. This probably typifies the inconsistency of the Democrats. The on-again off-again high moral stance taken by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones confirms the two-bob each way policy of the Democrats which is making a mockery of their much touted policy of keeping the bastards honest. Similarly, who could blame the Niles for seeing an advantage in the not-so-cold war between the Call to Australia group and their ex-colleague? I, as well as Dr Mackerras, could be forgiven for suspecting that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile's decision was based on malice rather than any obligation to support the principle of fairness in relation to either the Hon. G. R. Ibbett or me. Given the previous protestations of honesty and integrity espoused by the Greiner Government, the voters of New South Wales, were they to understand the circumstances which triggered the need for this legislation, would understandably conclude that governments and oppositions are political hypocrites. I can understand the Government's obsession with getting the numbers, but the fact that Mr Wran set the precedent by devising a manipulative formula to achieve it certainly does not make it right. I wonder what would be the reaction of the lower House if halfway through a term the Government chose to reduce the numbers in that House by 10with a few weeks' notice by arbitrary means-perhaps by wiping off the 10 who have the smallest majority, the 10 who had to rely on the greatest number of preferences or the 10 who had to rely on a recount before being declared elected. There would be a public outcry, and rightly SO. Certain learned members of this House have attempted to discredit Dr Mackerras' questioning of thelegitimacy of the method by which three of 15 members were chosen to be arbitrarily disenfranchised,pointing out, quite correctly, that section 282 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act has no relevance to the order of election in New South Wales, where there is no equivalent provision. It seems wrong to me that in this legislation we are seeking to adopt the Senate mechanism for the filling of casual vacancies-a method with which I fully concur-and yet no attempt is being made to provide a legitimate formula in order to prevent governments from cheating the system, should it be decided to reduce the size of the House further in the future. I am totally opposed to the immediacy provisions of this constitutional amendment. Retrospectivity is also against everything I stand for and everything I expect this Government to stand for. It is a decision of convenience, made by the majority members of the lower House-members who, if given half a chance, would vote to abolish the entire institution. Yesterday the Hon. M. F. Wiliis said that many more members who were elected in 1988, would be disadvantaged and I agree that they will be, but at least they will be given four years' notice. The Premier has said that the people of New South Wales will 1330 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 vote overwhelmingly for the referendum, and he could well be right. But we would do well to remember that the electorate is not altogether stupid. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, tried to hoodwink voters with four referenda questions. He ended up with a resounding no vote to all four because the questions were fraudulently framed. He threw the baby out with the bath water because people could smell a rat from a hundred miles. To save the time of the House I ask that the editorial from the Australian dated 7th March be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted. [SeeAddendum.] I can certainly appreciate the Hon. Marie Bignold's contempt for my being persuaded to agree to this legislation being passed. In fact, as I said before, only a couple of days ago the Hon. R. S. L. Jones was calling me Judas. I can only believe that there is a degree of malice in what is happening. I believe I have an overriding obligation to ultimately do what is best for the National Party and its future representation in this House. It was of little use sticking to my principles if the National Party was clearly to be disadvantaged because of them. Regardless of what some of my colleagues on this side of the House may think, I, too, want the Government to achieve what it has a clear mandate to do. To delay the referendum until the end of the year by blocking the passage of this legislation now would merely give all three affected members a stay of execution at a cost of about $18 million to the New South Wales taxpayers. In the current economic circumstances that would be totally unacceptable. That is not to say that I rejoice in supporting legislation which votes out of office one Labor member, one National Party member and the Hon. Marie Bignold, but we must ultimately let the people decide. As the Hon. M. F. Willis said yesterday, that is what democracy is all about. If the referendum is lost, my faith in the electorate will be restored. Certainly my faith in the integrity of the parliamentary system has been severely savaged by my experiences of the past two weeks.

Addendum Once it was Labor governments which saw Upper Houses of parliament as little more than archaic obstructions to their zeal for reformist legislation. The Liberals and Nationals of NSW are not out to wreck the Upper House, but they do risk the lesser charge that theywould allow their frustration as reformists to dishonour the integrity of the Legislative Council.

In the courseof reducing the number of MLCs and shortening their term of office, the Coalition Government, if it hasitsway,would cut short the term of three MLCseIected in 1984. They were elected to full terms, and they should serve full terms. That politicians who are not members of the Coalition would connive at this retrospective abrogation of thevoters' wishes does not make it any less an assault on the council's integrity. Thepoint of principlearisesin the midst of complexarrangementsaimed at reform of the council. In principle, the reform is good. In principle, fewerMLCs can make for a more efficient council without harming its integrity and at less cost to the taxpayer. In practice, however,the reform is accompanied by politically partisan purpose.

Thedominant schoolof political analysissuggeststhePremier,MrGreiner,would like his reform not only to remove from the council Mrs Marie Bignold, one of the three in question and the dissident of the Call to Australia Party, but also togive theaalition a greaterchanceofwinning an Upper House majority in the next general election. To this last charge, Mr Greiner may insist his reform does not affect his chances of securing a majority. The point is at least debatable. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1331

But the Government can have no principled objection to the three MLCs finishing their terms in 1995, as they should.

Why they should needs to be set out clearly. The number of MLCs would be reduced from 45 to 42, half elected at each election and serving two terms of the Lower House (not the present three). This is a desirable end, yet one aspect of the means to achieve it is undesirable. The Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill would have only 12 of the 15 MLCs elected in 1984 continuing to sit in the next Parliament. Three would have their terms cut short: Mrs Bignold and Mr Mick Ibbett (Labor), and Mrs Judy Jakins (National). The reformists would achieve their smaller council four years earlier than if they waited for these three to finish their terms.

Abrogating the wishes of the voters retrospectively is bad enough; doing so without being able to show that these three would have sat lowest in the estimate of voters choosing 12 rather than 15 councillors is unacceptable. Establishing the latter is impossible. As electoral analyst Malcolm Mackerras has pointed out, there can be no recount as the ballot papers for 1984 are gone. It is not good enough for the Attorney-General, Mr Dowd, to cite the order of declared election in 1984 as vindication of choosing these three. At best, this is retrospective guesswork; at worst, retrospective disenfranchisement. Mr Dowd should leave this choice, and the smaller council, to the electors of 1995.

Political wisdom would also dictate this course. The chances of success of the referendum necessary for the reform will be harmed by any electoral suspicion of disrespect for Parliament-and any suspicion of partisan advantage. The I-Ion. R. S. L. JONES: [10.4]: During the past week or so I have spent some time studying the origins and workings of the original Senate of ancient Rome and of upper Houses generally. It is interesting to note how the function of our Legislative Council has changed remarkably since its inception in 1823. The old Legislative Council of New South Wales was created by an Act of the British Government to be an advisory body to the Governor of the colony. Originally it comprised five colonial officials and by 1851 its membership subsequently increased to 54,18 of whom were nominated and 36 elected by colonists with certain property qualifications. It had limited legislative authority and financial powers. The Council drafted the Constitution to provide for responsible government in New South Wales, and this was passed by the British Government. The New South Wales Constitution Act 1855 created a bicameral legislature, with an elected lower House and a nominated Legislative Council. In 1856 the Sydney Morning Herald declared that the Council was not meant to "decide the general policy of the country" but could act as a "court of oversight and revision". Manned by people with professional training and experience of affairs, representative of the main interests in the colony, free from the turmoil of party politics, with more time at its disposal, the Council could provide a channel for the introduction of non-party legislation, an opportunity for improving the legislative efforts of the Assembly and a forum for critical discussion of the larger problems of policy and administration. It could be useful in delaying controversial legislation to give affected interests time to get their views considered. And so it was for the most part in colonial days. The Constitution provided that the Legislative Council would contain at least 21 members who were nominated by the Government and who were appointed by the Governor for life, after an initial period of five years. Unfortunately, a maximum number was not specified, and there was an opportunity for governments to attempt to swamp the Legislative Council with their supporters. That happened repeatedly, and by 1932 the number of members had reached 126. In 1925Premier Lang tried to abolish this Chamber in an attempt to implement Labor Party policy. Several of the suicide 1332 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 squad of 25 Australian Labor Party members suddenly discovered that they liked being members of the upper House and refused to vote for its abolition. The Australian Labor Party has had a long suspicion of upper Houses because it believed they represented the interests of the aristocracy and the landed gentry. Following king's removal from office, the conservative Bavin Government added section 7Ato the Constitution Act to provide that the Council could not be abolished or significantly reformed without first obtaining the approval of electors through a referendum. Mr Lang tried again to abolish the Council in 1930 and was once again unsuccessful. When Mr Lang regained office he promptly introduced bills to repeal section 7A of the Constitution Act and abolish the Council, optimistically advised by his law officers that he could bypass the referendum requirement. Members of the non-Labor majority in the Council, much better advised by the legal luminaries in their own ranks, allowed the bills to pass the Council and then blocked them from receiving assent by an action for injunction, in which the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the High Court of Australia, and ultimately the Privy Council all confirmed that section 7A was both valid and well and truly entrenched. After his dismissal in 1932 the next coalition Government held a referendum in 1933 which radically changed the constitution of the Council. In 1934 the Council was reconstituted as a House of 60 members, elected on the basis of proportional representation by the members of the Legislative Assembly and the Council. Members were elected for 12years, with 15members retiring every three years. Unfortunately, the Council became a repository for party hacks receiving rewards for services rendered. Membership was part-time, and many members did not even bother to attend the sittings. In fact between 1860 and 1900,ll members lost their seats because they were absent without leave for two consecutive sessions. Throughout the 1950s the council dealt with about 30 per cent of its bills in a single day each. Its deliberations received little public attention and interest groups aggrieved by legislative proposals showed a growing tendency to protest directly to the offending government. In 1961 the Australian Labor Party once again tried to abolish the council but was opposed by 57.6 per cent of voters. The Wran referendum of 1978, which was supported by 73.21 per cent ofvoters, provided for a Council of 45 members directly elected by the people. The Constitution and Parliamentary Electorates and Elections (Amendment) Act allowed for 28 of the incumbent councillors whose terms were not due to expire 1985 or 1988 to remain as members in the reconstituted Council, to be joined by 15 members elected in 1978. At the next general election in 1981 the 14 councillors whose terms would have expired in 1985 were retired and replaced by a further 15 directly elected members. It was not until 1984 that the Legislative Council became a fully democratically elected House. The Wran Government won nine seats in 1978, giving it a majority of 23 out of 43. In 1981 it won eight, and seven in 1984, giving it in 1984 a majority of 24 of the 45 seats. It was not until March 1988 that the balance of power was held for the first time by the crossbenches. It is amazing how much the Council has changed during the past 10 years or so. In 1977 three MLCs accounted for 40 per cent of all questions asked without notice. Five councillors, or one-twelfth of the councillors, between them asked 50 per cent of the questions. Of the then 60 councillors, 24 asked no questions at all, and a further seven asked only one. By comparison, in 1988 the three most active 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1333 questioners accounted for only28 per cent of the questions. SevenMLCs, or just under one-sixth of councillors, between them asked 50 per cent of the questions, and all but one councillor asked at least two questions. In 1977, eight members of this Chamber did not participate in debates at all. In 1988 every member contributedat least once. It is also interestingto note how active crossbenchmembers have been during this period. The seven most active councillors in 1988, according to the number of times they participated in debates, excluding Ministers and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, accounted for well over half of the contributions; four of these were crossbench members.

It is really only in the past three years that the Legislative Council has come of age. It has not been a proper House of review until the past three years. During this time when the balance of power has been held for the first time by the crossbenchers, there have been many moments of high drama and uncertainty. For the first time, apart from the few brief months in the early days of the Wran Government,there has been no guarantee that any bill would go through this House intact. This House has been the master of its own destiny, not just a rubber-stamp of the government of the day. This has caused a good deal of confusionamong media commentators,especially the toadies and sycophants of the Liberal Party who write stories to order. Conservative hacks believe the Government's program shouldbe allowed to go through entirely unscathed. They bleat about the Government's mandate as though it is sacrosanct. They say that because the Government announcedthe detailed program beforeits successful election, the entire program should be allowed to proceed without interference fromthe House of review.

What they are saying in effect is that the House of review should be a rubber-stamp unable to make any changes to legislation. Perhaps the conservative media hacks would not be so keen on the upper House being a rubber-stamp if the Australian Labor Party were in power. They would suddenly discover the merits of having a genuineHouse of reviewand indeed insist throughtheir columns that the upper House amends and rejects legislationwhich they and their conservative friends found to be repugnant. Arubber-stamp upper Houseis a completewaste of taxpayers' money. It might as well be abolished as the Australian Labor Party abolished the upper House in Queensland in 1922. One can see from more than 20 years of corrupt Joh Bjelke-Petersen Government how valuable it is to have a body of women and men who are able to put restraints on the Government and the program. I have been told by a senior Government Minister, inhis words, that the Democrats have been saving the Government fromitself. Some of the more outrageous Ministers have proposed bills which, although they would have passed a compliant Cabinet,which allowsMinisters to govern without too much interference, would never have passed through the upper House.

Honourable members can take my word for the number of proposed bills that have never seen the light of day. I even had one senior Minister ask me to block one of the Government's own bills. I will not say which Minister it was. It was not Ted Pickering. I will not saywhich bill it was, nor will I say whether or not the bill wasblocked. There is little doubt in my mind that if the Democrats had not amended a significant number of bills and prevented some more extreme measures f~ompassing into law, the Government would now be one or two points lower in the polls. This was not a 1334 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 deliberate policy on our part because we have absolutely no axe to grind whether the coalition or the Australian Labor Party is in government. After all, we are waiting patiently to form a democratic government when the time is ripe. The Australian Democrats have been inadvertently much kinder to the Government than some of its members realise. On a number of occasions we have indeed saved it from itself. The question we must address now is whether the proposal to reduce the number of members of this Chamber is to the benefit or the detriment of the people of New South Wales and whether it benefits or harms the democratic process. There is no doubt that the decision of the Government to cut short the terms of the Hon. G. R. Ibbett, the Hon. Judith Jakins and the Hon. Marie Bignold has caused considerable controversy in the community. Malcolm Mackerras, one of the best known political commentators in Australia, has said that this move retrospectively disenfranchises the 10.5 per cent of voters who voted for other than the major parties in 1984, in particular the 166,210voterswho voted in 1984 for the Call to Australia group. It is quite extraordinary that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has been supporting the disenfranchisement of such a large number of his own voters. One wonders whether he would have done so if Jim Cameron had still been in the position. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile would then have been in the most invidious position of maintaining his almost total support of the Government and at the same time wishing to retain Jim Cameron as a member of his team. What would he have done? Because the Hon. Marie Bignold has proved herself to be such an intelligent, independent thinker and voter, she has proved anathema to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, who prefers to toe the Government line right or wrong. It is easy for Fred to stab Marie in the back because she refuses to go along with his sycophantic support for the Government. He believes that by helping to get rid of Marie he will assist the Government and his group to gain control of the upper House. This is not so. He will rid himself of a sparring partner whom he is unable to control. He himself hopes to be in the pivotal balance of power situationwhich God so cruelly deprived him of three years ago. He will then be in a position to wield the big stick to persuade the Government to ban everything ofwhich he disapproves and make that perhaps the price of his support. But what of the 166,210 Call to Australia voters of 1984 who have been discnfranchised? How much do they matter to Fred? Do the principles of democracy matter to Fred? What about morality--does that matter? All that really counts is pragmatism and power. It matters not that those who have voted for the three members have been disenfranchised retrospectively. It matters not that the three members are unable to put themselves up for election in a few weeks' time unless they resign beforehand. It matters not that the three chosen for dismissal have really been chosen at random and they are not the three who were last elected in 1984. It is not possible now to choose the three who were last elected because to do so would mean having to go through the ballot-papers to work out the first 12 elected to determine the three to go. According to Malcolm Mackerras' calculations the last three to be elected in 1984 were the Hon. Beryl Evans, the Hon. Judith Jakins and the Hon. G. R. Ibbett. Jim Cameron, later replaced by the Hon. Marie Bignold, was not one of the last three. If three were to have their terms cut short, there would be two Government members and one Australian Labor Party member. I do not believe this would have suited the 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1335

Government. We will never know because the 1984 ballot-papers have been destroyed. According to Malcolm Mackerras' calculations, which obviously are not infallible, the nine chosen to have their terms cut short out of those elected in 1988 are the same nine as would be determined in a recount of ballot-papers. Also, the members elected in 1988were givenwarnings that the coalition's intention, if elected, was to cut the numbers in the Legislative Council. Thus I was given due warning that my term would be cut short and I was able to plan my life accordingly. Also, I will be given the opportunity, if I so desire, to nominate myself for the upper House ticket for the following election. Obviously it would be in my personal interest to oppose the bill, as it would for the other eight members whose terms are truncated. When the full ramifications of the retrospective disenfranchisement of the three members really hit home, and after having had long discussions with various Democrats, I determined that I would not be able to vote against the Hon. Marie Bignold's amendment to cut off the three members prematurely. I believe that the Bignold amendment in no way contradicts the meaning or spirit of the bill. It does not affect the reduction in members; it merely delays the reduction until the three have fulfilled their election terms. It will also not affect the balance of power in the upper House in any meaningful way. There is a very good chance that the coalition, which has five members going out, will elect seven members at the next election. This indeed is what the National Party also thinks because as part of the deal they struck with the Liberals it was agreed that the National Party and most likely the Hon. Judith Jakins would be offered the seventh winnable spot. No doubt the National Party will go through with the charade of taking nominations for this position, but the decision probably already has been taken. This has secured thesupport ofthe Hon. Judith Jakins and theHon. J. J. Doohan. The coalition will probably have 21 members if voters behave the way they are expected to and if the number of members of the House remain at 45, or 20 if the number of members is reduced. Unfortunately for the Australian Labor Party, it will lose 12 members this time, which is the legacy of the halcyon days of the Wranslides. The number of Australian Labor Party members will fall to 13 if the number of members remains at 45, or 12 if the number of members is reduced. The Australian Labor Party will then have the mammoth taskof attempting to replace those lost. It is highly unlikely that the Australian Labor Partywill be able to elect more than six members, which would mean that it would need to poll 37.5 per cent of the vote. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that it would be able to muster enough votes for only five seats, as the coalition did in 1984. To get five seats would mean avote of 31.25 per cent. There might be an additional 2 per cent or 3 per cent that could be distributed. The Australian Labor Party is looking at 18 or 19 members in a House of the present size or 17 or 18 members in a House of reduced size. It is clear that if Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is re-elected, the Government will have a majority in the Legislative Council whether or not the Hon. Marie Bignold and the other two members stay. Honourable members can be sure that few amendments will be made to imperfect bills over the next three or four years. The more extreme National Party Ministers will be able to run riot in this State with the consent of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. It is unfortunate indeed that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile follows the Government so blindly and accepts 90 per cent of legislation without even thinking of proposing amendments. It makes one wonder whether he bothers to read any legislation or just accepts the 1336 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

Government's word that it is perfect. Perhaps he has a secret arrangement with the Government that honourable members do not know about. With Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile holding the balance of power, the upper House will resume its role of one and a half centuries-as a rubber-stamp. That assumes that there are sufficient people in New South Wales who still have sufficient faith in Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to re-elect him. There is no doubt that he has done himself a good deal of damage with his three-year vituperative campaign against his colleague. Evidently Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is not capable of dealing with an independent-minded woman.

Fortunately, one of the joys of being a Democrat is that one is allowed to be independent-even encouraged to be independent. For that they are attacked in the media, which have become used to expecting political parties to be monolithic and thinking as a single entity. The old political parties so lauded by the media are virtually dictators under their leaders. How many times have members in this Chamber voted against their consciences? Only one member has crossed the floor in the three years I have been a member. That was the Hon. Judith Jakins. She will not cross the floor this time. There is a good chance that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile will not be re-elected this time, as the Hon. Marie Bignold has announced that she will be standing a team of Independent Christians against the Call to Australia group. I have met a large number of people who are appalled that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile could even think of voting out his own colleague.

It is extraordinary that it has been left up to me in this Chamber to stand up for Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile's own colleague, a member of the Call to Australia group. However, I heard Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile repent and recant on the "7.30 Report" the other night. He told the world that he has received new information from Malcolm Mackerras about the retrospective disenfranchisement of his own Call to Australia voters and that he would consider that information and keep an open mind. He indicated that he was willing to change his mind after he received the information, though he gave his word. It appears that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile may after all come to the rescue of his colleague and that she may not have to rely on my vote or the vote of National Party members to save her seat or the seats of the other two members whose terms will end prematurely. It is only right and proper that he should be the one to do the honourable thing by his colleague. At the same time, he may be able to find within himself the Christian charity to forgive the Hon. Marie Bignold for what he believes to be her misdeeds.

Whether Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile will be elected will be for the people of New South Wales to decide. As they sow, so shall they reap. It has been a difficult time for me and also for my esteemed colleague the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. Like Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the Hon. Elaine Nile and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, I agreed to support the legislation. I thought that the Hon. Marie Bignold and either two or four of her colleagues would be retiring prematurely. I did not fully comprehend, however, that the Hon. Marie Bignold was not one of the last members to be elected and that she was in effect chosen at random mainly because she has been a thorn in the side of the Government. She has asked endless questions of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services about the abortion laws of this State. I accept her passionate campaign to save 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1337 the unborn children of New South Wales and believe it has considerable validity. I believe abortion to be a revolting way to treat an unborn child, and more especially a child of advanced months that is capable of surviving independently outside the womb.

I am firmly of the belief that the decision to have a child must primarily be that of the mother and that to make abortion illegal will not stem the tide of abortion but lead to abortions being performed by inept backyard operators, who put the woman's life at risk. Punishing a woman for having an abortion is a double punishment. Education on the value of human life is really the only answer. I have given my view on this matter by way of explanation, because I believe the Hon. Marie Bignold should complete her term not because of her beliefs but because it is patently unfair that she has been chosen for premature termination. There is also the question that the three members may be unable to nominate themselves at the next election and may remain in the wilderness for four years.

In making a decision on such a matter, one must take into account first one's own conscience, as I have been reminded by a number of Democrats; second, what is good for the majority of people in New South Wales; third, what is good for the people who voted me into office; and, fourth, what is in the best interests of the Australian Democrats. All those matters have to be weighed and balanced carefully. It is not a simple matter to come to a conclusion on such a complex issue. If one is to serve the people of New South Wales, as is one's duty, one must take time to consider matters carefully. It is easy to make snap decisions, especially when one is not acquainted with the full facts. If one has made a decision and new matters are brought to one's attention, one has an obligation to reconsider one's decision. There is no doubt in my mind that the amendment of the Hon. Marie Bignold is worthy of support. I am glad that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has had second thoughts on the amendment. It is just that the Hon. Marie Bignold should be allowed to complete her term and the Hon. Judith Jakins and the Hon. G. R. Ibbett should be able to complete their terms.

One cannot consider the amendment in isolation from other matters. I have not declared my full support for the amendment because I made a prior commitment to support the legislation as it stood. There were no sordid deals, no secret undertakings, as some media commentators have hinted at darkly. It makes a good story. But never let the facts get in the way of a good story. It was merely an understanding that the Australian Democrats and the Call to Australia group would support the legislation to reduce the number of members in the upper House, in line with the reduction of members in the lower House. The Australian Democrats asked that the Government consider reducing the number to 42 rather than 40 because by a mathematical quirk it would be possible for a large party to obtain half the seats in an election with less than half the vote. With 47.6 per cent of the vote it would be possible to obtain 10 out of 20 seats, and that clearly would not serve the interests of democracy. With an odd number of seats-in other words 21-to obtain a majority of the seats the party would need to receive half the vote. The odd number also gives a window of opportunity for Independents and smaller parties. There is no doubt that it is in the best interests of democracy to have as wide a range of views presented as possible in the House of review rather than the monolithic views of the two old groupings. 1338 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

It is unfortunate that the two old political groupings regard themselves as arch enemies and rarely are they able to sit down to discuss the merits and demerits of points of legislation. It really does not need the relatively political unbiased eye of the crossbenchers to review legislation and then to work with the other two groupings to facilitate the passage of worthwhile legislation. I presume that honourable members have noted that the Australian Democrats spend far less time scoring political points than they do closely and critically examining legislation. One only has to study the number of amendments that have been proposed by the Democrats and passed successfully compared to those of other political groups to see the truth. Amendments to the Constitution and Parliamentary Electorates and Elections (Amendment) Bill that were passed last year after consultationwith the Democrats assist the democratic process in this State dramatically, not just for the Australian Democrats, as some media commentators have said, but also for the small parties and the Independents. Those changes and changes to the funding of elections, which will be presented to Parliament soon, unquestionably and undeniably will assist the democratic process. It will make it easier for smaller parties and Independents to be able to present themselves for election. In other words, democracy will be better served in New South Wales.

Ishould remind honourablemembers onceagain that itwas the Australian Labor Party that four years ago denied those reforms. The Hon. M. R. Egan came up with the outrageous winner-take-all scheme that would have been a total denial of democracy. Fortunately, the Australian Labor Party was compelled to back down. It is interesting to note that the Australian Labor Party wanted to abolish this House of review, and in Queensland abolished the upper House. The Liberal Party is far more tolerant of Independents and smaller parties than the head kickers in the Australian Labor Party are. Power is everything to the right-wing of the Australian Labor Party. Morality and ethics come off second best. Honourable members will have observed how certain unelected members of the media, who have considerable power but no responsibility, have treated the question of the Bignold amendment and my desire to have the three members finish their elected terms. Some of the reporting has been exceedingly malicious. Part of one story was apparently based on an illegal telephone tap, as the matter was discussed in a single telephone conversation.

I now have to regard my telephone as tapped, which I find odious in a free and democratic society. There is no question that some media commentators feel that they have the right to attempt to make or break governments or oppositions. By placing a slant on a story, they can mislead their readers and turn readers off a particular party or individual. I am sure Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile knows what I am talking about. The story in the media was that I had split from my colleague the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and I intended to vote against the legislation. No attempt was made to point out that I was supporting the legislation but abstaining from voting on an amendment which did not alter the intent or purpose of the legislation. The simplistic view is taken that if one votes for an amendment, one is voting against the bill. I have tried to point out the fallacy of this time and time again but to no avail. If the media commentator is a Government lackey, then the Government line is run regardless of the truth. These misleading and malicious stories have the capacity to cause a good deal of harm to a small party such as the Australian Democrats. That is precisely why they are run. We do not have rich friends in powerful places to put things right. Thus as a result of stories 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1339 that have been run my honest attempt to persuade the Governmentto do the right thing by the Hon. Marie Bignold, the Hon. JudithJakins and the Hon. G. R. Ibbett has been very costly for the Australian Democrats. The Australian Democratshave been portrayed as being split, and doing dirty deals. I have been accused of doing a U-turn. The allegation of a U-turn was of course maliciouslywrongand a deliberatemisconstruction ofwhat was actually happening. Far from doing a U-turn, I was continuing in exactly the same direction and merely suggesting that we drop off the passengers at their agreed destination and not in the wilderness milesfrom anywhere. As a copywriter for 25 years I know verywell the power of headlines and also the power of words in body copy. When used maliciouslythey can have a devastating impact. Honest and objective media commentators would have treated the story very differently,and in fact several did. Unfortunatelyone must take such an impact on the Australian Democrats into account when consideringone's position. We do not receive large donations to our administration accounts from tobacco companies, as do other large parties. We do not receive donations from Japanese wood chip companies, nor do we receive huge amounts from unions even though we have taken considerable flack for protecting the interests of lower paid and migrant workers. We cannot pay to improve our media image. We are dependent on the good will and honest and objective reporting of media commentators. It does not serve democracy to have the only truly democratic party in Australia damaged by malicious reporting. It is therefore in the interests of the general good of the people of New South Wales that such stories do not appear. They appear only if there is an opportunity and an opening for them to appear, just as a cancer will invade a patient with a weak immune system. My personal reputationis of no importanceto me. I have been ridiculed at every opportunity for being concerned at the destruction of the world's biodiversity and ecosystems. I have the grim satisfaction of knowing that I will be proved right in 100 years when today's short-term economic problemswill be long forgotten. However, my reputation is of importanceif it damages the interestsof the people of New SouthWales and those who have put so much trust in me. I cannot therefore allow by beliefs and opinions and the way they are treated in the media to damagethe interestsof the people and the democraticprocess in New South Wales. As a result of my stated belief that the Hon. Marie Bignold, the Hon. Judith Jakinsand the Hon. G. R. Ibbett should remain in this House and complete their terms, the Government has said by implication that the legislative reforms that were passed by both Houses of Parliament andwhich clearly benefit the democraticprocess in New South Wales will not be proclaimed. Moreover, there has been a threat to hold the referendum in Septemberconcurrently with the local government electionsat an additional cost to the taxpayers of up to $20 million. Other things have been said which I shall not repeat here. There is no question in my mind that if the legislationwerenot proclaimed, the Australian Democratswould be damaged. Media reports have made that quite clear. Not only would the Australian Democrats be damaged but other small parties and Independents would also be damaged. The Governmentsays that the passing of the legislationwaspart of the negotiations to secure the support of the Australian Democrats in the reduction of numbers in both Houses. It apparently feels entitled to withhold the entire package of democraticreforms on the strengthof my abstentionfromvotingona single amendmentwhich is entirely consistent with the principles of the bill. 1340 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

Members can imagine my delight when I heard that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile was reviewing his decision to vote out his colleague. After all, the Hon. Marie Bignoid was elected on the Call to Australia ticket. Surely her own party should be responsible for protecting her position. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile must now take the responsibility of ensuring that his voters are not disenfranchised. He is the one who must abstain. I will no longer jeopardise the entire package of democratic reforms, or my party's chances in the upcoming election, as a result of my stand on a point of principle. Why should I single-handedly sacrifice these democratic reforms and the interests of the people of New South Wales, as well as the interests of our own loyal voters? The Hon. Marie Bignold knows that I am with her in spirit and that I believe she should stay, together with the others. If Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile does not vote to save his colleague, then thevoters will decide his future. It is also true to say that the voters of New South Wales will decide the future of the Hon. Marie Bignold and the other two members. This matter has now had a substantial hearing in the media. It may be that the voters of New South Wales will decide that the legislation is unfair to the three members and vote against the referendum. The Government will then have only itself to blame. It will not be able to blame the Australian Democrats. There is no truer way to gauge the will of the people than by referendum. Let the people decide the issue. Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE 110.341: On behalf of the Call to Australia I wish to place on record our support for the bills before the House. They are responsible, fair, just and democratic. They are designed to reduce the terms of members of the Legislative Council from 12 years to eight years, from three four-year terms to two four-year terms. Despite some shrill accusations that I am God or think I am God, I would like to place on the record that from my own point ofview, and from the point of vicw of all those who know me and are sincere acquaintances, I see myself simply as a sinner saved by grace. Grace is a free, unmerited gift from God. I am amazed that God has allowed me to experience His salvation, His grace and His love. I am amazed also that God has allowed me to serve both Him and the people ofNew South Wales in this Parliament. There is no conspiracy, there is no malice, there is no secrecy. Early this year the Government had discussions with the Australian Democrats and worked out the agreement which has been read onto the record. When the agreement with the Australian Democrats was finalised I was asked whether I would support the bills which had been agreed to by the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats. At that point I said I would support the legislation. There was no malice, simply an agreement. The objects of the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill are: (a) to reduce the number of politicians in the Legislative Council and to reduce their maximum term of office; and

(b) to apply to the Legislative Council the same method of filling casual vacancies as applies in the Senate. The second bill is the Constitution (Referendum) Bill. Under section 7A of the Constitution Act 1902, it is necessary for the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill to be submitted to a referendum and be approved by a majority of the electors before that bill is presented to the Governor for Her Majesty's assent. I have already read to the House the objects of that bill. The object of the Constitution (Referendum) Bill is to appoint the date of the next general election as the date for taking thevotes of electors at the referendum on the Constitution (Legislative Council) 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL

Amendment Bill. After the election in 1988 the Premier spoke about reforming both the upper and lower Houses. Those proposals have been under discussion for some time. On 27th February, 1990, the Premier announced that he planned to reduce the number of members of the Legislative Council from 45 to 40 and reduce their maximum term of office from 12 years to eight years. He believed, and I agree with this principle, that the Government had a clear and unequivocal mandate to introduce these measures. They were an intrinsic part of the Government's pre-election platform. Both the reduction in the number of Legislative Council members from 45 to 40 and the reduction in their terms of office from three terms to two terms of the Legislative Assembly were spelt out precisely no less than two weeks prior to the 1988 election. Before the changes in the new bill the original plan for the upper House contained a formula. In 1990 the formula was that the continuing members would comprise nine members of the Australian Labor Party, nine members of the coalition parties, one member of the Australian Democrats-that is the Hon. R. S.L. Jones, and one member of the Call to Australia group-that was the Won. Elaine Nile.

At that time it was envisaged that the Hon. Judith Jakins, the Hon. G. R. Ibbett and the Hon. Marie Bignold would no longer continue their membership of the Legislative Council. There has been no secrecy and no hidden agenda but quite an open statement. On various occasions the same principles were stated by the Attorney General, who spelt out a number of these matters as well. The question has been raised of whether Call to Australia voters will be cheated. In discussing the matter with Mr Cameron and our supporters there has been agreement that the Hon. Marie Bignold has cheated Jim Cameron, if any question of cheating comes in. The conservative CTA supporters have been cheated. CTAworkers and those who elected Jim Cameron-the conservativevoters, the ones who organised the 1984 election campaign, who organised the funding, the publicity, the printing, and the election meetings from Sydney to Bourke in northern New South Wales and in southern New South Wales-have been cheated. I was one who carried the main load of all that organisational activity and I certainly felt cheated as well. The proof of who has been cheated in the debate tonight is clearly revealed by the attitude of the Australian Labor Party. No one cries about the ALP member, the Hon. G. R. Ibbett, who is having his term reduced from 12 years to eight years. There are no cries about his term in the upper House concluding at the next election if the referendum is passed. The only loud, shrill cries coming from the ALP concern the Hon. Marie Bignold, whom the ALP obviously regards as one of its own.

The question of who knew the terms would be reduced was raised. Again there has been no secret. Mr Wran spoke of reducing the terms of members of this House from 1981 when Iwas elected to this Parliament. It was also mentioned by Mr Unsworth, after he became Premier, in 1987. All members of this House have known that there were plans to change the structure of the upper House and to reduce the term of its members. The main difficulty for the ALP and the Liberal and National parties has been to find an acceptable formula for the change. When the ALP was in power it could not find an acceptable formula because it did not want to allow more minority party candidates or Independents to be elected under the reduced quotas which would apply. It is obvious that with 45 or 46 members being elected for two four-year terms the number of members to be elected at each election would be 23 and a quota would be a 1342 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 twenty-third of thevote rather than a fifteenth. The ALP did not want to make it easier for members of minor parties to be elected. The Liberal and National parties have dealt with that difficulty and proceeded with the legislation. In passing, I wish to put on the record how the Hon. Marie Bignold came to be a member of the upper House, as she has been raised as the main point of controversy in relation to this legislation. I must take responsibility for that in that I selected a five member CTA upper House team in 1983 to present their nominations to the preselection meeting which included first Jim Cameron, second Graham McClelland, third Dr Kevin Hume, fourth Mrs Marie Bignold and fifth Elaine Nile. These names were put to the CTA preselection conference in 1983. I was pleased that Jim Cameron was elected unanimously. I was concerned that his strong Liberal associations might have caused problems with some of our folk but they believed that his preselection was God's will. Before we moved on to confirm Graham McClelland as our second candidate-he was expected to be No. 2 because he had been on the previous CTA Senate team-it was suggested by some female delegates at the preselection conference that we should alternate male and female candidates on the ticket instead of having the first three male and the last two female. That suggestion was accepted and it was then proposed that Elaine Nile should be No. 2. I was chairing the meeting and I was advised-I now realise that I was wrongly advised-that Elaine Nile had indicated that she did not want to be No. 2 on the CTA ticket but would prefer to stay at No. 5. This was simply a device to include the Nile name on the ballot-paper. At that point she was not seeking or expecting to be elected. Her name being on the ballot allowed us to use the Cameron-Nile team slogan and enabled people who did not know the Cameron name to identify the ticket quickly because of the Nile name on the bottom. It was then suggested that Mrs Bignold be No. 2, and that was agreed to. The ticket was then No. 1 Cameron, No. 2 Bignold, No. 3 McClelland, No. 4 Hume and No. 5 Nile. There have been claims that CTA voters will be disenfranchised and that the Hon. Marie Bignold has popular support. I assumed that she did have popular support in the North Shore area before I selected her. That is why I selected her, in addition to her legal abilities. The election results work slightly differently with the minor parties compared with the major parties but the same principles apply. The President drew my attention to the remarkable result. Jim Cameron received 166,210 votes. The next highest vote on the ticket was for the fifth person, Elaine Nile, who received 5,709 votes. Kevin Hume received 1,232 votes and Graham McClelland received 1,187 votes. The person who was No. 2 on the ticket received only 730 votes, which is remarkable and indicative of some of the thinking of CTA supporters. Elaine Nile, at the bottom of the ticket, received 5,709 primary votes and Mrs Bignold received 730. I note that in Gordon, where Mrs Bignold lived and was well known, she received exactly three votes. So I do not believe there is any case for saying that CTA voters are being upset or disenfranchised by the legislation. I would say that exactly the opposite is the truth. I note what the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said. I think he should take care of his own party. I do not seek to give advice to him on his party's internal affairs. He should concentrate on his own party and not seek to give us advice on what we should do. As I said, the ALP and the coalition faced a dilemma on how to reform the upper House without increasing the potential for minor parties or Independents to win positions. At one stage the ALP had an anti-democratic proposal of stacking the upper House but 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL time ran out and the ALP lost government at the 1988 elections. Both sides of politics want to keep quotas as high as possible. I would prefer to see the upper House increased to 50 members, not decreased. That would mean that a quota would be a twenty-fifth of the vote, which is unacceptable to both sides of politics. I believe that upper House numbers should be related to lower House numbers as occurs with the House of Representatives and the Senate. So if there were la) members of the lower House there would be 50 members of the upper House in State Parliament. If the lower House were increased by, say, 10, the upper House would be increased by five. I am concerned that in the future there may be a tendency progressively to reduce the numbers in the upper House to make it ineffective. If its numbers were locked into a ratio of the numbers of the lower House, it would protect the upper House as a continuing House of review. I thinkit should be put on the record why Jim Cameron resigned. It is disturbing to me that there is a suggestion that somehow he simply resigned in a lighthearted way, even though he was not well. People who know Jim Cameron know that the decision he had to make about resigning from this Parliament was the hardest he ever had to make. From the age of 18years in spirit he has been a parliamentarian. It was his life's work and concern. He is a wordsmith. He did not want to resign from the upper House. In fact I encouraged him not to resign. But he reached the point at which he had literally less than two months to live. At that stage he was advised by, I assume, the Clerks or other parliamentary staff that there was a special situation applying to parliamentary pensions which probably very few members understand. One does not inquire into such matters unless one is facing death. Apparently a member who dies while a member of this House is discriminated against in the area of pension. The wife and children of a member who resigns before dying receive the full benefits. I assume that provision is to encourage sick members of Parliament to resign and not to continue hanging on while they are not effective members of Parliament. Jim Cameron said to me, "I will not resign if you can promise me that you will take care of my wife and six children". I could not accept that personal and financial responsibility. Therefore, Jim Cameron said that he had no choice but to resign because of his Christian conscience, his Christian love for his family and his God-given responsibility as a husband and father to care for this wife and children over and above his powerful ambitions to serve in the Parliament. It is blasphemy for anyone to suggest that God struck Jim Cameron down so that the Hon. Marie Bignold could be in this Parliament. I have never believed that and if it is true, when God miraculously restored Jim Cameron to full health and strength through a heart transplant, it could be argued that it was God's will for Jim Cameron to return to this Parliament to which he was clearly elected by popular vote-166,210 votes for the conservative, the arch Liberal, Jim Cameron, not 166,210 for the Hon. Marie Bignold. Our constitutional arrangement was to ensure that no one on the ticket would apply for the seat. If the seat is not applied for, the party is asked to nominate a person to fill that seat.

Because of the Hon. Marie Bignold's gross disloyalty in seeking to expel me from this House in 1988, she was expelled in November 1988 from the Call to Australia party, from the Call to Australia parliamentary party, from the Call to Australia citizens movement and, as we found out, her Call to Australia membership had lapsed in 1986. Therefore, the Hon. Marie Bignold has no association with the Call to Australia group. Her position has nothing to do with the Call to Australia group. She has been an 1344 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

Independent since 1988. Obviously, if she were a loyal member of the Call to Australia group, it would discuss her position but because she is an Independent, therehave been no serious discussions about the matter at all. In any discussions that have been held at our regular organisational meetings, management committeesand so on, there has been no desire by officers, organisers, members and supportersof the Call to Australia group to interfere in any way with this legislation. In fact we see this referendum legislation as an answer to prayer to restore a spirit of tranquillity, trust, loyalty and co-operation in this House-to remove a thorn from our side, and in particular from my side, so that we may continue to serve in this Parliament as God leads in the future. The Call to Australia group fully supports these bills. The Hon. G. R. IBBE'IT [10.53]:I desire to say a few words about these bills. It was suggested by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile that no one has spoken up for me. I assure the honourable member that I can speak for myself and I certainly do not need his support. The Hon. J. C. J. Matthews: That is ungracious. Reverend the Won. F. J. Nile supported you. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: If what Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said is considered to be support, perhaps I could do without it. Honourable members should have a look at who introduced these bills and why. The answer to that question is the Hon. Ted Pickering. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: That is not so. The bills were introduced in another place. The Ifon. G. R. IBBEm I am speaking about this House. I am aware that the Attorney General introduced them in the lower House but he entrusted the bills to you in this House. The Minister was the person who introduced the bills in this House. Many people in the Minister's party wouldnot allow him to run a message to buy a salad sandwich because he would come back with a devon sandwich. Many people would not trust him. In the past week prominent members of the Hon. Ted Pickering's party have had some nasty things to say about him. It is important to realise the low esteem in which he is held by some prominent members of his own party and by the general community. I wish to quotea comment of Alan Jones, a prominent radio commentator in this city. When I first met Alan Jones he was running for the seat of Earlwood after the brother of the Hon. M. F. Willis resigned. He was the chosen Liberal candidate. I have no doubt that Ted Pickering supported him on that occasion. When speaking about Ted Pickering, Alan Jones said: the Police Minlster in New South Wales, Mr Ted Pickering, other than he has a hide like the side of a rhinoceros, it is irnposs~bleto believe that even Mr Greiner can tolerate Mr Pickenng in the mmstry, just as it is impossible to believe, Iwould have thought, that theLiberal Party can tolerate Mr P~ckering manipulatmg what happens in the L~beralParty. He went on to say that for weeks John Laws had spoken about the massive cost of police headquarters, and that the case presented by John Laws was unarguable. That is the type of person who introduced thisbill to reform the upper House. We saw and heard his performance yesterday concerningthe so-called attempt by Barrie Unsworth to bribe him. We heard the Hon. Mike Egan, who is also mentioned in the dispatch, deny today that the Minister was telling the truth. In an article appearing today in the Daily 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1345

TelegraphMirror the Minister was challenged and called a liar. The man who introduced this bill into this House would have us believe that it was introduced on the basis that he did not coerce the crossbenchers to vote for it. A few moments ago the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said that the Democrats had been told that certain legislation would not be proclaimed unless they supported this bill. Yesterday we saw the gutless wonders who were not prepared to support the motion by the Hon. Marie Bignold for the Independent Commission Against Corruption to investigate her allegations. Theywere not willing to go before the body that their Government established. Theyare the people we are dealing with. The Leader of the Government, who is dealing with the bill, is the one to whom we can point as one we cannot trust because he tells lies.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: On a point of order. I am prepared to take an awful lot in this debate. I understand the special situation in which the honourable member finds himself, but I cannot allow him to assert to the House that I tell lies. I want the words withdrawn.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: If the honourable member objects to my saying that he tells lies, I will withdraw. Perhaps I can rephrase it: apparently the honourable member has not told the truth on this occasion. It is very obvious that many people in the outside community would not be prepared to listen to what the Hon. E. P. Pickering would put before them. I wish to make some comments about the position in which I find myself. I and the other two members who share my position have been told by those on the Government side, mainly by the Liberals, not by the Nationals, that we are different to the other 12members who were elected in 1984. I was elected in 1984 with a quota. I was No. 13elected but I am now told that I am somewhat different to the other 12 who were elected on that occasion in that I do not have the right to continue in this House because I was elected in position No. 13. That is utter discrimination by the Government. The Government has no right to say that. I do not seek treatment any different from that of the other 12 or 14 members who were elected. I seekexactly the same treatment as any elected member of this Chamber. But that is not forthcoming from the Liberal Party.

The Liberals are saying these three must go. The Government will be cheating the people of New South Wales. The Hon. Marie Bignold claims, perhaps rightly, that she is not one of the last to be elected but was among that group. My position is one of accident. I think I am in the group only accidentally, as is the Hon. Judith Jakins, for the bill is an attempt to get Marie Bignold. That is what the bill is all about. It is not a bill to get Mick Ibbett or Judy Jakins, it is a bill to get Marie Bignold. During the past week we have seen the bullying tactics and behaviour of the Hon. E. P. Pickering and we have heard the expressions of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. Others may have known but only early this week when I came into the Chamber and saw him with his hair cut did I realise that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones had jumped the fence. I suddenly remembered the story of Samson and what happened to him when his hair was cut. What happened to Samson has happened to the Hon. R. S. L. Jones-he lost his strength once he lost his curls.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Does that mean that when he re-grows his curls he will tear down the temple? 1346 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: The only achievement that this House and Australia can thank the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti for is that he stopped the Gulf War. When they heard hewas going over there they said, "We will not have that, we will stop immediately." When they heard he was coming, they had no time for fighting or getting hurt. During the past week or two we have heard much bleating about conscience, about having a conscience and being able to be trusted once one's word has been given. I turn to the Democrats, who I do not think can be trusted. Last night before the tea break the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby finished her speech and said that she was going to support the Hon. Marie Bignold's bill to take her proposal to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Within hours, within a short time of returning to this House, she had jumped the fence. She did not support the Hon. Marie Bignold's bill; she went the other way. How can people like that be trusted? The leader of the Democrats, the great saviour of this Chamber, said that she supported the saving of women representatives in this Parliament. Many times I have heard that. Many* times she has said to her supporters in the broader community that more women should be in Parliament and that she would do what she could to achieve that aim. But in the past few months the actions of that person will cause three women to lose their seats in the lower House-Clover Moore, Dawn Fraser and Robyn Read. How will that be received in the larger community? The Hon. E. P. Pickering: I cannot imagine that Dawn Fraser would lose.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: The Minister for Police and Emergency Services is not able to imagine many things, and he cannot count. Two women will lose their seats in this House through the action of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. She could save them if she so desired, but obviously that is not her desire. Her desire is self-survival. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby will have a hell of a job surviving when the larger community realises what has been going on with the Democrats in this House. The electorate will not support the Democrats when it perceives that they are puppets of the Liberal Party. From what I have heard in the past week or two one could believe that the present occupants of the crossbenches have an untold right to those crossbenches. In 1981 the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby was something of a curiosity when she managed to get elected. In 1984 no member of the Australian Democrats was elected. I shall turn later to the point raised about Jim Cameron. If a Democrat who had been elected in 1984 was in the hot seat, the Democrats would not support the proposed legislation. They would have been the worst opponents of the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill. It may well be that the only Democrat to sit on the crossbenches after the next election, whether it be held in May, September or November, will be the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

The EIon. M. F. Willis: Does the Australian Labor Party intend to give the Australian Democrats its preferences this time?

The I-Ion. G. R. IBBETT: I shall deal with what the Hon. M. F. Willis had to say afterwards. Over theyears since the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has been a member I have heard comments about the regard in which he is held by members of the Liberal Party. I have heard those comments made especially when he is not voting with the Government.

The Hon. M. F. Willis: Did the Australian Labor Party give him its preferences? 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1347

The Won. G. R. IBBETT: Perhaps it did give him its preferences, but everyone learns by mistakes. The Hon. M. F. Willis knows that. He has made many mistakes. I . think he made one here. It is obvious that it will be difficult for the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby to be elected as the true Democrat she would have honourable members believe she is. It will be difficult when the wider community begins to find out that she is responsible for the loss of five women from the Parliament of New South Wales and about the other shenanigans she has been getting on with over the past few years in this House. While I am on that theme, perhaps I should dealwith the Call to Australia party, the great Christian group that has taken to one of its members asthough she had the plague. Those great democratic Christians have expelled the Hon. Marie Bignold. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: What would the Australian Labor Party do if someone tried to expel the Leader of the Opposition? Would it give the person a medal? The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: The Leader of the Call to Australia group has asked what the Australian Labor Party would do. The Australian Labor Party is not made up of two people, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile. It is made up of a number of bodies, and the Liberal Party and the National Party have a similar process. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: The Liberal Party does not have factions. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I shall deal with Liberal Party factions later. Reverend the Hon. F, J. Nile: What would the Australian Labor Party do if an Australian Labor Party member expelled the Leader of the Opposition? The IIon. G. R. IBBETT: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asks what the Australian Labor Party would do. It would go through the process and give the person the democratic right to defend himself. It would not depend on avote of Reverend theHon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile to decide the fate of that person, as the Call to Australia group did in the case of the Hon. Marie Bignold. She was shunted out the door because she would not do as she was told. Honourable members should cast their minds back to the dispute that occurred between theNile faction and theBignold faction inside the Call to Australia group. One would not have believed it possible that adults-on one side in particular---could go in on the way they did. It reached the stage where Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile was in touch with God. That was one of the stories I read. Reverend the Non. F. J. Nile: That was in the Sydney Morning Herald. The IIon. G. R. IBBETT: The honourable member gave the Sydney Morning Herald a bagging the other day because he claimed it was not treating him well. The Sydney MorningHerald was all right so far asReverend the Hon. F. J. Nile was concerned when that born-again Christian Wanvick Fairfax was in charge. It could do no wrong. Once Wanvick Fairfax was given the order of the boot the Sydney MorningHerald could do no right in the eyes of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. Perhaps other people can form their own conclusions from the actions of the honourable member over the past few weeks. The display put on by the Call to Australia group when the dispute between the group and the Hon. Marie Bignold took place was the shame of this House. It brought the House into ridicule, and the dispute still goes on. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile by his actions towards the Hon. Marie Bignold then and since have brought him into disrespect by a large percentage of the community of this State. No one wants to know 1348 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 the honourable member. If he thinks he can put himself up as the Christian that he would have honourable members believe he is and be elected by the people of the State, he has another thinkcoming. At the next election he has to contend not only with getting a quota on the basis of 15 members being elected but has to contend with the Hon. Marie Bignold and with the people who respect the action she has taken in this House. I respect her because I remember the day she was going to be tossed out of this House. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: She was. TheHon. G. R. IBBETT: Shewas tossed out, but wrongly. It tossed her out when she was not in the House. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: It corrected the error. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: No error was corrected because a member cannot be tossed out if the member is not in the House. I hold you, Mr President, responsible. On that occasion, if the penalty had been throwing the Hon. Marie Bignold to the lions, she would have accepted the penalty on principle. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile will have to contend with that at the next election. He will have to contend also with the people who support the Hon. Marie Bignold. They will deeply cut into his numbers. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is no certainty, by a long way. The more he behaves in the way he has over the past couple of weeks, the less are his chances. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: The honourable member is a betting man. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: No, the Minister is the one who gambles, not me. The IIon. R. B. Rowland Smith: The Hon. G. R. Ibbett would not even bet on the sunrise. The Ifon. G. R. IBBETT: The Minister is the one who gambles. We have seen his gamble with the Eastern Creek Raceway. He has cost this State $63 million or $68 million. But I do not really believe it was him: I think he carried the bag for the Premier. The only time I saw him hand it back was the other day when he said the financial responsibilities for Eastern Creek are those of the Premier. The I-Ion. R. B. Rowland Smith: Is the Hon. G. R. Ibbett coming on 7th April or is he not? The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Mr President- The I-Ion. R. B. Rowland Smith: Answer the question. Are you coming on 7th April or are you not? The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I will have to answer the interjection. I am still awaiting the invitation that I have been promised on at least five occasions. I am still awaiting the tickets the Minister offered me the other day to the ball the people from the raceway are going to hold. There is no doubt that the Minister for Sport and Recreation could well be called a welsher because he does not deliver. I have spoken about the character of the Leader of the House-so much for the character of the Deputy Leader of the House. However, his interjections will not distract me from what I was about to say about Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. The IIon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: No tickets for Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1349

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I do not know whether Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile would accept tickets from a gambler. I hope he would not. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The Hon. G. R. Ibbett would vote for a reduction.

The Hon. G. R. IBBElT I have told Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile that the only time I will ever vote for him is if there is an opportunity to ban smoking and drinking in this House. He will get my vote on that occasion but that is about the only time he will get it, and, after today, that will be with a little reluctance. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile thinks he is going to put his name on a ballot-paper at the next election and people will flock to vote for him. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile will have great difficulty in attracting the votes of workers this time. I suppose that is part of the shonky deal that was done with the Hon. Ted Pickering so far as putting the names of people on the ballot-paper is concerned.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: I do not want the Hon. G. R. Ibbett on the ballot-paper.

The I-Ion. G. R. IBBETf: I have no doubt you would not, and I am about to tell you why you would not. I have worked on polling booths for the last 45 years. I know what goes on and I know what people want. Many people want to know who the candidates are so as not to cast a vote in their favour. Many people ask, "Who is this candidate? I do not want to vote for the Australian Democrats" or "I do not want to vote for Call to Australia" or "I do not want to vote for the Labor Party" or something of that nature.

The Hon. J. C. J. Matthews: The Hon. G. R. Ibbett could always vote for the Liberals.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: The Hon. J. C. J. Matthews used to vote for the Labor Party. He should not talk about Liberals and Labor. I went up to work for him as a member of the Labor Party and he had done a Richard Jones by the time I got there. The Hon. J. C. J. Matthews was the Labor candidate for Bathurst and he jumped the fence. I do not know whether he conned these Government blokes or not but he does not con me, because I know him of old. By the time I got to Bathurst, there was another candidate.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: How many months did it take you to get there?

The Hon. G. R. IBBEIT: You go home. I think the other candidate's name was Connolly. It is a long time ago. I said, "This is not the chemist that I was told we were going to support, his name was Matthews". I knew him because his cousin used to live at Zetland and he gave me the drum about the Hon. 3. C. J. Matthews. I thought he was a great fellow. Nevertheless that is what happened. The Hon. J. C. J. Matthews should not chip in when he is likely to get caught. That was my experience with my old mate, the Hon. J. C. J. Matthews. His memory might be fading as he gets older but there is nothing like forgetting something one does not want to remember. To return to what I was saying-

The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: What about getting back to the bill? 1350 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I have been talking about the bill all the time, other than when the Minister has interjected. If we have a look- The Hon. Elaine Nile: The Hon. G. R. Ibbett is back to us again.

The Won. G. R. IBBETT: Yes, I am back with you, but I think you will want to give consideration to what I am saying. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The Hon. G. R. Ibbett is my publicity officer.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETE I wish I were Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile's publicity officer; I would give him some. If my judgment in politics is of any value, the Call to Australia group will find itself without Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile in this Parliament after the election. I believe he will have to fight all those things I have told the House about and try to get up. He will also have to fight the referendum.

The Won. J. R. Hallam: It will be 6.25 per cent.

The ITon, G. R. IBBETT: I have told Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile that already. I have told him he is on the quota of 15 and not on the other quota. Reverend the Won. F. J. Nile: We will make it retrospective quotas.

The Won. G. R. IBBETT: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile says, "We will make it retrospective quotas". No doubt he would. He is making the legislation retrospective so far as I am concerned. That is what he is about. Of course we have heard the bleatings of the crew on the other side about how they would never make legislation retrospective. In fact that is what they are doing to the three people they will disenfranchise at the next election.

The Won. G. R. IBBETT: I have not finished with Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile yet. As well asall the other little problems that I pointed out, he has a major problem. It is that the referendum will be held on the same day as he hasto try to get elected. It is obvious that the theme will be, "Do you want Fred Nile to run New South Wales?" One only needs a theme to knock a referendum over. Anyone who has studied referendums in this country will realise that the only referendums that are carried are those with universal support. If a referendum does not have universal support, it has very little chance of being carried. The problem will be whether the voters want Fred Nile to run New South Wales. If they vote no, I can predict what the result will be. The referendum will not be approved of by New South Wales voters.

The Won. R. B. Rowland Smith: Do you want to bet?

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I told the Minister that I do not bet. I have some Christian qualities that he probably does not know about. The Minister would never have seen me bet, drink or smoke as I was brought up in a Christian environment. I am not a born-again Christian, but I have always been a Christian. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: We will pray for you. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1351

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile should not pray for me; he should just vote for me. It is fairly obvious that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile cannot make it on his own. People do not want Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to have the balance of power and they will vote no when he stands as a candidate for the upper House. The candidate who appears on the ticket of the Hon. Marie Bignold will be elected. A percentage of Christian-mindedpeople in this State will vote for a Christian candidate, as has been proved by the Call to Australia group. Their choice was not great but they voted for the Call to Australia group. I am sure that when they realise that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile treated the Hon. Marie Bignold in this un-christianway- The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: You are a hypocrite. The Hon. K. W. Reed: I would ask the Minister to retract that statement. The Ilon. G. R. IBBETT: I never ask the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith to retract anything becauseI consider that I am entitled to use his own words when describing him. I have quite a list of things he has called me, and "stupid old man" is one. Every time he calls me something I write it down so that I will be able to say it to him. He has now added another; he has called me a hypocrite. I will save that and call him a hypocrite when I am talking about Eastern CreekRaceway. There is no doubt that the Hon. Marie Bignold will receive a considerable proportion of the Call to Australia vote. She has a fair chance as she was the only Christian candidate to win that ballot. Earlier, when the Hon. R. S. L. Jones was not in the Chamber, I said that people who sit on the crossbenches do not have a universal right to their seats. When people discover the shenanigans of this Government a lot of groups will run at the next election. When women's groups realise that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby helped to knock five women out of the Legislative Council they will exert their right to represent women in this Parliament. They have a very good chance of getting 6 per cent of the vote because a lot more than 6 per cent of the New South Wales population are women. More than 6 per cent of women in New South Wales believe that they have the right to have their own representative in this Parliament. Membersof those groups of women might be elected to sit on the crossbenches once people realise the undemocratic actions of this Government, supportedby the Australian Democrats and the Call to Australia group. It could well be that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones will be very lonely for the next four years, but, as the only Democrat, he would be their leader in this Parliament. It is obvious that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has been looking after himself. He might have wanted to be the leader. [Intemrption]

The Ison. G. R. IBBETT: I did not think of that angle but it could well be that that is what has happened. After the next election we may well see a representative of women's groups in this Chamber. [Interruption] The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: The Hon. Marie Bignold will still be on the crossbenchesas there is no chance of this referendum being accepted by the public. After the next election one of the team of the Hon. Marie Bignold could well be sitting on the position on the crossbenches now occupied by Fred Nile. There could also be representatives from the green movement. 1352 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Hon. J. C. J. Matthews: You are a greenie, are you not, Mick? The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I am a bit of a greenie. The Hon. J. C. J. Matthews: You cannot be on the left and not be a greenie. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I was on the left before greenies were ever thought of. So it could be that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is right. We might see representatives from the green movement in this Chamber. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: What about the worms? The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: If environmentalists are elected to this Chamber to represent the people, I hope they do not spend their time, as the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has done for the past few months, running down to Shellharbour and trying to save the habitat of the worms. That is what he has been up to, yet he continually attacks my good friend- The Hon. E.P. Pickering: On a point of order. I am a very tolerant man but not once this evening has the honourable member come even dangerously close to debating the bill. The hour is late and I ask you to guide him slowly back to the legislation before the House. The Hon. G. R. Ibbett: On the point of order. I have been speaking to the bill before the House. The Hen. E. P. Pickering: What clause? The Hon. G. R. Ibbett: No clause in the bill is worth discussing. They are all crook. I have continually spoken about matters in the bill.

The Hon. G. R. Ibbett: If the Minister believes that the habitat of worms in the Shellharbour area has nothing to do with those areas represented by people in this House, then I am not speaking to the bill. As a member of this House I represent the whole of New South Wales. The Government, through this legislation, is trying to deny me my right to be a member of this House. I have spent the whole of my time debating this bill. The PRESIDENT: Order! I am of the view that the Hon. G. R. Ibbett is on the periphery of the bill. No doubt he will come quickly to the bill. The I-lon. G. R. IBBETT: I will not be quick about it. As I will be losing my seat the Government will hear all about it. I have never been one to jib a fight like the Hon. E. P. Pickering, but that is what will happen. There is no doubt that there will be a different array of members on the crossbenches. This will be brought about by the dishonesty in the legislation which the Leader of the House has threatened those on the crossbenches- The IIon. E. P. Piekering: Nonsense. The IIon. G. R. IBBE'IT: Yes you did. The Independent Commission Against Corruption in due course will bring this out in relation to your legislation. You were dishonest in that you held over the head of members on the crossbenches the threat of 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1353 not proclaiming the legislation. Corruption in this regard could be brought out in another place. The honourable member did not have enough guts to support the motion yesterday. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Nonsense. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: That is not nonsense; that is fact. I refer now to the turnabout by the National Party. The difference between Liberal Party members and National Party members is that the Liberals will fight as individuals but the Nationals will fight asa group. The delay in the introduction of the legislation to the House was caused by a dispute that took place in the Southern Highlands. I am the duty Labor MLC for the Southern Highlands. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: On a point of order. The lower House seat of Southern Highlands has absolutely nothing to do with this bill. I ask the honourable member to move from the periphe~ytowards the centre of the bill-please. The PRESIDENT: Order! Yes, the honourable member cannot discuss that matter.

The Hon. G. R. Ibbett: On the spurious point of order raised by the Leader of the House I point out to you, Mr President, that the Southern Highlands is in the centre of my electorate, the electorate of New South Wales. This bill is trying to knock me off and to deny me the right to represent that area. I do not think the Minister realises what goes on in the outside world. Alan Jones and John Laws agree with me. In a radio broadcast they said that he does not know what goes on in the outside world, that he is tied up with his few dirty little numbers in this place where he can use- The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: Who are the dirty little numbers? The Hon. G. R. Ibbett: You are probably one of them. No, I take that back; you are one of the Nats. There is no doubt that while the Leader of the House is tied up with a number of his dirty little numbers he has forgotten what goes on in the outside world. I ask you to reject the point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: I have already ruled on it.

The IIon. G. R. Ibbett: Thanks, Mr President. I thought I had to convince you. I know what a fair man you are. The IIon. E. P. Pickering: Could you tell me how you ruled, Mr Presidcnt?

The PRESIDENT: Yes, I ruled that the honourable member should not be discussing the Southern Highlands. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Mr President, when the National Party realised that it would lose one out of its six- The IIon. JudithJakins: We have seven.

The IIon. G. R. IBBETT: One out of its seven. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: Make up your mind, you silly twit. 1354 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Are you in the Nats or are you in the Libs? There are seven National Party members including the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith- The Hon. Franca Arena: Who lives in Bellevue Hill. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Who is the Bellevue Hill grazier. That is not having a very good effect on some members of the National Party either. The National Party was going to lose one of its seven, the Call to Australia was going to lose one of three, the Labor Party was going to lose one of its 21 and the Libs were not going to lose any. We hear the bleatings of the Leader of the House about the mandate that the coalition Government had for the bill. I suggest that it had no mandate, because the proposition that was put before the people of New South Wales was reduction of the upper House from 45 to 40 members. But it was found that the worthy Liberal Party Whip, the Hon. Beryl Evans, was one that was in for the chop. Our worthy Whip, the Hon. K. J. Enderbury, was also in for the chop. Apparently a Liberal Party member is worth three members of the other parties on the analysis of the Leader of the House. I think the Minister would not allow the Hon. Beryl Evans to be knocked out because he needed the numbers so that he would not get the heave ho. The so-called mandate the Government had was quickly forgotten about. I have read of late- The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Is that possible? The Hon. G. R. IBBm You are only a simple engineer; you would not know. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Humble engineer. The Hon. G. R. IBBm A simple engineer, you said. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: No, humble. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT. If it was a simple, humble engineer, okay. Giving the Hon. Beryl Evans the chop would have caused too much ruckus, Mr President, because she was already lined up for your job. Poor old Max Willis does not know whether he will be here or not. He made a valiant effort with his fairy tale the other day to try to secure his position. He did not do too well in the speech. I do not think he convinced the Hon. R. S. L. Jones of anything and I do not think he convinced Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile of anything. I think Max's number might be up. I will have more to say about him at a later stage. He suggested that any of the three people who will get knocked out might wish to resign to contest the next eleetion. What a hide this man has. He talks ofbeing a democrat, and how democracywill reign when this matter is put to a referendum. He suggests that a member who has been elected by the people of New South Wales should have to resign in order to contest an eleetion of this State. That is what he said to theHon. Marie Bignold, to the Hon. Judith Jakins and to me. He had the gall to suggest that we should resign because we could probably get the numbers from here, from there and from somewhere else. I point out to the Hon. M. F. Willis that I am an elected member of this Parliament. My term expires in 1995 or 1996, whenever it may be. I shall be in this House until then irrespective of whether he is. Let us be clear when we talk about what is happening. I do not know whether the National Party does its sums correctly. I thought it could, but the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby knocked it on the head when she made the National Party members 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL realise their position in this House. Perhaps those members should read her speech in Hansard and consider their position. They have left Duncan Gay in charge and he has messed it up. The National Party members are in a much stronger position than the Liberals would have them believe, and will be in a much stronger position in this House after the next election, because the Hon. Ted Pickering has done a deal with them to give them a extra space on the election ticket. I suggest that perhaps the National Party members are not so dumb after all. Any party whose overallvote in this State at the next election will drop from 9 per cent or 10 per cent to about 4 per cent or 5 per cent, yet can demand of this upper House and get from the Minister what they received, has achieved something pretty good. Apparently Ted is not a real good negotiator. He can twist arms and bully people but he cannot negotiate. It appears that the National Party-with its vote of 4 per cent or 5 per cent or whatever it may receive overall at the next election; probably less than one quota for this House-will finish up with at least three of the seven positions in this House. That will all be due to the great champion of numbers, the Hon. Ted Pickering. As I said, you would not have him run a message for you. The speech tonight by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones was not bad. It contained some very good points. It is unfortunate that towards the end when Richard started to wheel his own barrow-and he did that pretty quickly-he said that he could not accept the responsibility of being a politician; that he made the decision that he would be looked upon as having to do the job of the rest of the members of this House. All I can say to him is that we are used to him jumping the fence. He is one of the best hurdlers I have come across. I think he will continue to be a hurdler, because he has no other choice. If he has to wheel and deal with the Hon. Ted Pickering, with Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and with his own leader, of course he will have to go forward and back off and do all sorts of things. But he should not say to this House that he is doing that with honour, because you cannot do those things with honour. Tonight the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby told the House what an honourable person she is, and we all accepted that. But I point out that only last night she told this House one minute that she would support something, and the next minute she voted against it. It is fairly obvious that we cannot expect from the Australian Democrats much-other than the wheeling and dealing that they have gone on with for so long. I suppose that all you can do is to be grateful when they support you, and to swear at them under your breath when they do not. That is what happens on both sides of the House, which is most unfortunate. It is not in the best interests of the people of New South Wales for them to be manipulated by minor parties. They had the right to try, and no doubt they have been very successful, but I suggest that it is not in the best interests of New South Wales for the minor parties to control this House. We will achieve that result when the referendum question is defeated, whenever the referendum is held. Then we will realise that thecrossbenches are not that important in any event, and should be treated as such. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: Except when we help you with industrial relations legislation. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: If the honourable member had been in the House, she would have heard me say that you can be thankful when they support you and swear at them under your breath when they do not. If the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby believes that it 1356 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 is not her will to support the industrial relations legislation, which is very important legislation to the Labor Party, she should exercise her will. But she should not try to deal with me as shedeals with Ted Pickering, because that just will not work. I am made a little differently and at this stage have less responsibility than Ted Pickering when he is dealing with her. I have greater latitude to deal with her, and I let her know that. Nevertheless, we will not have to worry about the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby after the next election.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: I heard you say that.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: If you heard me say it, perhaps you should have been in the Chamber listening. Your place is to be in this Housewhen important debateis taking place. I had not quite completed what Iwas saying about the National Party. Again we find that the National Party is in a minority in the coalition and has to do a dcgree of manoeuvring if it is to continue to represent its constituents. As I said, there will probably be a reduced number of National Party membersof this Parliament after the next election, both in this House and in the lower House. Of course, what did we sce? We saw the very thing happening that we saw early in the piece when a number of the National Party members made statementsto the press that they would not support the bill. The Hon. Judith Jakins in a statement indicated that she believed the people of the western districtsof New South Wales had elected her to this Parliament. Once she is no longer in this Parliament there will not be a representative of the National Party in the western districts of this State. The Hon. J. J. Doohan, who leaves the Parliament at the next election, will no longer be there to represent the western districts. The only representativewould have been the Hon. Judith Jakins.

The IIon. D. J. Gay: And also our new member for Broken Hill after the next election.

The IIon. G. R. IBBETT: Bob Smith represents the eastern suburbs. I do not know how manysheep with four legs they have out there. Of course we hear from the Hon. D. J. Gay that he will win the seat of Broken Hill. I have news for him: I do not think he will. Either the Hon. JudithJakins was worked on to support her party on the basis of loyalty and to forget the people she represents in the western division or, alternatively, she was given an inducement to change her mind. The word inducement has been mentioned on many occasions in the past day or so. There are few words one could use that would not upset someone. I could have saidbribe but I am not prepared to say that because I do not think one could bribe that lady. I believe that some inducement was given to her to change her mind. That inducement was probably the fourth positionon that paper.

The I-Ion. R. S. L. Jones: The seventh.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: The seventh position on that paper? The Won. R. S. L. Jones knows, does he? Was he in that deal too? It was either the seventh position on that paper or, alternatively, she was going to be looked after if the Governmentwas elected.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: She may be number one. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1357

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: When I look at the people lining up for the National Party group, I wouldsay that the Hon. JudithJakins will have a difficult time in winning any of these three positions on the ballot-paper. Perhaps she should start to reconsider whether she should let down her people in the western districtsof New South Wales, or whether she should vote against the bill and indicate to the people who elected her to this House that she is loyal to them. The Hon. J. J. Doohan: Why do you think she will have a job winning preselection? The IIon. G. R. IBBETT: The Hon. J. J. Doohan asks me why do I think she will have a difficult job winning preselection. The only time I will know if the Won. Judith Jakins has won preselectionis the day she resigns from this House to contest the ballot, whenever that may be. That is the only time I, or any one else, will be sure that she has been given a slot on that ticket. The Hon. D. J. Gay: She does not have to resign to contest a ballot. The Ilon. G. R. IBBETT: I will be pleased if the Hon. D. J. Gay and the Hon. J. J. Doohan can inform this House that the Hon. Judith Jakins will have a winnable spot on that National Party or coalition ticket. The I-Ion. J. J. Doohan: There is no assurance, but she is well known. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: If they can give me that assurance thatwill put my mind at ease and I will then know the inducement for her to change her mind. The IIon. Judith Jakins: Do not talk about me when I am gone, Mick. The Ilon. G. R. IBBE'IX The Hon. Judith Jakins indicates that I was talking about her while shewas not present. I indicate that I did not say anything bad about her. The I-Ion. Judith Jakins: I knew you would not.

The IIon. G. R. IBBETT: I am sure she knows that to be the case. I indicate to her that I am assured by two of her colleagues who hold prominent positions in the National Party that she is going to be looked after on the ticket. The Hon. Judith Jakins: No, I am not. The IIon. D. J. Gay: On a point of order. At no point during this debate did a member of the National Party say that the Hon. JudithJakins would be looked after on the ticket. I ask the Hon. G. R. Ibbett to withdraw those comments. The IIon. G. R. IBBETT: If the Hon. D. J. Gay did not say that, I will be happy to withdraw. Of course, my old mate George Brenner took care of him the other night. Do not let us worry too much about the Hon.D. J. Gay. The I'Ion. R.S. L. Jones: Who will replace Judyif she resigns before the election?

The Hon. G. R. IBBE'IX I have no idea who is next on their ticket. That is not for me to say but for the National Party or the coalition parties. That will be number eight on the ticket, as the bill now stands. It will be a very short life. If the next person is nominated and takes a seat, that person will be there for four years when the 1358 COUNCIL 20 March, 1993 referendum is being held. Apparently, at last the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has got on to it that the only way that any of those three people can contest that election, if they wish, is to resign from this House and contest the ballot. The Hon. Judith Jakins: Not to contest the preselection.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: The honourable member is saying something about contesting the preselection ballot.

The EIon. Judith Jakins: If I do not get on the ticket, I will not resign, will I?

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: If the honourable member had been present when I was speaking earlier, she would have heard me to say that the only time we will know and I will be sure that she is on the ticket is when she resigns from this House. That is when I saw the heads noddingand I thought the earlier statement I had made was correct.

The Hon. Judith Jakins: Well, I have not resigned.

The EIon. Judith Walker: No, not yet but the honourable member will.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: That is what I am saying. The only time I will know that she has a place on the ticket is when she resigns. So there is no doubt about it. I also said in the absence of the Hon. Judith Jakins that a great number of people putting their names forward would make it difficult for her to get that spot. I could advise the honourable member that, so far as her position is concerned, she is safe for that four years anyhow,because no sane person in the State of New South Wales will support that shonky referendum.

The I-Ion. Judith Jakins: I thought I would just take out some insurance.

The Hon. G, R. IBBETT: The honourable member will not even have to take out any insurance. Take my word that will not happen. It is important that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile should listen to what I am about to say as Iwish now to deal with the letter that I think most honourable members received from Dr Malcolm Mackerras. Dr Mackerras has never been a great favouriteof mine. I always thought he was a red hot Lib, but apparentlyeven if my assumption is correct, he is also a very honest person who is willing to express his professional feeling about this bill. For those memberswho have not read the letter-and I know a number of them do not read their mail-he began the letter by calling Mr Greiner a cheap cheat. This letter is not from someone on the workshop floor who may be prone to calling people names. Dr Mackerras is a most respected political analystin this country. He called the Premier of this State a cheap cheat. I was rather surprised-not unhappy-when I read the letter, because it probably strengthened the backbones of some of my colleagues when they read what he had to say. What he had to say was not what many people believe this bill is about. Honest people would have to agree with him when he talks about malice being shown towards the Hon. Marie Bignold if they knew what had happened in this House in the past few years. There has been malice shown towards thishonourable member whowas prepared to stand up and do her job. That is why she has been shafted from this place. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1359

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I am pleased that both the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones share my view that the referendum will not be carried. Perhaps I should have said there has been a malicious attempt to get rid of the Hon. Marie Bignold because she stood for what she believed was right. I have heard much talk over the years about traditions and what should happen in this House. When I first became a member of this place I was told that the Legislative Council was not like the other place, that we behaved somewhat differently and that this House had great traditions. After the way this bill has been introduced I am going to find it considerably difficult to believe in those great traditions. I hope I am able to discover them. I will certainly question anyone who speaks to me of the traditions of this House. I will certainly question honourable members who have taken part in this debate. I hope, in that regard, my feelings are wrong in the long term. Malice of the greatest order was used towards Marie Bignold. Dr Mackerras pointed out in his paper that an examination of the voting system in this State reveals that the 15 members who were elected in 1984 were elected evenly, whether it be the President with a massive primary vote, or me on the other end of the ticket, with a massive preference vote. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: I am sure your family voted for you.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: No, my family were told not to break the ticket. I have seen people defeated because the ticket has been broken. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: So your family did not vote for you? The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I did not vote for myself. I voted the President as number one. The Won. Virginia Chadwick: You broke factions?

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: No, I am never in a faction. So far as I am concerned once a decision has been made that is it. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: But while the decision is being made you are in a faction. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: So is the Minister, who should be honest for once. We are told that the Minister is the leader of the left faction. Ishould have thought that the Hon. M. F. Willis would have been the leader of the right but I am told he is on the left too, so I do not know what is conservative and what is Liberal. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: We do not have factions.

The Hon. G. R. IBBE'IX Do not tell me that there are no factions. I have seen the way you have knocked off the leaders in this House to get the job. Lloyd Lange was knocked off and Max Willis was knocked off. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: I hope you are not accusing me.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I am not blaming you for that because he was one of your factions. He helped you get into office. I know as much about the factions in the Liberal Party as I know about the factions in the Labor Party. I have always been a person of principle and I have not changed. I was told long ago that if I wanted to go anywhere 1360 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 in the Labor Party I should quickly join the right wing. Had I joined the right-wing I probably would not have been a member of this House; I would have been a member of the Federal Parliament. The Hon. E. P. Piekering: Did you join the left? The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I was always in the left. I was one of the originals. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: That is why you were on the bottom of the ticket. The Hon. G. R. IBBEm No, I was not on the bottom of the ticket. You are a dumbo so far as numbers are concerned. I was not on the bottom of the ticket at all. People who were on the bottom of the ticket are still outside looking in. I am inside looking out. There is certainly no chance of me being in any other position for the next four years. For the next four years I will be here and I will be giving the Government plenty of stick. It may well be that the Leader of the Government in this House will not be here after the election. He is on record as having said that he would never again sit on the Opposition side of this Chamber. When I look around at the faces of honourable members I begin to wonder who will not be here after the election. It may well be that the three members who are in for the chop will see out everyone else. There is no doubt that what Malcolm Mackerras said in his letter to members of Parliament is true: Fred Nile is hellbent on getting rid of Marie Bignold. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: I had nothing to do with it. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: The honourable member claims that he had nothing to do with it. I regard him as an honest Christian so I have to accept what he says. Apparently, however, he knows not what he does. If Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile believes to be correct what he just told me, he should vote against the bill. Should he vote against the bill he will not be regarded by the community as a person who holds a high degree of malice for the Hon. Marie Bignold and is trying to get her out of this House. The honourable member should vote against the bill to save poor Marie, poor Judith and poor Mick. By doing so he would save the State a considerable amount of money, because I believe that not even this Government would be stupid enough to go to the people without having what it wants. The honourable member should demonstrate to the community that he has thrown the doors of Call to Australia open to welcome back Marie Bignold as a Christian member of his group. In that way he may have some chance of retaining his position in this Chamber. I give that advice to the honourable member for his consideration. On 24th March, 1984, 15 members were elected to serve in this Chamber. That is just a few days short of seven years. The Hon. E. P. Piekering: When will your seven years be up?

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: To answer the interjection of the Leader of the Government: next Sunday, 24th March, will be the seventh anniversary of my election to this Chamber. If he thinks he can bully me by saying that I will not see out seven years, he has another think coming. Irrespective of what he is able to do, seven years will be up on Sunday next. But that anniversary does not matter a great deal to me. I want to see out 12 years in this Parliament. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: It is just a matter of getting back on the ticket. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1361

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT. It is not a matter of getting back on the ticket at all. It is a matter of honouring the will of the people of this State. I was duly elected with a full quota to represent the people of New South Wales in the same way as the Leader of the Government was elected and every other member of this Chamber was elected. In any event, whatever happens will make no difference; I shall be here for the next term of the Parliament. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: God willing. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: It is not a matter of God being willing. If it is a matter of God's will, I shall speak with the reverend. I certainly will not speak to you; you are only a simple engineer. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: A humble engineer. The IIon. G. R. IBBETT: A simple, humble engineer. Malcolm Mackerras was right when he said that the coalition-the Premier in particular-was a cheat, so far as this legislation is concerned. It is retrospective legislation. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Nonsense. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: It is not nonsense. I repeat for the benefit of members on the Government side of the House that they are supporting retrospective legislation. The IIon. E. P. Pickering: Nonsense. The 1Ion. G. R. IBBETT: I repeat: members on the Government side of the House are supporting retrospective legislation. I repeated that assertion for a specific purpose: I want it to appear tomorrow in Hansard so that should it be necessary at some future time I will be able to remind the Leader of the Government of what he said on 20th March, 1991. Malcolm Mackerras did not refer only to Nick Greiner. He also spoke of the devilry of Fred Nile. The Hon. Elaine Nile: The honourable member is mistaken. Matthew Moore wrote that. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: That appeared in an article written by Matthew Moore in the Sydney Morning Herald--one of my friends at that paper.

The 1Ion. G. R. IBBETT: I apologise to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and Malcolm Mackerras.

Reverend theHon. I?. J. Nile: It was the capitalist press-the right-wing capitalist press. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile thought the Sydney Morning Herald was all right when the born-again Christian was in charge, but now that he has gone the honourable member has no time for it. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile described the newspaper as the capitalist press. I describe it as the Sydney Morning Herald-the oldest newspaper in New South Wales, with traditions as old as this House. In an article in that newspaper on 23rd February Matthew Moore wrote that "Bignold may fall to the Nile devilry". I do not know what Matthew Moore meant by his use of the word "devilry". 1362 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

Reverend the Hon.F. J. Nile: He will find out in court later when he is sued. The IIon. G. R. IBBE'IX The honourable member says that Matthew Moore will find out in court. I do not know whether Moore has ever been in a court but the honourable member ought to have been. I know that he or somebody paid a considerable amount of compensation for something that he said-and it was not Matthew Moore but Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. Somethingis wrong if one has to run to court to get satisfaction in a defamation suit. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: What about free speech? I never mentioned his name. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I am amazed that the honourable Leaderof the House is being defamed by something that he himself said. I cannot understand that. The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sir Adrian Solomons): Order! The honourable member must containhis remarks to the bill. I can understand what he says with respect to interjections by the Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile but he is now going outside the terms of the bill. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I could not resist when I saw the smile on his face when he realised that he might be in trouble as well. I return to the aspects of the bill that were presented by Dr Malcolm Mackerras. He gave indications to honourable members to whom he sent the bill about which members would go out in 1988. He named the members who would stay and those of the 1988 group who would go after eight years. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile bleated about the Hon. Elaine Nile being one of those who would go out.

Reverend the Hon.F. J. Nile: That is right. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: There is no doubt that it is right, but Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile ought not bleat about it. He only has to vote against the bill and that will not happen. What Dr Malcolm Mackerras saidin his article is in some respects true. He said that the 1988 group was somewhat different- Reverend the Hon.F. J. Nile: No different. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: -in that the signal had been given by the Greiner Government- Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: And by the Unsworth Government, in its policy speech. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: The Unsworth Government did not give the signal in a policy speech. Never mind the honourable member who is trying to even the score with the Unsworth Government. The Unsworth Government might have tested the water, unbeknown to me. Reverend the Hon.F. J. Nile: It made a statement. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: It was not contained in any of the policy documents presented by the Unsworth Government. Reverend the Hon.F. J. Nile: I dispute that. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1363

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile would have us believea somewhat different position. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: No different.

The I-lon. G. R. IBBETT: It is a somewhat different positionbecause the Greiner Government indicated it would do something about the upper House if it were elected in 1988. At least that brought to the attention of that group that something could well happen duringthe time of their term in this House. What the Greiner Government said prior to its election, once it had altered the proposal to 42, was untrue. The Greiner Government, prior to the election, was not concerned about that but about something else. It changed its attitude and running tactics and for that reason mandate for the bill. It is easy to believe that once the Government discovered that one of their favourite members, the Hon. Beryl Evans, was going to be knocked out, it would not allow that and altered the proposed 40 to 42. That gives the lie to the intentions of the coalition as to what it was on about in this House. The Government intends to cheat the people of New South Wales by cheating three members out of their positions to get at one member.

The 1Ion. Marie Bignold: Sorry about that.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETE The Hon. Marie Bignold need not be sorry about anything but I think there is something for the likes of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services to be sorry about, in trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Parliament and of the people of New South Wales. Mackerras was spot-on when he started to complain bitterly of the actions of the Dowd-Pickering bodgie bill.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: I did not.

The IIon. G. R. IBBETT. You just told me.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Yes, that is right, but on behalf of the Premier.

The Hon. G. R. IBBE'IT: The Minister for Police and Emergency Services just told me that the Attorney Generalwas the prime mover behind the bill. Mackerras was awake to what the Dowd-Pickering group were up to with the bill. They intended to knock out the Hon. Marie Bignold because they could not stand her questioning their legislation or the thought of her probably havingthe balance of power in this Parliament after the next election. Honourable members should not assume that the balance of power will be the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and others in this Chamber; it could well be the Hon. Marie Bignold, with the support of others who sit on the crossbenches. Any member who has studied the proposal realises that the Democrats and the Call to Australia group will not have it on their own after the next election. The Leader of the Government in this House was desperate to get rid of the Hon. Marie Bignold. Apparently those who were advising him told him that it was vital that he get rid of her in any way that he could. He was told that he could get rid of as many members as he could, so long as he made sure that she went. The Leader of the Government was the willing-

The Hon. G. Brenner: Hatchet man. COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: That is a good term. I was about to say that he was a willing wheeler and dealer, but a hatchet man is probably a better description of a bully boy. It is probably a better description in view of what has been done in an effort to throw the Hon. MarieBignold out of this House. It is fairly obvious that the Leader of the Government intendedto carry out that task. Apparently it does not upset him to do so. He seems to be carrying it out with a fair degree of glee. I have never heard him express anysorrow about the honourable memberleaving. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile expressed to me his regrets about my leaving. I do not need his sorrow, becauseI know what politics are all about.

Reverend the Iion. F. J. Nile: I thought you were an orphan being neglected. The IIon. G. R. IBBETT: I have told the honourable memberbefore that I have always been a Christian. I didnot need to be born again. I probably am an orphan in the true sense because both my mother and father have passed away. However, they passed away in fairly advanced years. Theydid not leave me, as some kids are left, in early life. So I was fortunate in that regard. Though strictly speakingI am an orphan, I have other people who look after me. The Iion. E. P. Pickering: You have had me looking after you. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I do not think the Leader of the Government is such a bad bloke outside politics. It upsets me to attack him; I do not like to attack him because I do not think he is such a bad fellow. I do not like to attack the Minister for Sport and Recreation,but he always leads with his chin. Thereis no doubt that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile was willing, if not as a participant thenas someone on the sidelines, to see the Hon. Marie Bignold kicked out of this House. I have no doubt that he was part of the conspiracyto have her kicked out. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Therewas no conspiracy. I have told you that.

The Non. G. R. IBBETT: I thought the honourable membersaid that he was part of the conspiracy. In any case, it appears to me that there is a conspiracy; it appcars to the person who wrote this letter that something is not right. One does not call the Premier of the State a cheat, otherwise one might be sued. The Leader of the Government proposesto sue Barrie Unsworth for something that the Leader of the Government said. I have not worked that out yet. The EIon. E. P. Pickering: Something Barriesaid. The IIon. G. R. IBBETT: Barrie did not say anything; he was not even here. The I-Ion. E. P. Pickering: Read the paper.

The I-lon. G. R. IBBETT: I read the paper. I have acopy of it here. Earlier I read it out to the Houseto give an indication of the sort of person who presented this bill. I am sure the Minister heard me reading that article. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile was well and truly part ofthe conspiracy to kick out the Hon. Marie Bignold, aswas evidenced by the chantings of the honourable member whenthe Hon. Jim Cameron contractedhis unfortunate illness. It has always been my belief that the Hon. Jim Cameron played a very fine part in the debates in this House. In fact, he was a very able debater, even though he is a Liberal. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: I even managed to get him to vote for the Labor Party a couple of times.

The I-Ion. G. R. IBBETT: I do not know how the honourable member managed that. He had better give the Leader of the Government a lesson or two in that regard. When Jim Cameron was on the doorstep of death he decided that it was in the best interests of his family to resign from his position in this House. I imagine that is the best thing he could have done. That is probably the reason he is still alive today. Though he resigned from this place in the most unfortunate circumstances, he does not then have the right to suggest to the person who filled the casual vacancy under the terms of the law of this State, which the Government wants to change, that she should vacate the position now that he considers he is well enough to resume that position once again. Obviously he is well enough to resume his position as a member of this Chamber, because he has contested about a dozen Liberal Party preselection ballots. He has even run as a Liberal candidate on the South Coast. The Hon. Marie Bignold: But he could not have got in.

The I-Ion. G. R. IBBETT: I am reminded that another three people on that ticket would have had the choice, had they so desired, to fill that position. It is fairly obvious that malice built up in the mind of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, rightly or wrongly-and I consider quite wrongly. It is terrible that that should happen to a Christian. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: You find the malice. The IIon. G. R. IBBETT: The malice is instanced in the honourable member's support for this very bill that we are debating. The honourable member was willing to support the bully boy tactics of the Leader of the Government in the hope of achieving an aim that he could not have achieved in any other way. I well remember the fight between the honourable member and the Hon. Marie Bignold that was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Daily Telegraph, the Dai& Mirror and the Sun newspapers. The honourable member was not crooked on the Sydney Morning Herald at that time because it was giving him some publicity. The honourable member used that publicity to the utmost. I read an article, which I did not believe, to the effect that the honourable member was in touch with God in relation to the position of the Hon. Jim Cameron. Reverend the I-Ion.F. J. Nile: God wanted him back in the Parliament. I believe that. That is why he restored him to good health and strength.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Unfortunately he joined the Liberal Party, not the honourable member's party. The malice displayed by the honourable member has been evident since that time. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: No malice, just sadness.

The I-Ion. G.R. IBBETT: I hope that is what it is, but that is not the way it appears. If it were sadness, the honourable member as a Christian would do something about correcting the perception. I have advised the honourable member on the method of correcting it. He should vote against the bill to ensure that the Hon. Marie Bignold and the other two poor individuals who have been caught in the pincer movement remain members of this House. The honourable member should vote against the bill, welcome 1366 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 the Hon. Marie Bignold backintohis party and display the Christian faith that we believe he has. I believe it is to get rid of the Hon. Marie Bignold that the Call to Australia group supports the bill. The Hon. Elaine Nile: Wind it up, Mick; we have heard it all before. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: There is no chance of my winding it up; I have another two or three hours to go yet. Often it is difficult to accept the truth and we have just heard the Hon. Elaine Nile ask me to wind it up, saying that she has heard it all before. She is tired of hearing the truth. If Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is unwilling to accept that advice I have given him, perhaps he will take the advice I am about to give him: if he feels that Jim Cameron is needed, that it is the will of God that he come back to this House, perhaps he should give him the number one position on the ticket on the next occasion. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: On a point of order. The honourable member will not find a clause in the bill that deals with the Hon. Jim Cameron or advice to the Call to Australia group. The honourable member is trivialising the House and I believe it is about time that you, Mr President, brought him backto the bill. The Hon. G. R. Ibbett: On the point of order. The Hon. Jim Cameron has a great deal to do with this bill. He was one of those people- The Hon. E. P. Pickering: He is not mentioned anywhere in it. The Hon. G. R. Ibbett: And neither am I. The Hon. Jim Cameron was one of the number elected in 1984, with 166,000votes. If that has nothing to do with the bill, perhaps the Minister should withdraw it. It has everything to do with those who were elected in 1984 and in 1988. The Hon. Jim Cameron was the first elected and the only one elected for the Call to Australia party. If that has nothing to do with the bill, there is nothing in the bill on which to speak. Of course it has everything to do with the bill. The PRESIDENT: Order! I am sure that the Hon. G. R. Ibbett has concluded his comments about the Hon. Jim Cameron. I suggest to the honourable member that there is plenty of meat in the bill to get his teeth into and he might do so. The I-Ion. G. R. IBBE'IX Mr President, if you do not wish me to mention that gentleman's name, I will refer to him in the position in which he was elected in 1954. He was the second last person elected; I was the third last. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: No, that is not so. Hewas the second last declared but not the second last elected. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The last three elected are the last three going. The Won. G. R. IBBETT: The last three persons elected were me at 13, the person about whom I have been speaking at 14, and the Hon. Marie Bignold at 15. The Hon. G. Brenner: No, the Hon. Judith Jakins at 15. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I am sony, the Hon. Judith Jakins at 15 and the Hon. Marie Bignold filling the only place the Call to Australia group was successful with in 1984. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL

The Hon. R. S. L Jones: That was the mechanical order, not the actual order.

The Hon. G. R. IBBE'IX That is the way they were declared elected. If it was not the way they were elected-and, of course, Malcolm Mackerras argues that is the case-that cannot be determined. He could not say that I was not one of the first 12 elected because no one can say that, now that the papers are no longer available. Malcolm Mackerras suggests that with the massive amount of primary votes that the Call to Australia candidate received, he would probably have been beyond 12. If Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile wants to solve his problem with the candidate elected for his group in 1984,he could stand down and give that candidate the number one position. That candidate would probably have a better chance of being elected than would Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, yet now that candidate is no longer from Call to Australia but is a Liberal.

The Australian Democrats had adifferent agenda. I believe they bear no malice towards the Hon. Marie Bignold, but I believe they had material gains to make if the Hon. Marie Bignold and the other two people were knocked out of this House. There is no doubt, on the admission of one of the Democrats, that with the passage of this bill, the Government would proclaim certain legislation but only on the basis that this legislation was passed. I have already said that the question of whether political parties have the right to hold people to ransom in the way the Leader of the House has held the Australian Democrats to ransom in this House will probably be dealt with in another place. There is no doubt the Australian Democrats do not have an agenda of malice towards the Hon. Marie Bignold, but she was one of those to be dealt with in order that this shonky bill could be put through this House so that the coalition parties would gain a perceived advantage.

It will be seen that the Democrats had something to gain by supporting the Constitution (Legislative Council)Amendment Bill. Honourable members have heard the explanation the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby gave tonight. Her speech writer would have had great difficulty compiling her speech, because it said nothing about the bill. She gave some historical facts about the thoughts of people on various pieces of legislation that had been dealt with over theyears. I hope she is listening, because she will accuse me of speaking about her speech while she is absent. The honourable member's conscience was probably eased if she thought that in some way she could justify her actions in respect of three members being knocked out of this House, two of them women. Over the years she has said she would support the election of women to Parliament in order that their voice could be heard. I hope that what she has said tonight will help her in some way. Earlier in the debate I said that perhaps National Party members should heed the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby's analysis of the numbers and the advantages that the National Party appears to have gained in the deals it has done with the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. At some stage the Australian Democrats have to face up in the greater community to the fact that they have supported a shonky bill in order to get the name of their party on the ballot-paper. I have heard that public funding is to be jacked up. I do not know whether that was part of the deal.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: The honourable member has read the deal. It is on the record. COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Is it part of the deal that the Government intends to jack up public funding by $100,000 a year? If that were so it would provide an incentive to support the shonky bill. The Hon. Marie Bignold: It sounds like bribery. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I am not willing to say that. The Non. J. C. J. Matthews: The honourable member should have a yarn to the Hon. J. W. Shaw about that. He would know more about it than the honourable member. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: The honourable member has said that the Hon. J. W. Shaw would know more about the shonky deals done on the Government side of the table than I would. It may be that he would know more about the shonky deals. Because I am a trusting person, I always see the good in people, never the bad-even in the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. The Iion. E. P. Pickering: I would not have noticed. The Iion. G. R. IBBETT: I have been nothing but nice to the Minister. At some stage the Australian Democrats will have to face the electorate and explain why they are supporting the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill. The person with the hardest job will not be the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby; it will be the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. He told the media that he was not willing to support the shonky bill, not willing for the Hon. Marie Bignold to be thrown out of the House because persons hold malice towards her. I have a copy of a newspaper article in which he is reported as saying that. I heard him say also that perhaps reporters put other slants on things. I read the article some days ago and have not seen a retraction. It is fairly obvious that while things were going well the article indicated his position. The article was not complimentary of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. It read, "Pickering stumbles over Jones firm foot". It did not stay firm for long. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: I remember that article. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Does the Minister agree that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones informed the community that he was taking a stand of principle and did not intend to vote to allow the shonky bill to go through the Legislative Council? The Hon. R. S. L. Jones believed that he was in some way responsible to the Government, that he had been party to a signed letter. It is the first time that I have heard of a political party signing an agreement with another political party. That stinks of no trust at all. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: They did not sign a letter. The IIon. G. R. IBBETT: Or agreement. It shows no trust between the two groups. It is fair to say that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones had his tongue in one side of his check when he made that statement to the reporter. If he did not make the statement, he did not correct it. He allowed the story to go out so that his supporters could see that he was a person of principle and wise enough to recognise the crooked deal and the cheating and was not willing to have anything to do with it. Apparently, though, he felt he had no alternative but to cave in because he was being held to ransom by the coalition parties in this House. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1369

The Hon. J. C. J. Matthews: Why does the honourable member not cave in? The Won. G. R. IBBETT: I shall about 3 o'clock. I have a lot to go through yet. The Government is trying to throw me out of this House. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: What about the parliamentary staff? What about the workers?

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Mr President, I seek your permission to reply to that interjection, "Whatabout the workers?" Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The Hansard workers, the staff. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Why does the honourable member not think about them?

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I have continually said in this House that I think the deal that the workers get from the people who run this place is shocking. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: The honourable member is not helping.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Something should be done to pay those people overtime for the work they do for which they are not paid. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile should see that they get it. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The honourable member is abusing them.

The Hon. G. R. IBBEIT: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has never done anything for the worker in the whole time I have been a member of this House. He has knocked the workers. I will not be accused of abusing the worker by a person who has never done anything for the worker. The Government should see to it that the workers are properly compensated or are given proper shift conditions. The type of interjection made by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile will not stop me.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The honourable member is filibustering.

The Won. G. R. IBBETT: I will give the honourable member a filibuster if he wants one. If Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile or the Minister for Police and Emergency Services wants to adjourn the debate, the matter is in their hands. I am willing to continue until I finish, whether that be at 3 o'clock this morning or 6 o'clock tomorrow morning. The Minister is trying to deny me my democratic rights in this Parliament.

The Ilon. E. P. Pickering: I am not.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: The Minister is trying to throw me out of this Parliament, and I will defend myself. In his contribution Reverend the Mon. F. J. Nile said that the Labor Party had done nothing to defend my position. I said to him then that I did not require my colleagues to defend my position, as I could do that ably myself. That is what 1shall do, irrespective oftheinterjectionsby thosewho have malice towards the Hon. Marie Bignold. I will defend my right to be a member of this House having been elected by the people of New South Wales. Even if National Party members do not want to defend the rights of their member, I shall defend my rights and shall try to 1370 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 defend the rights of the other two members involved. Do not let it be thought that the snide interjectionsby Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile will stop me. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has never helped a worker in his life. Reverend the Won. F. J. Nile: The honourable member has abused the workers. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: What has Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile ever done for the workers? Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: A lot. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Tell us one thing? Undoubtedly-

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. M. F. Willis): Order! [Interruption] The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! I bring to the attention of honourable members that the level of interjection has reached a stagewhere I am unable to hear the Hon. G. R. Ibbett. It would facilitate the honourable member's dealing with this billif members ceased interjecting and taking him off into byways. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I do not have time to go into byways, because I have a lot lo say. I thank you for your help in that regard. Anyone who has taken the trouble to read the submission by Dr Mackerras will agree that what is being done in this House is undemocratic. Three members of this House supposedly are different from 12 other members elected on the same day. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: They are in a different lodge. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I do not know whether that is so. I have not tried that yet. Dr Mackerras realised something was wrong immediately he read the legislation and he did something about it. He screamed that it was crook and that what the Government was doing was so crook that he would campaign against the referendum if it went to the people in the way suggested by the Government inthe shonky bill that has been introduced. Dr Mackerras said that he has spoken to leaders in his profession and asked their opinion of the bill. They agree that it is crook--croaker than Rookwood. But the Governmentis prepared to push onwith it. Dr Mackerras' summationindicates (hat he will oppose the referendum on the basis that it is cheating. The I-Ion. K. J. Enderbury: It is a fraud. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Undoubtedly it is a fraud, and he called it that. Alan Jones, a prominent member of the Liberal Party, said- The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: He is not a member of the Liberal Party. The Hon. G. R. IBBE'IX He is a prominent member of the Liberal Party and was the Liberal Party candidate for Earlwood. He said that the Hon. E. P. Pickering had a hide as thick as that of a rhinoceros. He wondered how long the Premier could put up with him. I agree that his hide is that thick Others in the community share that view. No one has telephoned Alan Jones to contradict that comment. The Minister does not have many mates either. Dr Mackerras saidthat the Australian Democratsand

20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1373 election on your own account. It isnot very wise to give people advice if you are not willing to do the same thing. But, of course, that is your right. You were elected for that term and you had the right to serve it out, just as the three members who will be losing their seats have the right to serve out their terms. Mr Deputy-President, you and the , former Premier of this State, Neville Wran, may have believed that a 12-year term is obscene, but I believe honourable members should serve for an eight-year term. I do not believe that members of this House have the right to say to me and the other two members involved, "You are different from the others in the group of 12, therefore your term should be shorter". I want only to be treated in the same way as the others and I am sure that that is their wish. I believe the wording of this bill is obscene. If this bill passes through this House, three people from the 1984 group will get the chop. The people in the Wan Government were not elected by popular vote; they were elected by honourable members in this House and in the other place. This shonky bill, which was introduced by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, proposes something quite different from that which was evident in the 1960s and at the 1978 referendum. Mr Deputy-President, in reality the position of those three members who will be given the chop is somewhat different from those in the comparison you made. You said that the people of New South Wales would make the decision, and that the three members had nothing to worry about. If the peopleof New South Walesvoted against the referendum those three members of Parliament would be re-elected. You did not say-and I believe this is most important-that the other 12 people would remain in this Chamber on the vote of 179,000 people but that the other three members were different; they needed more than 50 per cent of the vote in order to remain in this House. That is what you saidwhenyou made that statement about democracy. Ido not believe that is democracy. That is the furthest thingfromdemocracy that Ican thinkof. Ido not believe that anyone would agree that that type of referendum would be democratic. But when people put up shonky deals that is the sort of thing that happens. Mr Deputy-President, what you said to the House the other night- [Intemption] The I-Ion. G. R. IBBETT:Did the Minister say you were going to withdraw the bill? The Hon. E. P. Pickering: No, do not get feverish. This is not doing your health any good; you are looking quite grey. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT:I thank the Leader of the Government for his concerns about my health but I can assure him that my health is good; I feel well and I am just getting into stride. Mr Deputy-President, you said that back in 1977-78 the Labor Party took action to increase its hold on this House but you did not say that the coalition parties were in favour of the reforms. The Labor Government might have done better out of the proposals than the coalition parties-I do not know whether they were conned-but Neville Wran had to have the agreement of the Opposition of the day to cut back the numbers. After negotiations the proposal was put to the House and put to the people and they agreed to it. The Hon. M. F. Willis said that the history of Australians voting at referendums shows that they are anything but ignorant and silly. I agree. If the people of New South Wales vote at a referendum on this proposal they 1374 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 will be anything but ignorant and stupid. The real agenda for the legislation is not only to knock off the three members; it is to alter the threshold so that there will be only Government and Opposition members and no crossbench members. That is the hidden agenda.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Where did you find it?

The Won. G. R. IBBETT: It has been debated on a number of occasions within my hearing. The Hon. M. F. Willis put a lot of work into the bills. The agenda is not to enable crossbench members to be elected with a quota of 4 per cent of the vote. The referendum will be put to the people with the argument that the crossbenches will not allow the Government to govern. The Hon. M. F. Willis said in his final remarks that the will of the people should decide. His proposition is as I explained it: three members will require 50 per cent of the New South Wales vote orapproximately two million votes; the other 12 members will require about 179,000 votes. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile bleated about the Hon. Elaine Nile being one of the members elected at the 1988 election whose term would end in 1996 or thereabouts. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile did not mention that the talk by the coalition parties about reducing the number of members of the upper House took place before the 1988 election. Those people who were elected in 1988 were aware that the agenda of the Greiner Governmentwas to do something about the lower House and the upper House.

The Government altered the size of the lower House on the basis that it had support from the crossbenchers, from the Nile Call to Australia team and the Democrats. The Government had support to reduce the numbers in that House from 109 to 99 and the numbers in this House from 45 to 40. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile in his contribution to the House said that if the numbers in the lower House were increased-and no doubt there will be the necessity to increase the number of seats as the population expands, and whether it be 109 or more will be a question of the day-this House would be expanded by five or a number of seats. I have always been of the opinion that if the upper House is to function it should have half the number of seats of the lower House. Instead of reducing the number of people in the upper House the legislation should be looking at the theory put forward by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. She fought hard for members, 46 not 45, and she devoted two lines of her speech indicating how hard she fought. We should have been looking at probably 49 people in this House.

The Hon. J. J. Doohan: Forty-nine and a half.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: No, there are no halves. Using the old shopkeeper's philosophy, when it is a half one goes back not forward. Ashopkeeper never gives more. Hewill give a bit under, is that right?

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: No.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT. I am advised by a former official of the shop assistants' union and a former capitalist corner shop proprietor that in fact they went up. It might be that we are looking at 50. However, I shall say 49 for the sake of a figure. In fact this House should have been looking at 49 members. Perhaps we should be looking to 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1375 amend the bill to make it 49 and not 42 or 41 members. I am sure if that amendment for 49 members were put up it could be carried. Of course, if it is 41, that is the end of the Hon. Beryl Evans.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Beryl is 41. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I did not say she was not. I said that if the House is reduced to 41 the Won. Beryl Evans will be the fourth one to get the chop. Under those circumstances there will not be two ladies going from this House but three. It can be seen that the argument put forward by Reverend the Hon. E J. Nile is not an argument in fact; that what is being suggested is that as the lower House numbers increase the numbers in this House should be increased. If that is left to the lower House, we will never see increased numbers in this House. I have read that the Liberal Party had difficulty in finding positions for some of the people it will lose in the redistribution; it was going to slot them into this House. The articles that have appeared over the past months in the metropolitan press suggest that this House is going to look after the casualties of the Liberal Party and National Party in the redistribution. The present member for Hurstville-though Hurstviile will not be won by the Liberal Party again- and the present member for Earlwood were some of the swag of members nominated. There is no doubt that the coalition would be coming to this House saying: "We do not want to reduce the House. The suggestion we made in the 1988 election is wrong. In fact we want to increase it because we have a lot of casualties". Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the 1988 group will suffer. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, two of the people named in the 1988 group to get the chop, no doubt will have some argument to put forward that they were elected for a 12-year period. [Interruption] TheHon. G. R. IBBETT: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti interjected and said that he would like to be one of the pensioners of this place. However, this bill, if passed, will deny him that opportunity unless he is elected for another term. I do not think there is much chance of that. I heard some suggestion that if those honourable members who were elected in 1988 did not complete their seven-year term, some action would be taken by the Parliament to compensate them. Unfortunately I have not had the benefit of a briefing, as others have, as to whether the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti will serve long enough to be entitled to a pension.

The IIon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I am not here to receive a pension; I am here to serve the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I am sure the honourable member believes he is serving the people with the numerous points of order he takes. There is no doubt he will be the minister for points of order in this House. Members will be denied the right to receive a pension because the Greiner Government is running scared. It wants to get to the people as quickly as it can because it does not have the guts to bring down a budget and then go to the people. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: The Government has brought down three budgets. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: But they are not as good as the budgets brought down by the Wran Government. 1376 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: On a point of order. Previous budgets of this Government or of any other government have nothing whatever to do with the bill. I ask that the honourable member be directed to return to the scope of the bill. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. G. R. Ibbett will comply with the standing orders. The Ilon. G. R. IBBETT: I always comply with the standing orders. I did digress a little and was stupid enough to answer the Minister's interjection. I will not allow that to happen again. The 1988 group has little chance under the terms of this shonky bill of ever reaching their seven years in order to obtain a pension. The IIon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What does that matter? The IIon. G. R. IBBETT: It does not matter much to wealthy doctors but it matters much to members who have given up their careers in the work force to serve this House for a period of 12 years. Opposition members are full-time members of this House, unlike the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. They have discarded their careers because they believe that as elected members of this House they must attend full time. They will have little chance of picking up the threads of their careers after a break of even eight years. Technological change takes place so fast that they would have to be retrained. A schoolteacher would have little chance of returning to the work force. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What about being in business working as an engineer? The Ilon. G. R. IBBETT: I am speaking about members of the Opposition who have given up their careers to become full-time members of this House. A number of members on the Government side-and I am not prepared to name them-have not given up their careers. They still keep their hand in. That is their choice- The Hon. Helen Sham-130: That is because we are more capable. The Ilon. G. R. IBBETT: The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho said she was not capable of doing it. If that is the case- The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: On a point of order. The honourable member misquoted me. I said that is because we are more capable. The PRESIDENT: Order! No point of order is involved. The I-Ion.G. R. IBBETT: I am a little flabbergasted that the honourable member took a point of order. That is what I understood her to say. If the honourable member is capable then I withdraw my statement. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services said in his second reading speech that the Government would consider compensating those members whose terms will be shortened by this bill and those members who will not reach their seven years' service would be deemed as having done so. Am I correct? The Hon. E. P. Piekering: That is correct. That shows how benevolent we are. TheHon. G. R. IBBETT: The money belongs to the people of New South Wales. Do not let us be misled about what is happening. The Government will not have to pay the compensation as it will not win the referendum. I was concerned about the 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1377 complaint of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile that the Hon. Elaine Nile would lose her position, as she was a member of the 1988 team which expected to serve 12 years in this Chamber. The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: You should not worry unduly. The left-wing will deliver you back The EIon. G. R. IBBE'IT: I thank the Minister for his confidence in the left-wing. Many people have offered me advice tonight, but they still have not said that they will ensure that I do not lose my position. Some members are praying for me but they are not voting for me. I recall on one occasion speaking to old Dan Minogue, the honourable member for West Sydney. The I-Ion.Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: He has nothing to do with this bill. The IIon. G. R. IBBETT: He has something to do with it. I have fond memories of him. He was one of the great politicians of this city. I went to him seeking his vote in a preselection ballot and he said to me, "I will be praying for you, but I won't bevoting for you". At this stage of my political career I would rather that people voted for me. They can save their prayers for some other time. The I-Ion.J. P. Hannaford: We shall continue to pray for you. The Hon. G. R. IBBETI': I know you will. If this shonky bill is accepted by this House and the referendum is decided in the affirmative-although I do not believe the people of New South Wales would be that stupid-I might have to pray for the Minister for State Development because at that time there would only be three Ministers in this House. One of the four Ministers in this House at this time will have to go. If the same principle is adopted to dispose of one Minister that is sought to be adopted to dispose of members of this Chamber, poor old John will have to go. He was last on so he will be first out. I doubt that he will displace the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith. If we exchange prayers, we may both survive. The IIon. E. P. Pickering: That is wishful thinking. You should make a graceful exit. What about going out with some flair? The I-fon. G. R. IBBETT: I do not want to go out with flair; I want to go out having served my time. The members of the team of 1988 have been offered an inducement, but they will see out seven years whether they accept the offer or not. The inducement will enable them to support the bill knowing full well that they will not be adversely affected by the result. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: The honourable member is looking unwell. The IIon. G. R. IBUETT: I am just getting my second wind. Some members support the bill because they are being looked after. They have been offered an inducement, which is probably fair enough. When a worker is kicked out the door, he is given some type of package deal. That was not the case when I was in the work force. At that time when a worker got the heave-ho, he was given a week's pay and whatever else was due to him. The package deal has been accepted by some honourable members as being satisfactory. I might have misjudged Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. He believed he was going to be looked after but then he realised he had a battle on his hands and that he was not going to get anything; he was going to go out. Alternatively, he may not COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

have known about the offer of recompense to members for leaving this Chamber four years earlier than they otherwise might have. The bill will pass through this House with all the attendant problems that go with it, the inducements that have been offered to the Democrats, the fact they are going to get 100,000 grand more in their funding-that is a pretty good inducement-and get their name on the top of the ticket. The Hon. D. J. Gay: On a point of order. Standing Order 85 does not allow continued irrelevance or tedious repetition. The honourable member has referred at least four times in this debate to the Democrats name on the top of the ticket. I ask that the honourable member be directed not to contravene Standing Order 85. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: On the point of order. I was just beginning to enjoy the Hon. G. R. Ibbett's speech. Iwould like him to be able to continue in the same vein, if possible. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: On the point of order. It is evident to me, to the Leader of the Opposition, and to all members in this Chamber that the Hon. G. R. Ibbett is canvassing a wide range of issues. On each occasion the honourable member canvasses those issues differently, using different words and emphases, and is covering the topic exhaustively. The latest point of order by the Hon. D. J. Gay is about his three-hundredth during the past week. The Hon. D. J. Gay is once more making a frivolous point of order, which should be dismissed out of hand. The Hon. G. R. Ibbett should be allowed to address this Chamber unhindered by such frivolous points of order. The Hon. G. R. Ibbett: On the point of order. The Hon. D. J. Gay said that I repeated myself four times. The Democrats have done so much in this House that four mentions of a topic should not be considered repetitious. I may have mentioned the Democrats four or 20 times but only to enable all members to identify the persons I am talking about. The Hon. D. J. Gay should not complain about my mentioning the Democrats if I am merely identifying the party. The Hon. D. J. Gay: Further to the point of order. I was quite specific in saying that the Hon. G. R. Ibbett mentioned the name on the ballot-papers concerning the Democrats. The IIon. G. R. Ibbett: That is not what you said. The Hon. D. J. Gay: That is what I said. The Hon. G. R. Ibbett said that at least four times and also mentioned other topics a number of times. I will be watching him in future under Standing Order 85. The PRESIDENT: Order! No point of order is involved. The Hon. G. R. IBB- If the Hon. D. J. Gay is becoming upset about my mentioning the Democrats, I will move on to another phase of what I wish to say. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: You have not got on to the bill yet. The Hon. G. R. IBBETT. You looked after the ambit claim and you did not do too well. A press clipping of March this year refers to a bid to refer electoral reform to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Honourable members know what happened to that. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1379

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: On a point of order. Reference of matters to the Independent Commission Against Corruption has nothing to do with the bill before the House. All day yesterday the House dealt extensively with the proposed reference to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Today we are dealing with the reform bill, and I would ask the honourable member, through you, Mr President, to deal with it. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Independent Commission Against Corruption has nothing to do with the bill before the House. I disposed of that matter earlier this evening.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Thank you for your ruling, Mr President. I am sure that the House dealt with it fully but yesterday the Government did not have the guts to send it to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The honourable member is being boring and repetitious.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I will not be insulted by any member in this House. I will use my right to speak in this House as long as I feel it necessary to do so. An article entitled "Niles poised to hold balance of power" in the Sun Herald of 17th March, stated in part: The Rev. Fred Nile and his wife Elaineare set to hold the balance of power in the NSW LegislativeCouncil-whether or not the numberof MPsin the Upper Houseis reduced on Tuesday.

That article is somewhat out of date. The general public are being told, and would believe, that if the bill is passed the Niles will hold the balance of power in this House. Most people in New South Wales would be gravely concerned that two people will be able to determine the passage of legislation through this House when the coalition and the Labor Party are at odds. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: That is nonsense and you know it.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: It is not nonsense at all. The majority would be made up of the coalition partners and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has been reported in the press as agreeing with that statement. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile could well hold the Government to ransom, and that is worrying to the people of New South Wales. Articles are appearing in the press about the shonky bill before the House. If that bill is passed by this House, Reverend the Won. F. J. Nile and his wife, the Hon. Elaine Nile, will be able, if they so desire, to determine which legislation will be passed and which legislation will not be passed through this House.

The Hon. H. B. French: Only if the Labor Party backs them.

The Hon. G. R, IBBETT: That is what I said. If the coalition parties and the Labor Party are at odds, that is the sort ofsituation that could arise. That is what worries the people of New South Wales. The Leader of the Government is worried that that situation will arise. I said earlier, and I repeat, that the threshold is the real agenda. Until that matter of the threshold is dealt with, those two members, if Reverend the 1380 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

Hon. F. J. Nile is lucky enough to be re-elected,will run the Stateof New South Wales. They will be able to determine which legislation is passed and which legislation is defeated. Reverend the Hon.F. J. Nile: With the ALP

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I do not know what the honourable member meansby that. The honourablemember misses the point. Isaid that if the coalition and the Labor Party are at odds, the way will be left open for the Call to Australia group to determine whether legislation is passed or defeated. The people of New South Wales are becoming somewhat disturbed at the realisation of what could happen if this bill is passed by this House. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: They are disturbed by the Australian LaborParty.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: It is not a question of the ALP; it is a question ofwhere the two major opposing parties inthe House stand. If they are at odds with one another and the Call to Australia decides to support one side or the other, that side will win. In that case, the Government, and the Australian Labor Party for that matter, must consider carefully what it says to members of the Call to Australia group for fear of offending them.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: You have offended us already before we even get to the election. The Australian Labor Party is in trouble already.

The IIon. G. R, IBBETT: I do not know what the honourable membermeans by that. If I have offended Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, I certainly apologise to him. I have never set out to offend anyone. I have tried to make membersof this House aware of what is likely to happen. I do not believe that the legislation before the House is in the best interests of the House. I have never heard the Leader of the Government or any member on that side of the House advance a reason for reducing the size of the House. I have never heard the opinion expressed that the Househas too many members. The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (TheHon. Sir Adrian Solomons): Order! I draw the attention of the honourable member to the provisions of Standing Order 85. Lest there be any doubt as to its provisions, I shall read it: The President or the Chairman of Committees may call the attention of the House or the Committee to continued irrelevanceor tedious repetition on the part of a Member, and may direct such Member to discontinue his speech: Provided that the Member sodirected shall have the right to require the President or Chairman to put the Question that he be further heard, and such Question shall be put without debate.

It is not my intention to direct the member to discontinue his speech. However, I indicate that the member has referred to the last matter he mentioned on at least four previous occasions. I ask the member to remember that the Chair has a duty under Standing Order 85, and I ask him to comply with the provisions of that standing order.

The tIon. G. R. IBBE1Vr: Thank you, Mr Deputy-President. Would you be kind enough to indicate the matter that I am considered to have repeated?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: The last words just used. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1381

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: I am trying to recall those words so that I do not contravenethe indication you have just given. Perhaps I can go on to another clause of the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L Jones: Clause 2?

The Hon. G. R. IBBETX No, it is not clause 2 at all. The Government should have consulted withall parties in this House about this bill. Unfortunately, it did not consult with the people on my side of the House. There should have been some consultation.

The Won. E. P. Pickering: Like Mr Landa consulted us on everything?

The Hon. G. R. IBBE'IT: I do not know what Mr Landa did; that is in the past. I believe there should have been consultationbetween the Government andall parties in the House, including the prospect of a constitutional convention in order that the House could have been re-formed. That could have been done without undue bad feelings and on the basis that all concerned would accept whatwas put to that forum. If honourable members had been presentedwith something that was reasonable, there would have been few problems in getting this bill accepted by all parties. Though I understand that some amendments are proposed to the bill, I believe most members would not object to certain portionsof it. I have no argumentwith the eight-year term. Many speakers have said that the 12-year term was obscene. The Labor Party will support the provision of an eight-year term, or two terms of the lower House, as one of the fundamentalaspects of the bill. I am concerned about the reduction of numbers in this House. The suggestion of the House composition being 42 and 41 is not a major stumbling block. Consultationon that point may have resulted in some agreement. Had I been part of the negotiating team, Iwould have argued stronglyfor an upper House that is half the number of the lower House.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: You were not on a negotiating team, so this is purely hypothetical.

The Hon. G. R. IBBETE It is not hypothetical. It is a question of whether the bill is passed without amendment.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: There is another note for you; you are being told to please pull up. You have the record.

The Hon. J. R. Hallam: I have not asked the honourable member to pull up, so the Minister should not prejudgewhat I may have said. The honourable member can speak for as long as he likes.

The Hon. G. R. IBBE'IT In order to put at rest the mind of the Minister, the note was not a note to cease. I would not expect such a note from the Leader of the Opposition. The only matter on which we appear to be at odds is the question relating to the three peopleinvolved. I believe it is wasteful to take that matterto a referendum, which will be defeated.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: As you are wasting the time of this House. 1382 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Hon. G. R. IBBETT: Oh, spud farmer, keep quiet! The only matter on which we are at odds is whether those three people should serve out their terms. The Government should consider the matters put fonvard in this debate. This matter has not been considered properly. This Government does not believe in retrospective legislation, yet it is imposing retrospective legislation on those three people. The people involved should be allowed to serve out the terms. I repeat the remarks made by the Hon. M. F. Willis. The people of New South Wales are neither ignorant nor stupid. They will defeat the referendum. The one thing that I can deal with in a few short moments is the question of the three people who will be denied their rights as elected members of this House to serve out their full terms. I thank the House for its courtesy in allowing me to address it. I believed I had the right, as one of those involved, to express my views fully. I have not made a number of points that I intended to make, but I have covered most of the things Iwished to say. People who intend to support the referendum will not do so without knowledge of the provisions of the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council) [2.51 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the second reading debate on the historic Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill. I shall not take up the time of the House with a long reply, as I am satisfied that matters have been well and truly canvassed on both sides of the House. Suffice it to say that the billis a simple measure. It addresses the question of an undue length of term of members, the reduction of the number of members, the contentious issue of whether the number should be cut at the time of the referendum or four years later, and the non-contentious issue of casual vacancies.

One matter that has not been canvassed effectively is why the Government adopted 42 instead of the original 40 that was promised. The simple reason is that the proposition was put by the Australian Democrats that if one elects an even number of members the situation can arise that half the members may be elected with less than half of the primary vote. If an odd number of members is elected-as in the present system-a majorityof members is elected with half thevote. As that is the mathematical reality, the Government was willing to accept the proposition that an election for an odd number of members was more democratic than an election for an even number, and the number closest to 40 to accommodate that was 42. It is obvious that the only heat generated by the proposed legislation is the fact that the terms of three members will be cut short by the passage of the bill through a referendum. Proof of that is provided by the previous bill that was introduced into this House that would have reduced the number of members to 40 being regarded as utterly non-contentious. Some very misinformed comments made by Dr Malcolm Mackerras have been quoted in the debate. The simple argument that Dr Mackerras makes is that if the election in 1984 had been for 12 members, the last three members would be different from those in an election for 15 members. The exercise is an exercise in absolute stupidity, because it is not possible for anyone to adopt the theory put forward by Dr Mackerras and take it to a logical conclusion. All we have available to us as mortal human beings are the results of the periodic election. The official program reveals the order in which people were declared elected. As a matter of obvious simplicity, the Government has adopted the procedure that the last three persons declared elected will 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1383 be the people affected by the proposed legislation, in exactly the same way that Neville Wran approached the same problem when reforming the Legislative Council. I make the important point that the legislation flies in great contrast to measures proposed by the previous Government to reform the Legislative Council. The architect of the reforms was the Hon. M. R. Egan, at that time a member without portfolio working for the Premier of the day. He came up with the simplisticview that the Government in the lower House would gain an additional six seats upstairs, which we called the winner-take-all proposal. That made the crossbenches an irrelevance. The Hon. M. R. Egan: That is a lie. The Hon. E. P. PICKERLNG: I have come to the conclusion that the honourable member does not know the difference between the truth and a lie. The Hon. M. R. Egan: That is a lie. The Hon. E. P. PICICERING: That is not so. I do not see any need to canvass these matters further. Consideration in Committee will follow. Under those circumstances I commend the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill. Question-That the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill be now read a second time-put. The House divided.

Ayes, 23 Mr Bull Mr Jobling Mr Samios Mrs Chadwick Mr Killen Mrs Sham-Ho Mr Doohan Mr Matthews Mr Rowland Smith Mrs Evans Mr Mutch Sir Adrian Solomons Mr Gay Mrs Nile Mr Willis Dr Goldsmith Revd F. J. Nile Tellers, Mr Hannaford Dr Pezzutti Mr Jones Mrs Jakins Mr Pickering Miss Kirkby

Noes, 21 Mrs Arena Mr Hankinson Mr Shaw Mrs Bignold Mr Ibbett Mr Vaughan Mr Brenner Mrs Isaksen Mrs Walker Mr Dyer Mr Kaldis Mr Egan Mrs Kite Mr Enderbury Mr Manson Tellers, Mr French Mr O'Grady Mr Macdonald Mr Hallam Mr Reed Mrs Symonds Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

In Committee

Schedule 3 The Hon. MARIE BIGNOLD [3.6 a.m.]: I move: Page 3, Schedule (1) omit- The Hon. E. P. Pickering: On a point of order. In accordance with the standing orders I have been provided with written amendments. I understood that the Leader of the Opposition was to move an amendment to schedule 1, page 2, and that the first amendment to be moved by the Hon. Marie Bignold was on page 3. Is the Committee taking the amendments out of order? That would be unusual. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I took it that the Leader of the Opposition was withdrawing his first amendment. The Hon. J. R. Hallam: I seek a point of clarification. I sought advice from the Clerk and was given to understand that as the two amendments were similar and the Hon. Marie Bignold's amendment had been submitted officially prior to the Opposition's amendment, the Opposition could concede to allowing the amendment to be moved by the Hon. Marie Bignold to precede the Opposition's amendment. In the event of her amendment being unsuccessful, I would have the opportunity to move the Opposition's amendment. If the Hon. Marie Bignold's amendment were successful, I would withdraw my amendment. I seek advice and guidance as to whether the Leader of the Government in this House considers that to protect my right to move the Opposition's amendment I should first move the amendments I have circulated in respect of schedule 1. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I understand the difficulty and can clarify the problem. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to amendments numbered two and three. Amendment number oneis the first in time andis theamendment that the Leader of the Opposition seeks to move to item (1) of schedule 1, which will add to the definitions section matter dealing with periodic council elections. That is a different matter. The Leader of the Opposition should proceed with his amendment. The Won. J. R. HALLAM(Leader of the Opposition) [3.9 a.m.]: I move: Page 2, Schedule l(l)(a). In the definition of "Periodic Council election", before "21 Members" insert "20 or". This amendment is self-explanatory. The purpose of our amendment is to reduce the number of members to 41 rather than 42 as proposed by the Government. To obtain that number, it is essential to move the amendment and I so move it. The Hon. E.8. PICICERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council) [3.10 a.m.]: For the reasons set out in my brief reply to the second reading debate, the Government opposes the amendment. In discussions with the Government on the proposed bill, the Australian Democrats put forward a proposition which is a matter of numerical fact. That is that if an even number of members are elected to the House, 50 per cent of the members are elected with less than 50 per cent of the vote. I think it is something like 48 per cent. That is a matter of mathematical fact. However, if an odd number of members are elected, exactly 50 per cent of the vote elects a majority of members. The Australian Democrats are of the 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1385 persuasive view that an odd number is therefore a fairer result. I do not think one could argue against the validity of that point. The Australian Democrats have pointed out that at present the election is for an odd number of members. In fairness the Government agreed that the election of members at each periodic election should be for an odd number. That then brought the number down to 42, which was as close as possible to the original promise of 40 members made by the Premier. For reasons which are clear, the Government opposes the amendment for it would require that each second periodic election an even number of members be elected. Question-That the amendment be agreed to--put. The Committee divided.

Ayes, 22 Mrs Bignold Mrs Isaksen Mr Shaw Mr Brenner Mr Johnson Mrs Symonds Mr Egan Mr Kaldis Mr Vaughan Mr Enderbury Mrs Kite Mrs Walker Mr French Mr Macdonald Mr Hallam Mr Manson Tellers, Mr Hankinson Mr O'Grady Mrs Arena Mr Ibbett Mr Reed Mr Dyer

Noes, 22 Mr Bull Mr Jobling Mr Samios Mrs Chadwick Mr Jones Mrs Sham-Ho Mr Doohan Mr Killen Mr Rowland Smith Mrs Evans Miss Kirkby Mr Willis Mr Gay Mr Matthews Dr Goldsmith Mr Mutch Tellers, Mr Hannaford Dr Pezzutti Mrs Nile Mrs Jakins Mr Pickering Revd F. J. Nile The CHAIRMAN: Order! There being 22 ayes and 22 noes, the question must be resolved on the casting vote of the Chairman. In a consideration of this matter, one looks at the rules set out at page 351 of the current edition of Erskine May. With respect to these circumstances, Erskine May says as follows: In casting avote on an amendment to a Bill, the casting vote should leave the Bill in its existing form. In accordance with the principle enunciated in Erskine May, I cast my vote with the noes. The question is therefore resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Leader of the Opposition, for reasons which he enunciated earlier, wishes to defer consideration of his amendment No. 2. in favour of the amendment circulated by the Hon. Marie Bignold. There being no objection to that course of action, the Hon. Marie Bignold may proceed. 1386 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Hon. MARIE BIGNOLD 13.21 a.m.]: I move: Page 3, Schedule (1). Omit proposed section 17(2) and (3) insert instead:

(2) The Legislative Council shall (subject to this Division) consist of the following number of Members elected at periodic Council elections:

(a) on and from the commencement of the 1991 reconstitution Act and until the date referred to in paragraph (b)--45 Members; and

(b) on and from the date onwhich thewrit for the Erst periodic Council election held after the comnlencement of the 1991 reconstitution Act is returnable--42 Members.

This amendment will remove the undemocratic component of the Government's bill and will restore it to a proper constitutional reform bill without the taint of political skulduggery and electoral fraud. In the words of Dr Mackerras, it will convert the Government's electoral fraud into an acceptable constitutional reform. My amendment will restore the democratic principles retained in the Government's 1990 bill. I earnestly entreat all honourable members to support this amendment and restore those democratic principles. I urge honourable members to reject resoundingly the sinister threat to the principles and integrity of this House proposed by this present bill. I again appeal to all honourable members on the crossbenches and I ask the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to reconsider his stand. He has changed his mind before and I appeal to him to change it again. I appeal to National Party members, who have been given a conscience vote, and to all honourable members of this House who take seriously and honourably their significant legislative functions. They should take prime and original responsibility for the passage of this legislation; they should not wait for the people of New South Wales to put their signature to it. We have a prime, serious and original responsibility to put this bill on its proper course. This will be a memorable day for this House; it is a time that will not be forgotten. From this day on things will be markedly different. If my amendment does not receive approval there will be a downward trend. Today's results will be on the consciences and in the hearts of every member who votes on this legislation. I say solemnly to honourable members that more significance can be placed on this vote than on any other vote that has been taken in this House. It would be a deplorable lapse in the execution of our legislative responsibilities if we allowed the Government's political skulduggery to dictate to us how we should exercise our high office as legislators, especially in respect of a bill which will reform this House. We are turning the dagger on ourselves, which is far worse than turning the dagger on someone outside the Parliament. It would be inexcusable in the exercise of our high office to allow personal malice, spite or vindictiveness to prejudice our decision on this bill. It would be an abdication of our legislative responsibilities to shirk our task and pass the problem over to the voters of this State, though I am confident that they would be quick to detect the political skulduggery. They are being asked retrospectively to subvert the valid election results of 1984. We are the duly elected legislators of New South Wales and I call upon all honourable members to do their duty tonight with a clear and good conscience. Let us not inflict on the electorate the taint of the Government's electoral fraud which it is seeking to inflict on us. We have the collective power and responsibility to repel and strike out the taint and thereafter present to the electorate a wholesome bill. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL

I call upon all membersto vote in favour of this amendment. If their conscience so directs, then they should abstain fromvoting. This matter reaches far beyond party considerations. As members of this Housewe have a primaryduty to our electorate and to this House rather than to our parties. Tonight will be seen as the beginning of a powerful downward trend which we will have inflicted on this House. That would be a tragedy. If someone did it to us that would be one thing but we are doing it in such a way that it will remain in the history books forever. People will look back on 1991, they will read the debate and see what happens afterwards. We will be marked people. People will not look kindly upon the people in this House. We will certainly not be upholding moral values and the principles of democracy if we do not vote for this amendment. In years to come our children and grandchildren will read the debates and, if this amendmentis not passed and the bill is not put right, they will look upon this day as a dark day in the history of this House. Sometimeswe get caught up with the moment and with our parties when we shouldbe thinking of history. We should leave something that will be a mark of honour, respectabilityand goodness that we have legislated for the peace, welfare and good government of New South Wales. I commend my amendment. The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.29 a.m.]: It is clear that the amendmentof Hon. Marie Bignold should be supported. People on the Governmentside of the House,who shall remain nameless, would like to support this amendment. It is clear to me that members should be allowed to complete their parliamentary terms. Some members were not given any warning that their termswould be cut short; in fact, they had onlya few weeks notice. It seems unfair that theywere given such short notice, that their terms are being cut short and that they have no opportunity to put themselves up for election unless theyresign from the House. This legislationwill also affect nine memberselected in 1988. Their terms have also been cut short but, as was pointed out on the radio, they were warned of that fact. Theycan accept that more easily than the other three members. I have tried my hardest to get the Governmentto accept this amendment,which I believe it should. In a few weeks the Government will regret not having accepted this amendment because this may well become a key election issue. It will be to the Government's electoral advantageto accept this amendment. It would causenobig problem to have three members maintain their membership of this Chamber foranother threeor four years. It would make almost no difference to the balance ofpower. Now that theAustralian Labor Party has changed from supporting the bill to opposing the bill it seems to me that the bill hasvery little chanceof becoming law after the referendum. If the Australian Labor Party opposes the bill on the basis that it is unfair to the three members concerned and unfair democratically to cut members' terms prematurely and retrospectively disfranchise a number of voters, including the 166,000 Call to Australia voters whom Reverendthe Hon. F. J. Nile is supporting, I believe the public will have second thoughts about supportingthis bill, though they would have supported the bill if it had been supported by the Australian Labor Party and others. It is misguided of the Government not to accept the amendment. That is a bad political decision.It may possibly be the central themeof the electoral campaign. It may cause the Government severedamage. Were it to cost the Government a number of seats it might even cost it the balance of power in the lower House; the Independentsmight hold the balance of power there. So the Government might hold the balance of power in the upper House through Reverend the Hon. 1388 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile but it may not hold it in the lower House. That remains to be seen. I believe that we will have an interesting campaign after tonight. I would like to have supported the amendment. I believe it is appropriate and just but it is a problem for me because the cost is too great for the Australian Democrats and I cannot bear the cost single-handedly.

The Hon. Franca Arena: What is the cost? The Elon, R. S. L. JONES: We are being accused by certain media commentators of being a split party andwe arenot a split party; we workvery closelytogether. Although the Democrats are entitled to vote separately and do vote separately on a number of issues, when we do this we are attacked in the media for being split and this causes us a lot of electoral damage. I am not prepared personally to take all the electoral damage in the upcoming election. Ido believe that the Government is serious when it says that it will not proclaim the legislation identifyingsmall parties on the ballot papers. That legislation is very important. The I-Ion. Franca Arena: Ducks are more important. They are so much safer, Richard, aren't they? The IIon. R. S. L. JONES: Do you mind? I have had approaches not just from Democrats but from members of other smaller groups and green groups that have expressed concern about this. A number of small parties and small organisations want the names of their parties on the ballot paper. They asked me specifically for this. The legislation does not affect just the Australian Democrats. The Hon. FrancaArena: I really cannot believe it. The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: The Hon. Franca Arena is going on like a duck in pain on the other side of the Chamber. It is obviously too late for her. She is obviously way past her tolerance level this evening and has no understanding of the plight of smaller parties. She belongs to a very big and very corrupt party which corrupts the political process whenever it canand tries to abolish the upper House whenever it can. It has tried to abolish this upper House several times in the past 140 years. It would try again if it had half a chance but it will never have that chance because it will never again have the numbers in this Chamber to abolish the upper House. The question would not be passed by a referendum anyway. The Hon. FrancaArena: You have been bought by the Liberals. The Won. R. S. L. JONES: I have not been bought by anybody. The IIon. FrancaArena: You and Lis have been bought by the Liberals. The IIon. R. S. L. JONES: What a load of nonsense. That will be proved in time. The referendum coming up shortly will be interesting. It will not surprise me if the referendum is lost and we see the Hon. Marie Bignold and the Hon. G. R. Ibbett back here.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1389

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Although the Hon. Judith Jakins may not be here, her replacement may well be here. Even though I support the amendment in spirit I cannot support it in fact, because of the problems caused to democracy by losing the legislation and the severe damage this would cause to the Australian Democrats. I am not prepared to wear that damage. If Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile were serious about democratic principles, because the Hon. Marie Bignold belongs to his party, he would support her or at very least abstain from voting on the amendment. I am surprised that he is disfranchising his own voters. It is extraordinary, to say the least, to disfranchise one's own voters. The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council) [3.35 a.m.]: The Government is opposed to the amendment. It is a statement of fact that this Chamber not so long ago was happy to pass legislation to reduce the number of members in another place as from the next general election. A number of members of the other place face losing their parliamentary careers. I can think of one or two who will not have the benefit of superannuation as a result of that. That affects parties all across the spectrum. Despite the certainty of that, this Chamber and the lower House passed the legislation to give effect to those changes as at the coming general election. Every member of this Chamber is prepared to accept the basic principles of the bill-fewer members of Parliament and a shorter term for members of this Chamber. For the upper House not to accept that the changes should occur at exactly the same time for both Houses would be for this Chamber to show immaturity. The matter has been canvassed at great length. The Government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. MARIE BIGNOLD [3.36 a.m.]: The Minister for Police and Emergency Services said that numbers in the lower House will be cut at exactly the same time as numbers in this Chamber. Once again we have half the truth and not the whole truth. At the next election all the lower House members will have completed their terms. They have a term of only four years. At every election they complete their term. But at every election not all upper House members complete their term, as the Minister is well aware. Three members of the upper House will have their term severed four years before their term should end. It is incorrect to say that members in both Houses are in an equal position; they are in a very unequal position. The upper House members who are being cut off are more or less in the middle of their term or two thirds of the way through. So it is totally incorrect, untrue and misleading to the Chamber for the Minister to try to make out that the position in the two Houses is the same.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: I have not suggested that at all.

The Hon. MARIE BIGNOLD: That is exactly what you said. It is misleading to this Chamber and misleading the members of the public when they read Hansnrd. The position is entirely different. The three non-continuing members from 1984 are in an entirely different situation from the nine non-continuing members from 1988, despite the fact that the Minister, like Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, keeps saying that they are in the same position. I ask the Minister to be a little more honest in future and to relate the facts when he is speaking on the bill.

Question-That the amendment be agreed to---put. 1390 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 22 Mrs Arena Mr Hankinson Mr Reed Mrs Bignold Mr Ibbett Mr Shaw Mr Brenner Mrs Isaksen Mr Vaughan Mr Dyer Mr Johnson Mrs Walker Mr Egan Mr Kaldis Mr Enderbury Mrs Kite Tellers, Mr French Mr Manson Mr Macdonald Mr Hallam Mr O'Grady Mrs Symonds Noes, 22 Mr Bull Mr Jobling Mr Pickering Mrs Chadwick Mr Jones Mrs Sham-Ho Mr Doohan Mr Killen Mr Rowland Smith Mrs Evans Miss Kirkby Mr Willis Mr Gay Mr Matthews Dr Goldsmith Mrs Nile Tellers, Mr Hannaford Revd F. J. Nile Mr Mutch Mrs Jakins Dr Pezzutti Mr Samios The C- Order! There being 22 ayes and 22 noes, in accordance with the principle that I previously enunciated, Icast my vote with the noes and the question is therefore resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. The Hon. J. R. HALLAM (Leader of the Opposition) [3.45 a.m.]: I move: Page 3, Schedule l(3). Omit proposed section 17 (2) and (3), insert instead:

(2) The Legislative Council shall (subject to this Division) consist of the following number of Members elected at periodic Council elections:

(a) on and from the commencement of the 1991 reconstitution Act and until the date referred to in paragraph (b)-45 members; and

(b) on and from the date on which thewrit for the first periodic Council election held after the commencement of the 1991 reconstitution Act is returnable41 members. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: On a point of order. Mr Chairman, I put it to you that this particular amendment is out of order in the sense that it relies upon the successful passage of the first amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition to create a House of 41 members. As we have in fact rejected that notion, the suggestion of an amendment that would call for a House of 41 is out of order as, in effect, the second amendment is consequential to the first amendment and therefore needs to be withdrawn. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I should like to hear argument from the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the matter raised by the Minister and with respect to his amendments numbered 5,6,7,8 and 9 to which the same principle applies. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL

The Hon. J. R. Hallam: The Leader of the Government is correct in pointing out that this amendment is subsequent to the original amendment moved by me. However, I am entitled to test the feeling of the House because it is such an important matter. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: The Leader of the Opposition has tested the feeling of the House. It has told him that it will not have 41 members. The Won. J. R. Hallam: I am entitled under the standing orders to test the feeling. That was the purpose of my moving that amendment. Mr Chairman, I seek your ruling. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I rule that amendments numbered 2,3,4,5,6 and 7 in the amendments circulated in document CEEl46 are consequential and accordingly are deemed to be covered by the loss of amendment No. 1. The Hon. MARIE BIGNOLD [3.48 a.m.]: I move: Page 3, Schedule 1 (3). After proposed Section 17 (3), insert: (4) The benefits payable under the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971 to or in respect of a Member of the Legislative Council who ceases to be a Member because of subsection (3) are to be determined as if:

(a) the person's period as a Member entitled tosalary had included an additional period of 4 years at the salary last payable to the Member; and (b) that additional period had been semed before the Member so ceased to be a Member. This amendment is consequential upon the three non-continuing members elected in 1984 having their terms shortened by one parliamentary term so that they would be paid their benefits under the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act, as if they had served the additional four terms of their due term. I believe this is a just and proper entitlement. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the honourable member indicate how her proposed amendment will fit in the long title of the bill? The Hon. MARIE BIGNOLD: It is consequential. Similar to the amendments to schedule 2, it is a consequential amendment to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Where is the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act mentioned? The Hon. MARIE BIGNOLD: It does not have to be. It is mentioned in the clause. The CHAIRMAN: Order! In which clause? The Hon. MARIE BIGNOLD: It is mentioned in the clause that I moved, the Parliamentary Elections and Electorates Act as mentioned in schedule 2. The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council) [3.51 a.m.]: The Government is opposed to the amendment. I take theview that it is correct to assert that the amendment is outside the provisions of the bill, bearing in mind that this bill is required to be placed before the people by way of referendum and the long title of the bill would need to include 1392 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 those elements of the bill germane to a referendum. The current bill does not provide for compensation to be paid and that would certainly be a germane matter that would need to be entailed in the long title of the bill and, therefore, placed properly before the people. The amendment is flawed in that sense. The other reason I oppose the amendment is that it provides for the three members whose terms are to be terminated immediately upon the commencement of the bill to be deemed to have served an additional four years prior to their retirement for the purposes of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act. A period of seven years continuous service in the Parliament is required for a member to be entitled to receive superannuation. The amendment seeks to ensure that the three members concerned will be deemed to have served their whole term so as to preserve their superannuation entitlements to the full extent. In addition, the amendment would increase the level of superannuation payable to all three members so that their payout figure would be calculated as though they had served their full terms. Any compensation action should be undertaken after the bill has come into effect and the members affected by it and the degree to which they are affected are known. This will enable a complete compensation package to be prepared, which addresses all the issues relevant to the members concerned. That was the procedure properly adopted by the government of the day in the 1978 Legislative Council reconstitution. In addition, the proposed amendment addresses only the situation of the three members who are most immediately affected. The bill will also shorten by four years the terms of the last nine members who were elected in 1988. Under the terms of the bill those members will retire in 1996, four years short of their full term. Their position is no different from the position of the three members clected in 1984 whose terms will be similarly shortened. However, unlike the three members elected in 1984, the proposed amendment makes no provision for the nine members elected in 1988 to be deemed to have served an additional four years at the time of their retirement. The proposed amendment therefore selectively compensates one category of member affected by the bill but not the other. On those grounds alone the amendment should be regarded as unacceptable. If a provision of this kind is to proceed, it should address the concerns of all groups similarly affected, not selectively deal with one and ignore the other. As I said earlier, I take the view that this is not an appropriate amendment to be included in the Constitution Act, particularly in an entrenched provision. The amendment would be more appropriately included in the Parliamenta~y Contributory Superannuation Act. For those reasons the Government is opposed to the amendment.

The EIon. MARIE BIGNOLD [3.55a.m.]: There is no reason why compensation or superannuation benefits consequential upon the termination of members' terms before their due term should not be inserted in this particular bill. The only other occasion that has ever occurred in the history of the House was in 1978. Because it was not inserted in that bill is not to say that it should not be placed in this bill. No precedent has been established. A reading of the debate on that bill reveals that Liberal Party members, particularly the Hon. M. F. Willis, screamed about the fact that a compensation clause was not inserted in the original bill, which resulted in members receiving virtually nothing by way of compensation. They found themselves in the hands 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1393 of a government which was unwillingto do much after the event. It is obviously just and equitable that a compensation clause should be placed in this bill. There has been talk of compensation fromthe Minister. Talk is one thing, action is another, and legislation is a third. A compensation clause should be placed in this bill.

I had drafted an amendment forthe 1988group but decided not to go ahead with it after consulting with one of those members. However, there is nothing to stop the Government fromadding an amendment for them should it wish to do so. The 1988 group is not nearly so adversely affectedas the 1984 group. As I said in my contribution to the second readingdebate, the 1988group has four years' notice of the end of its term. Those members knew before they were elected that their terms would be shortened. They are in no way disadvantaged. I understand that the Government has already indicated that it will compensate the 1988 group and there is no reason why it should not. Having come to this House knowing that their term was to be eight years, why should they be compensated, not that I have any objections to their being compensated. The 1984 members expectedto be here for three terms so they should be entitled to be compensated. The appropriate manner in which to compensate those membersis by way of benefits payable under the Parliamentary ContributorySuperannuation Act. I ask the Minister to reconsider the amendments.

The I-Ion. I. M. MACDONALD [3.58a.m.]: In my view it is not analogous for the Minister to comparethe 1978 situationwith the situation we are now facing. I thought it had been established throughout the debate that what we are talking about is a democratically electedHouse, members electeddemocratically. In1978 we were talking about an entirely different House, a part-time House, a House that was not democratically elected. Second,the nine members of the 1988 group have an advantage over the three members of the 1984 team. The former will still be members of this Chamber after the election and will be able to fight for their rights at that time. Third, I am sure that no member of this Chamberwill trust the Government aftcr the election to set an appropriatelevel of compensation, particularlyfor the Hon. Marie Bignold. This Chamber will then be in the hands of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the same member who, throughout this debate, has made an incredible number of malicious statements. The Minister in his contribution madeno statements whatever about the amount of compensation that will be paid to the members affected. Justice demands that the detail of compensation be made known to honourable members andto the electorate. The terms of democratically elected membersare being cut short and, as a consequence, after the election those members will not be able to secure their rights. It is a distressing feature that the Government has not made public the detail of the package offered to honourable members.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE 14.2 a.m.]: I wish to clarify a matter repeated by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald. Despite announcementsabout the reformation of the upper House, no one knows what will be the formula or the effect of it. The nine members of the 1988 group and the three members of the 1984 group are in the same position. It would be more suitable for the Government to determine the nature of any package in due course, after legislation is passed. We should not be debating this self-interest motion, which relates to only three members. 1394 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Hon. MARIE BIGNOLD [4.3 a.m.]: I take exception to ever endthe Hon. F. J. Nile referring to this amendment as a self-interest motion. The payment of compensation to the Hon. Elaine Nile, who was one of the nine members in the 1988 group, is an inducement to the Hon. Elaine Nile to contribute to debate. That is an optional extra. It is a handout by the Government. I do not agree with what was said by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. The motion relates to three members whose terms will be shortened. In all fairness the Government should reconsider the matter. The Hon. JUDITH WALKER [4.4 a.m.]: Obviously it is not clear to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and other members that the nine members of the 1988 group will still be members of this House after the election and will, therefore, be ableto negotiate a retrenchment package if they so desire. The reality is that the three members of the 1984 group are in no such position. Anyone with even a meagre understanding of industrial relations knows that when an employee is dismissed, that employee no longer has a say. That is the position these three members are being placed in by the Government. Theywill no longer be members of this House and they will not know the nature of the compensation package they are entitled to receive. That is in line with industrial relations legislation the Government hasbeen trying to force upon us. Three members of this House will be removed without any rights. That is a serious matter. Four years of their income and their period of tenure in this Chamber will be taken away. In my view, that is unconstitutional. I should like to have seen a judge of the Supreme Court issue an injunction to allow debate on the bill but to prevent membersvoting on it. History will show the terrible way these members have been treated. The Government must understand the position in which they have been placed. They will not beable to negotiate terms of compensation. Iwonderwhat the Greiner Government has in mind with regard to settling this matter. The members will lose not only their income; they will lose their position in life. The Government will rue the day that it took this step. The Non. E. P. PICICERING(Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council) 14.6 a.m.]: Obviously at this early hour members of the Labor Party are not thinking clearly. Iwish to remind them of a number of matters. In 1977 the Wran Government was confronted with an identical situation. On advice from experts, that Government embarked on precisely the same procedure that we are proposing. There were a number of reasons for that. First,at this time we are unable to determine accurately who will be entitled to compensation. Although it is extraordinarily unlikely, it may be that the referendum will not be passed, in which case no member's term will be shortened and there will be no need for compensation. Second, for all I know, the Hon. Marie Bignold may well retire from the Parliament and stand in her own right at the next election and be elected. No compensation would be paid in that event. The same situationwould apply if the Hon. G. R. Ibbett took a similar course. I have no doubt, however, that the left-wing of the Labor Party could find a slot for a member who is able to speak for four hours straight in this House. The honourable member would obviously get a run if he decided to throw his hat in the ring. The principles that this Government and the WanGovernment have acted upon are sound, and for exactly the same reasons both governments abided by the same advice. The Non. MARIEBIGNOLD 14.8 a.m.]: Clearly the Leader of the Government in this House has not read the amendment properly. Superannuation benefits are payable onlyto members who cease to be members. Ifa member retires and is re-elected, 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL other factors come into play. I do not understand the argument of the Leader of the Government. A re-elected member foregoes the payment of superannuation and receives a salary, and an adjustment is made accordingly. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I permitted debate on this amendment to proceed because the hour is late and the subject-matter emotive. It is my view, however, that the amendment is out of order under the provisions of Standing Order 175, which states: Any Amendment may be made to a clause, provided the same be relevant to the subject matter of the clause, and a new clause or schedule may be proposed if relevant to the subject matter of the Bill or pursuant to any instruction, and be otherwise in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House: The standing order continues: Provided that no Amendment or new clause shall be inserted which reverses the principle of the Bill as read a second time; but if any Amendment shall not be within the scope of the title of the Bill, the Committee shall extend the title accordingly. The last paragraph refers to the correct allocation of an amendment but in my view it is perfectly and absolutely clear that the proposed amendment is not within the scope of the long title of the bill. The long title, and I have also in mind the foreshadowed proposed amendments, reads as follows: An Act to reduce the number of politicians in the Legislative Council and to reduce their maximum term of office and to apply to the Legislative Council the same method of filling casual vacancies as applies to the Senate. The question of allocation of parliamenta~ysuperannuation is under an entirely separate Act of Parliament. Accordingly, unless it were referred to in a specific section of the bill, I could not rule that it was covered. That course has been followed in a number of rulings. In particular, I refer to the ruling of Sir John Peden when he was President, reported at page 28 of the schedule of Presidents' Rulings, under "Amendments". The head note reads: Point of Order-The President resumed the Chair. The Chairman reported that objection had been taken by the Committee to his ruling-that an amendment proposed to be made to Clause 2 of the Bill by the Honourable Member, Mr Concannon, was not in order as it conflicted with the provisions of Standing Order No. 175 in that it was not relevant to the subject-matter and reversed the principle of the Bill as read a second time. Sir John Peden upheld the ruling of the Chairman for basically the same reasons. The ruling is lengthy. If the honourable member requires it to be read, I will read the entire ruling. The Hon. Marie Bignold: May I make a comment? The CHAIRMAN. You may, but not on the Chairman's ruling. You have recourse, if you wish, to dissent against my ruling under Standing Order 90. The Hon. Marie Bignold: Unless I misheard you, Mr Chairman, I think you read out that Sir John Peden ruled the amendment in that case was not relevant and reversed the principle of the bill. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The last portion of the ruling on page 28 is as follows: With regard to the precedent cited by the Honourable Member, Mr Concannon, the point is not whether that precedent is right in regard to the particular matter upon which the then President of this Council had to rule, but whether that precedent has any application to the present position. In my opinion it is not a precedent which applies in the present instance. 1396 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

Perhaps the proper approach is to read the entire ruling. I read from page 28 of the volume entitled "Rulings of the Presidents of the Legislative Council": Point of Order-The President resumed the Chair. The Chairman reported that objection had been taken by the Committee to his ruling-that an amendment propmed to be made to clause 2 of the Bill by the Honourable Member, Mr Concannon, was not in order as it conflicted with the provisions of Standing Order No. 175 in that it was not relevant to the subject-matter and reversed the principle of the Bill as read a second time. The Hon. Marie Bignold: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I cannot see that the clause in the ruling about reversing the principle of the bill is relevant to the bill. The CHAI- Order! I can see no way in which the proposed amendment falls within the long title of the bill. I am bound by the precedents of the House, unless the House overrules me. The Hon. Marie Bignold: I will have to leave it in your hands, Mr Chairman. The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [4.15 a.m.]: I withdraw both amendments to schedule 1 standing in my name. Schedule agreed to. The Hon. J. R. HALLAM (Leader of the Opposition) [4.16 a.m.]: I move: Page 1, Long title. Omit "politicians", insert instead "members". This is an important amendment. The Leader of the Government sits at the table grinning like a Cheshire cat, gloating over the demise of our colleague. The present wording is designed to have a denigrating effect in the community at large when the question is put to the people at referendum. The I-Ion. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Why? The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: Do not look at me like a stunned mullet. The geniuses in the Premier's Department-and I am not referring to the officers at the table but to the political plotters and partisan manipulators in the Cabinet secretariat-believe that that will be of advantage when the following question is put to the people: "Doyou want fewer politicians?" I appeal to the Democrats at this late hour, if the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is still in the Chamber, to remove the word "politician" and insert instead the word "members". The I-fon. R. D. DYER [4.17 a.m.]: This provision would have to be one of the most cynical in the bill. One of the available meanings of the word "politician" that appear in the Macquarie Dictionaly, and a most pejorative meaning,reads: A seeker or holder of public office who is more concerned to win favour and to retain power that to maintain principles. It is well known that the term "politician"has a flavour to it that does not attach to other terms such as "parliamentarian"or "member". If the Minister and the Government are sincere about the measure, why is it that the Constitution Act 1902 invariably refers to us as members? That being the case, how can the Governmentjustify this manipulation to refer to politicians for the clear and undoubted purpose of using that expression in the question to be put to the people at referendum. If there were any other purpose, the word "politician" would be used elsewhere in the bill before the Committee. The word "members" is invariably usedin the explanatory notes to the bill. It is only in the 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL question to be placed before the people that the word "politician" is to be used. That exposes, as though it needed exposing, the manipulation and the cynicism that is involved in what the Government is proposing in this regard. I resent that very strongly, and I put it to the Committee that this amendment should be supported very strongly.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.21 a.m.]: I often disagree with definitions in the Macquarie Dictionary, and I do on this occasion. For the information of members of the Australian Labor Party, the word "politician"comes from the Greek word "polis" which means city. The word "politician" means people concerned with the life of the city or the State. That is its basic meaning. There is nothing negative or positive about it. There can certainly be bad politicians and greedy politicians.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council) [4.21 a.m.]: As honourable members know, I am not a great wordsmith. The Hon. R. D. Dyer used the Macquarie Dictionary.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: The Minister has the Oxford dictionary over there.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: The Oxford dictionary is a far more authoritative document. In the Oxford dictionary, with all of its proud history, the definition of the word "politician" is "one skilled in politics, statesman; one interested or engaged in politics, esp. as profession". I am entirely pleased to be lined up with that definition, particularly the statesman element of it. I hope not one member of this Chamber would not like to be known asone skilled in politics, a statesman, one interested or engaged in politics as a profession. The word "politician" sums it all up. In view of the authoritative definition in the Oxford dictionary, how could any one take objection to such use of the English language which is so succinct and so precise? It is proposed that this word be part of the long title of the bill which, asall honourable members know, will form the basis of the question that will be put to the people of New South Wales by way of referendum. The Government coiisiders that the use of the word "politician" as defined in the Oxford dictionary is appropriate, as it is a description most readily understood by the electors. The question put to the electors should be as clear as possible, and the Government is satisfied that the word currently used achieves that purpose. The word "member"has all sorts of connotations. I could think of all sorts of meanings that might tend to mislead the community as to what we are seeking to get rid of. I would hate the referendum to be brought into some sort of disrespect as a result of people misusing the word "member", which is far from being descriptive. The mind boggles as to the definition of that word in the Oxford dictionary. It is self-evident that, on the basis of the definition in the Oxford dictionary, the word "politician" is entirely accurate, particularly with that statesman element associated with it.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [4.24 a.m.]: The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has referred to a definition contained in another dictionary, but in no sense has the Minister dealt with the fact that the word that is sought to be dealt with by the amendment is inconsistent with the term used elsewhere in the principal Act-the Constitution Act-and also used in the explanatory notes to the bill before the Committee. Just one part of that explanatory note repeatedly refers to the word "members". It reads: 1398 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

At present the Legislative Council consists of 45 Members, with 15 Members being elected at each general election. Members serve for 3 terms of the Legislative Assembly. At the time of the last reconstitution of the Legislative Council in 1978, the term of office of a Member of the Legislative Council was a maximum of 9 years . . . Can it be legitimately or logically maintained that the word "member" or the term "member of Parliament", or the word "parliamentarian" for that matter, are not terms that are commonly and ordinarily understood in the community? Not even the Minister, who is an engineer, could maintain that. We all know what those terms mean. The Minister has put forward a threadbare argument. He is without resort to any logical argument, other than the fact that the Government is trying to persuade people at a referendum that politicians are discreditable people who should be reduced to the minimum number possible. That is exactly why the Government has included the word "politician". I maintain to the Committee that if the Government and the Minister had any integrity in regard to this matter they would accept the amendment. It does not interfere with what the Government wants to do. It is up to the people to approve or disapprove of the question. The Minister is trying to load the question. We have all heard of public opinion polls having loaded questions that try to suggest the response that is required. That is what the Government is doing in this case. This is a disgraceful manoeuvre on the part of the Government, and the Government ought to have second thoughts about it. The Won. MARIE BIGNOLD (4.27 a.m.]: In his usual fashion the Minister is laughing this matter off. He must have caught that characteristic from the Premier. I hear that the Premier laughs at everything nowadays,including such serious mattersas the proposition that this bill be referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. When he was told about that proposition, he laughed and said that I must have a sense of humour. Apparently that has rubbed off on the Minister. I regard this as a serious matter. Despite all the Minister's laughing protestations, the question that will be put to the people certainly is loaded to get the appropriate response from the community. We all know, and the Minister in all honesty should admit, that the word "politician" has a derogatory connotation in the community. The Minister should not shake his head in wonderment. His doing that means that he has been closeted for too long in this parliamentary building. Everyone in the community regards politicians as not having moral standards, and it is probably fairly true in respect of many of them. They are regarded as the lowest of the low. The community certainly sees politicians in an adverse light, as the Minister knows, and so does the Government. As a member of the Legislative Council I do not consider that the word "politician" is an appropriate word to use to describe a member of the Legislative Council. Before the people of New South Wales cast their vote in the referendum they most certainly will not run to the nearest dictionaryto find out what that word means. They know what it means because they read it in the newspapers every dayand they hear it on the radio in news broadcasts every day. They all know who they are, and they do not like it. It is a disgusting trick and fraud on the people to include the word "politician". The people of New South Wales should be asked to think about whether they want to reduce the number of members of the Legislative Council. I bclieve that the term "members of the Legislative Council" or "members of the upper House" of this Parliament carry a better reputation than the word "politicians". Does the Greiner Government not know that? Is not that the reason it has been included? That is a 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL disgraceful act on the part of this Government. On a number of occasions I have referred to the Government's act as disgraceful. It is-time without number-in small ways and large ways, and this is extremely disappointing. All Ican say is that I have heard the Minister forPolice and EmergencyServices manytimes in this Housesaythat something is disgraceful. I tell him: this is disgraceful and I amverydisappointedthat he has allowed the Government to include that type of term about the members of this House. I am sure his own members would regard that in exactly the same way. I am sure also that the Hon. Beryl Evans would not be pleased. Shelikes the title of the Honourable. I am sure for her part she would prefer to be called the Hon. Beryl Evans, Member of the Legislative Council, rather than a politician.

The Non. ANN SYMONDS [4.31 a.m.]: Numerous times in this debate I have been desirous of entering into the discussion but I have refrainedfrom doing so because many of my colleagues have delivered superb argumentsand there is no need for me to be repetitious. I am extremely grateful that my colleague the Hon. R. D. Dyer has brought this matter soforcefully to the attention of the House. I'should like to add a few examples for the attentionof the House. Severalyears ago I remember somepeople in this Parliament being very distressed at a joke that was doing the rounds-What is a contradiction in terms? The answer? An honest politician. The term is quite clearly and undeniably a term of denigration and distaste, and honourable members opposite know that to be the case. They know it to be true and their actions in the whole process or this so-called constitutional reformprove the point of that definition, that politicians are more concerned with powerthan with principle. Power is embedded precisely in the whole process sought to be introduced by this bill.

On oneoccasion when takingmy son to high school,I was momentarily distressed when he said in the car that he had been unable to tell his friends at school what his mother did. He said he hoped 1 did not mind that he did not tell them I was a politician. The child knew quite clearly what the community attitude was toward politicians and was not confident enough to share with his friends the fact that I was one. I said, "It is all right by me, David, because you and I understand what I do". But I am sad that the term has fallen into such disrepute andthe entire nation will suffer forit, because people who have a regard for themselves will not offer themselves for a duty of public service that is filled with such disrepute. My child had to be contentwith telling his friends that I worked in the city.

I should like to draw attention to another matter. Reverendthe Hon. F. J. Nile may not raise this matter himself, but in exchanges at the end of the Chamber aboutthe definition of the word, he said-and I quote, and let him deny it-that "politician is a dirty word", and he does not want to be known as a politician becauseit may bring him into somedisrepute by being associated with people like us, as he gestured towards this side. But hesaid quite clearly that politician is a dirtyword, andthat is what it has become in his mind and in that of the community. If members listen to the media everyday, as they all do, they will know the denigrating termsthat radio announcers andbroadcasters use constantly when talkingabout politicians and their behaviour and actions. This is quite clearly a very cynical move, verydistasteful, and we will all suffer for it. Though the Government gets some short-term gain, the community will suffer irrevocably. COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE L4.36 a.m.]: The point I was making in the aside was that during the Wran years, with the Minister for Corrective Services being put in prison, and others- [hzrem~ption] The Hon. J. R. Hallam: On a point of order. The honourablemember is casting personal aspersionsagainst a former Premier. I object and ask that he withdraw.

[Inf erruption] The Hon. J. R. Hallam: This individual politician here is making references and implying that the former Premier of this State was less than honest. I ask him to withdraw it. [I~zferruption] The Hon. E. P. Pickering: On the point of order. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile simply said-and his exact words were-in the Wran era or years-I am not sure which word he used-we had a Minister for CorrectiveServices who went to gaol, or something like that. That is no reflection on Mr Wran. He is simply identifyingan era and making a statement of fact that a politician went to gaol, and that brought the term politician into some disrespect. Under our administration the term politician is once more respectable. Obviously, no point of order is involved. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Docs any other member wish to address me on the point of order? Clearly, there is no point of order. The point of order can rest only on Standing Order 81 which deals with members. One is mindful of the things said in this debatewith respect to another Premier of a different persuasion. I remind memberson that side of the House of that. The IIon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council) [4.38 a.m.]: The Won. R. D. Dyer makes a valid point that needs to be addressed. At first blush his argument is persuasive. He points out, quite properly, that the Constitution Act refers to members, as do the standing orders. Virtually all the documentationrelating to members of the Parliament rclates to members. The reason for that is that one definition of the term member includes each of the persons composing asociety, party, community or other body. It is appropriate in a document suchas this, the Constitution Act, where referenceis to a group of people in society, to refer to them as members. Thereis no problem about that at all. When one is putting to the community of New South Wales a short and precise question that is completely isolatedfrom all other documentation,one needs to express that question in languagethe communitywill quickly and readily understand. The word politician is a clear and precise term that even the most illiterate membersof society can understand without any problem. If the question were to read "To reduce the number of members in the Legislative Council", a significant number of people would not understand it. Manypeople are not even aware that this Chamber exists, let aloneaware of its name. If one did not identify that one was talking about politicians, people might start to wonder whether the reference was to other definitionsofthe word member, such as a part or organ of the body. That is the most well known meaning of the word, which has at least five separate definitions, finally coming down to either side of an algebraic equation. To avoid confusion and make the question perfectly clear the word politician 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1401 must be used. At this hour the matter should be decided by a vote. The Government is opposed to the amendment.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [4.41 a.m.]: The words are clear. They read "To reduce the number of politicians in the Legislative Council". A better definition of the members of this place and the expression used in bills and standing orders is the word members. The question should be to reduce the number of members in the Legislative Council. We are members of the Legislative Council. For the Minister to suggest that the people would not know what was meant by that term demonstrates his contempt for the community. The Government is endeavouring to manipulate the people of this State. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile concedes that the word politician is used pejoratively. The Government is endeavouring to exploit the use of that word in that sense. As a consequence one hopes that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones will come to see the cynical action and concede that we should be described exactly as we are and that the question to be put will be to reduce the numbers of members of the Legislative Council. The pejorative term being used all over the country in regard to this issue should not be used. The question I have suggested would not break in any shape or form the spirit of the agreement between the Australian Democrats and the Government. I am sure that agreement did not come down to a cynical exercise involving the use of the term politician in the question that will be put before the people in the referendum. In the past few days many documents have been read in this Chamber. They made no reference to anything of that nature. Members should vote for the simple amendment that puts the question correctly before the people and describes us as members of the Legislative Council. That would not break the agreement. The Hon. E. P. Pickering is implying that if the Australian Democrats vote for the amendment, the other amendments will not be passed. That is typical of his bully-boy activities in the past few days.

Question-That the amendment be agreed to--put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 22

Mrs Arena Mr Ibbett Mr Shaw Mrs Bignold Mrs Isaksen Mrs Symonds Mr Brenner Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan Mr Dyer Mr Kaldis Mrs Walker Mr Egan Mrs Kite Mr Enderbury Mr Macdonald Tellers, Mr Hallam Mr Manson Mr French Mr Hankinson Mr Reed Mr O'Grady 1402 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

Noes, 22 Mr Bull Mr Jones Mr Samios Mrs Chadwick Miss Kirkby Mrs Sham-Ho Mrs Evans Mr Matthews Mr Rowland Smith Mr Gay Mr Mutch Mr Willis Dr Goldsmith Mrs Nile Mr Hannaford Revd F. J. Nile Tellers, Mrs Jakins Dr Pezzutti Mr Doohan Mr Jobling Mr Pickering Mr Killen The CHAIRMMk The vote being equal, in accordance with the ruling I gave earlier I give my casting vote with the noes and declare the question to be resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Long Title agreed to. Bill reported from Committee without amendment and report adopted.

Third Reading The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council) r4.52. a.m.]: I move: That this billbe now read a third time. Question put. The House divided. Ayes, 23 Mr Bull Mr Jobling Mr Pickering Mrs Chadwick Mr Jones Mrs Sham-Ho Mr Doohan Mr Killen Mr Rowland Smith Mrs Evans Miss Kirkby Sir Adrian Solomons Mr Gay Mr Mutch Mr Willis Dr Goldsmith Mrs Nile Tellers, Mr Hannaford Revd F. J. Nile Mr Matthews Mrs Jakins Dr Pezzutti Mr Samios Noes, 21 Mrs Arena Mr Hankinson Mrs Symonds Mrs Bignold Mr Ibbett Mr Vaughan Mr Brenner Mrs Isaksen Mrs Walker Mr Dyer Mr Kaldis Mr Egan Mrs Kite Mr Enderbury Mr Manson Tellers, Mr French Mr O'Grady Mr Macdonald Mr Hallam Mr Shaw Mr Reed Question so resolved in the affirmative. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL

Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. The Hon. E. P. PICKERING(Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council) [4.59 a.m.]: In accordance with the notice of motion I gave at the beginning of this debate, I move: That the Constitution(Referendum) Bill be now read asecond time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time.

In Committee Clause 3 The Hon. ELISABETHKIRKBY [5.2 a.m.]: I would like some clarification on clause 3, which states that the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill "is to be submitted by way of referendum to the electors". I would like the Minister to confirm that, when that referendum is held, both a Yes case and a No case will be presented to electors. I would also like the Minister to clarify who will prepare the Yes case and the No case. Will they be prepared by the Government or by an independent authority? It is my understanding that at any referendum both the Yes case and the No case have to be presented to electors. It is proper that both cases should be presented with equal weight: I ask the Minister whether he can clarify that matter so that I can feel comfortable and assured that equal weight will be given to both the Yes case and the No case. The Hon. E. P. PICKERING(Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council) (5.3 a.m.]: I wish the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby had given me some warning that she would be asking me that question. The Hon. M. R. Egan: Is that not part of your deal? The Hon. E. P. PICKERING:Get back in your box. For the benefit of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, there is no legislative requirement in New South Wales for a Yes case or a No case to be presented when a referendum is held. However, it is normal for that to be done. I understand that at the last referendum on daylight saving that was not done because that matter was considered to be clear-cut and really did not need a public education program. But I understand that at conventional referendums where matters are complex normally a Yes case and a No case are presented. I assume that there will be a Yes case and a No case, but I honestly advise the honourable member that Cabinet has not considered that matter. At this stage the matter will have to rest in the hands of the Government, which will have to make that decision. Going on previous referendums, the honourable member would have to expect that that is more likely to occur. The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY[5.4 a.m.]: Is the Minister in a position to inform the Committee whether political parties will be given an extra component of public funding to launch a Yes or No campaign? 1404 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-presidentof the Executive Council) [5.4 a.m.]: I assume that has notbeen done in the past; therefore it is not likely to occur on this occasion. The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [5.5 a.m.]: Regardless of whether public fundingwould be made available, will the Minister assurethe House that there will be absolutely no barrier to any political party or any group putting forward their views, either for the Yes case or the No case? The IIon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council) [5.6 a.m.]: It goes without saying in a democracythat every party, everyorganisation and every citizen in this Statewould have an unfettered right, through normal legal channels, to take part in a public debate on whether they support the referendum. Clause agreed to. Clause 4 [Date of referendum] The Hon. J. W. Shaw: On a point of order. Clause4 of the bill contradicts section 7A subsection (3) of the Constitution Act 1902. It is clear that this Parliament has no authority to pass legislation which is contrary to an entrenched provision in the Constitution Act. Legislationcannot conflict with a provisionof the Constitution Act, which is a manner and form requirement in the Constitution and which binds this Parliament andits successors. The courts have held that section 7Aof the Constitution Act is such a manner and form requirement. To take the most obvious example, it is incompetent for this Parliamentto abolish the Legislative Council without putting that matter to a referendum. But the position goes further than that. It would be incompetent for this Legislative Council to pass a law which would conflict with any aspect of the manner and form requirements containedwithin section 7A of the Constitution Act. Section 7A, subsection (3) states: On a day not sooner than two months after the passage of the Bill through both Houscs of the Legislature the Bill shall be submitted to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the Legislative Assembly.

Such day shall be appointed by the Legislature. So the Legislatureis required to appoint the day on which the submissionto the electors is to occur. The bill presently before the Committee purports to do just that. The explanatory notes to clause 4 of the bill state: Clause 4 appoints the day named for the taking of the poll at the next general election as thc date for the referendum. The question I am raising is whether the bill validly appoints the date for the conduct of the referendum or for the submission of the proposed legislation to the people. My submission is that the bill fails to appointa day. It conspicuouslyavoids theappointment of any ascertainable day. Putting the matter at its highest, the bill will provide a mechanism whereby in the future the relevant day can be worked out. The relevant day depends upon a number of future contingencieswhich are not predictable at this point in time. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1405

Clause 4 provides that the day appointed for the taking of thevotes of the electors at the referendum is the day named for the taking of the poll in the writs issued for the general election of the members of the Legislative Assembly held next after the commencement of the Act. That is not the appointment of a day; that is the description or definition of some method whereby in future the day will be ascertained. The Constitution Act reposes in the Legislature the taskof defining, specifying or appointing the day. If the legislation is passed in this form the Legislature would not be specifying the day, it would be leaving it up to the Governor in effect to determine or appoint the relevant day because it is the Governor who takes the relevant steps under the Constitution Act to issue the writs and determine the time of any subsequent election. Section 10 of the Constitution Act 1902 provides, inter alia, that the Governor may dissolve the Assembly by proclamation or otherwise whenever he deems it expedient. Section 11A of the Constitution Act provides that every general election of members of the Legislative Assembly and every periodic Council election shall be held pursuant to writs issued by the Governor. So, I would contend that it would be the Governor who would determine the appointed day pursuant to this legislation should it be passed. It would not be done by the Legislature. There is a fundamental principle that where legislation delegates power to a particular body-in this case the Legislature-that body cannot further delegate that task, because if it does so it would be abrogating its function. You, Mr Chairman, would be well aware of the maxim delegatus non potest delegare, the delegate cannot further delegate its power. I would contend that this legislation provides a mechanism or a trigger but does not relevantly appoint the day. I wish to say something shortly about the concept of appointment in order to argue that where somebody is required to appoint a day that means to spec@ it with particularity and not leave it to someone else to work out what that day might be in hypothetical or future circumstances. In the work Wordr and Phrases Judicial4 Defined there is reference to a case in 1953 under the heading of "Australia". The meaning of the word "appoint" is dealt with and the relevant excerpt reads as follows: The meaning of the words "appoint" and "appointed" varies according to the context in which they are used. In some cases, the appointment of a person to fill a particular role or to percorm a particular task will require nothing more than communication between appointor and prospective appointee. That is not ordinarily so in a case where one party to a contract is entitled or required to appoint a third person to dosomethingwith consequences that arecontractually binding upon the other party or parties. Insueh acase and in theabsence of contraryprovision in thecontract, the appointment will ordinarily be effective only when the prospective appointee has been clothed with the requisite authority by being identified by communication of his identity by the party or parties.

In the same work there is reference to a Canadian case decided in 1975 in which it was said: The infinitive "to appoint" in ordinary usage means "to ordain or nominate a person to an office or to perform a function". Reference is made to the OxJbrd English Dictionary in that respect. The Concise Macquarie Dictionary states that the word "appoint" means to nominate or assign to a position, or to perform a function; set apart; designate; to constitute, ordain or fix by decree, order or decision; to determine by authority or agreement; fix; or settle. The concept of fixing a date is the relevant concept. This clause just does not fixa date. One would not know the answer to the question: what date is fixed by the legislation? One 1406 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 would simply say that it depends when the Governor takes the relevant steps to call the next election. In my contention that is a fundamental defect in this legislation and a collision between clause 4 of the bill and section 7A of the Constitution Act. In concluding, may I say that the major discussion about the binding effect of those manner and form provisions in section 7Aof the Constitution Act is to be found in the important case of Clayton and Heffron in 1960, volume 105 of Commonwealth Law Reports, at page 214. Although there are many discussions of the provisions of section 7A in the case, I would refer to page 255, which shows that the High Court made it clear that those manner and form requirements are binding upon the Legislature and cannot be circumvented by it.

The Won. E. P. Pickering: On the point of order. The honourable member has raised this matter by way of a point of order and is therefore seeking a decision by you, as Chairman, as to whether the matters he raised are sustainable. Mr Chairman, I would draw to your attention a ruling of this House that statutory interpretation questions cannot properly be ruled on by the Presiding Officers of this Chamber. I draw to your attention a President's ruling which is recorded at page 315 of the rulings of Presidents of this Chamber, which states that the President is not called upon to interpret Acts of Parliament but to guide members in relation to rules of procedure in the House. Therefore the matter raised by the Hon. J. W. Shaw should be decided more properly-if a decision is indeed needed-by a court rather than by a Presiding Officer of this Chamber. The matter raised by the honourable member was specifically considered during the drafting of the bill. The Government is satisfied, based on its advice, that clause 4 is completely valid in terms of section 7A(3) of the Constitution Act. As evidence of this, I have in my possession a joint opinion of Michael McHugh, Q.C., who is now a judge of the High Court, and John Bryson dated 25th January, 1977, which clearly indicates that a clause to the effect of clause 4 is a valid appointment of a date for a referendum in accordance with section 7A(3) of the Constitution Act. The joint advice is lengthy and I do not intend to read it into the record but I will draw sufficiently from it by way of extract to provide honourable members with some assurance that what I am advised by my advisers is correct. I refer to page 4 of the advice, which says in part the following: The third provision we have been asked to consider is the provision of appointing as the referendum day the polling day for the next following general election for the Legislative Assembly.

It states further: In testing the validity of such an appointment two principles seem to govern:

(a) there must be an appointment of a day; and

(b) the appointment must be made by the Legislature, not by anyone else.

We do not think it is necessary to nominate a day by stating its date. In our opinion it is sufficient appointment of the day if a method is prescribed whereby the day can be calculated even by reference to a future event of uncertain date.

Later in the opinion it reads: We do not think that the Legislature can validly delegate to anyone any choice or discretion in the manner of fiing the referendum day. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL

On that point the Hon. J. W. Shaw and the advice are as one. The advice continues: We are of the same view with respect to the third scheme in which the date of the next general election polled for theAssembly is appointed. As the Constitution Act limits thelife of each Parliament and makes it necessary to conduct such an election at stated maximum intervals, the ordinary working of the public law of the State will identify the day which the Legislature has appointed. To a humble engineer it would seem, on the basis of excerpts taken from that advice, that the advice given to the Government at the time of the drafting of the legislation would be valid. The bill appoints a day by reference to a certain specified future event. Legal advice has confirmed the validity of this formula under section 703. The legal advice also confirms that the appointment in this manner is not a delegation as such. The only thing I would add by way of my own interpretation-and therefore due weight should be given to that-is that under the provisions of the Constitution Act, section 7A subsection (3), the other requirement that would go hand in hand with the provision of clause 4 of this bill is that the date of the election could be set not less than two months after the passage of the bill through both Houses of the Legislature. One would assume that, provided the electionwas not called within that specific time frame, it would comply completely with the Constitution Act. The Hon. J. W. Shaw is out of order in asking you, Mr Chairman, to rule on the matter. It is not a matter upon which you are entitled to rule and I suggest to theHon. J. W. Shaw, based upon good advice, our parliamentary draftsman believes that the manner in which they have acted is perfectly legal and constitutional. The I-Ion. M. R. Egan: On the point or order. I refer honourable members to a situation that arose a year or two ago in this House when, Mr Chairman, you were in the chair. As I recall I moved an amendment to a tobacco excise bill which sought to establish a health promotion fund. I remember the Government taking a point of order that my amendment was unconstitutional and was contrary to the Constitution Act 1902. I remember arguing, perhaps not as eloquently as the Leader of the Government just did, the very same argument, that it was not the role of the Presiding Officer to decide on the constitutionality or otherwise of the measure before the House. This is exactly the same argument that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services has addressed to you tonight. Iwell recall that on that last occasion, Mr Chairman, you did not uphold my point of view that it was not within the prerogative of the Presiding Officers to rule on the question of constitutionality. It is of interest that the Government is now putting the exact opposite of the view it put on that occasion. The Ilon. J. W. Shaw: Further to the point of order. It is clear that the ruling of the President relied upon by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is not in point in this debate. That ruling refers to whether the President or Presiding Officer should be asked to construe an Act of Parliament in a general sense. Here the point is that the legislation sought to be brought forward is invalid because it is in conflict with the Constitution. It is not the same abstract question of interpreting an Act of Parliament. It is a question ofdetermining whether the procedure of this House is being validly prosecuted. It may be necessary for the Presiding Officer to interpret standing orders or Acts of Parliament in order to determine whether the procedure before the House is being properly conducted. In other words if, to determine a point of procedure of the House, it is incidentally necessary to construe an Act of Parliament, obviously there can be no barrier to the Presiding Officer doing just that. The ruling referred to simply says, "The President is not called upon to interpret Acts of Parliament but to 1408 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991 guide members in relation to the rules of procedure in the House". It is plain that if an argument is advanced that a piece of legislation is invalid or inconsistent with the Constitution Act, the Presiding Officer has to rule on just such a matter. It cannot be beyond the powers of this Parliament to determine whether the legislation before it is invalid. On the substantive question which has been argued, I would have the greatest respect for any advice given by Mr Justice McHugh, as he now is, and by Mr Justice Bryson, as he now is. However, no advice of counsel is infallible, just as no judgment, even of the judges of the highest court in the land, is infallible. Judges dissent and disagree with each other all the time. I adhere to the argument previously expressed and to the extent that it may be inconsistent with opinions set out in the joint advice cited by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I nevertheless stand by the arguments presented. It is worthy of note, however, that the opinion in this respect is hardly unequivocal. Indeed, it raises a doubt about the matter, a doubt that is really consistent with the argument I expressed earlier to the Chamber. The Hon. D. J. Gay: Have you ever read a legal opinion that did not express a doubt? The Hon. J. W. Shaw: I agree that I usually do have some reservation at the bottom line. Counsel gave this particular advice in 1977-and I shall quote a few sentences: In the last case-refemng to the case where you purport to appoint a date by focusing on the date of the next election-however, some greater colour can be given to an argument that there has been a delegation of the power of appointing the day. It is always possible to construct some such argument unless the highbinconvenient course is taken of designating a particular date in theappointed bill. For if any mechanism for selecting a day by reference to the passage of a piece of legislation is selected, it can be said that the Governor or the Queen, in choosing the date on which to assent to the principal bill, is appointing the referendum date. Like the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I have not quoted the whole opinionbut I havequoted enough to indicate to this House that our argument is certainly not without substance and that the opinion which tends to the contrary is not without equivocation in exposing the difficulty. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Further to the point of order. I should like to assist the honourable member with that part of the advising given by learned counsel to do with the question of a mechanism which may be imprecise. The advising says that if the mechanism provided by the Legislature is not clear and precise, it can be argued that the Legislature fails in properly setting a date. The advising here is quite clear, that where the mechanism is beyond doubt and clear-as indeed it is on this occasion-the precise date obviously will be the date of the next general election. One could not get a more precise date than that in terms of mechanism. The Won. J. W. Shaw: We do not know when it is. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: It does not matter what the actual date is. It will obviously become very clear at a particular moment in time, as a result of that mechanism, that there will be indeed a precise date. That is beyond a shadow of a doubt. What this advice says is that if the Legislature selects a mechanism that is not as precise in those terms, that would be a ground for a challenge to that mechanism and hence the 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1409 method of trying to set the date using this type of procedure. I could understand learned counsel putting that, but unless the mechanism is clear, concise and unequivocal it is certainly subject to challenge. A precise reading of those words, taken in their full context, would be simply warning that we should not set a mechanism that is other than precise. I believe that clears up that matter.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I am grateful to the Hon. J. W. Shaw for the clarity of the argument he has advanced. I am indebted to the Minister for his thorough preparation of every aspect of the legislation. If what the Hon. M. R. Egan says is correct-I have no recollection of it myself-it indicates that Presiding Officers are as fallible as judges, Queen's Counsel, and lawyers of every ilk. I am grateful also to the Clerks at the Table, who have provided me with all the appropriate rulings. Those rulings make it clear beyond any question that a Presiding Officer is not called upon to construe an Act of Parliament, to decide points of law or give opinions about them. In 1862, President Murray said: It is the duty of the President not to give opinions on points of law, but to declare and give his opinion, when it is called for, on all matters relating to the ordinary forms and rules of proceedings in Parliament.

That was followed by a ruling given by Deputy President Trickett on 9th October, 1901. He said:

The President, in giving a ruling, is not called upon to decide points of law, but is merely required to express his opinion, as some guide to the House on any question referred to him.

In what is probably the clearest statement, the headnote of a ruling given on 5th December, 1951, reads:

The President is not called upon to decide any question of law, but to decide those questions only which refer to the forms and proceedings of the House.

That particular ruling arose out of a question that arose during the second reading debate on the Coal and Oil Shale Mine Workers (Superannuation) Amendment Bill. A point of order was taken by Sir Henry Manning, who asked for a ruling from the Chair on the validity of the provisions of clause 3 of the bill which he contended contained an alteration of powers of the Legislative Council by delegating to the Governor the power to extend the definition of "mine worker", by proclamation, and thereby infringed the provisions of section 7A of the Constitution Act. Debate on the point of order ensued and Deputy-President Steele then ruled: The Honourable Sir Henry Manning has taken a Point of Order on clause 3 of the Bill. Over many years past this House has passed Bills which delegated power by regulation. Clause 3 of the Bill delegates power to another authority by proclamation and it is that on which the Honourable Member has taken his Point of Order. His Point of Order, as I understand it, is that by delegating power to another authority by proclamation the Bill would be contravening the constitutional powers of this House. I am of the opinion that it is really not a Point of Order but merely a question of law, and that being so, it is a matter which could, if necessary, be referred to the courts of the land if and when the Bill becomes law. I am amply supported in my contention by my predecessors because it has been laid down on more than one occasion that the Chair is not called upon to decide any question of law, but to decide those questions only which refer to the forms and proceedings of the House. I am therefore of the opinion that this is a question of law and I rule against the objection raised by Sir Henry Manning. 1410 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

It is perhaps an elegant analogy and perhaps the Hon. J. W. Shaw may say it is an argument by analogy only, but a similar situation arises out of the consideration of Erskine May's ParliamentalyPractice on the issue of questions seeking an expression on a point of law. At page 291 of the twenty-first edition of May, the learned editor said: Questions seeking an expression of opinion on a question of law, such as the interpretation ofa statute, or of an international document, a Minister's own powers, etc, are not in order since the courts rather than Ministers are competent in such matters. Moreover, questions requiring information set forth in accessible documents (such as statutes, treaties, etc.) have not been allowed when the Member concerned could obtain the information of his own accord without difficulty. Ministers may however be asked by what statutory authority thqr have acted in a particular instance, and the Prime Minister may be asked to define a Minister's responsibilities. For the reasons I have set out in the previous rulings, I rule that a point of law has been raised by the Hon. J. W. Shaw. I do not believe that he would seriously contend otherwise. Accordingly, I am bound by the rulings that make it clear that it is not my function to decide points of law or to give opinions on them. Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.

OMBUDSMAN (AMENDMENT) BILL

EMPLOYEESLIABILITY BILL

MURRAY-DARLINGBASIN (AMENDMENT)BILL

PETROLEUM(SUBMERGED ]LANDS) AMENDMENTBILL

CRIMINAL RECORDSBILL

CHIROPRACTORSAND OSTEOPATHSBILL Formal stages and first reading agreed to. Suspension of certain standing orders agreed to.

CRIMESLEGISLATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT)BILL Message The Presidentreported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly: Mr President- The billintituled "An Act toamend the Crimes Act 1900 tomake further provisionswith respect to medical examinations, inquiries subsequent to conviction, the taking of a conveyance without the consent of the owner, and apprehended violence orders and for other purposes and to amend the Summary Offences Act 1988 to regulate climbing on and jumping from buildings and other structures"-fowarded to the Legislative Council for concurrence during the previous session of the present Parliament, not having been finally dealt with because of the prorogation of the Legislature, the Legislative Assembly requests that the said bill be proceeded with under the Council Standing Orders in that behalf. Legislative Assembly K. R. Rozzou 20 March 1991 Speaker 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1411

Motion Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That pursuant to Standing Order 201 the bill be restored to the business paper and that the second meading of the bill stand an order of the day for the next sitting day.

JUSTICES (PROSTITUTIONFINE ENFORCEMENT) AMENDMENTRILL Message The President reported the receipt of the following messagefrom the Legislative Assembly: Mr President-

The bill intituled "An Act to amend the Justices Act 1902withrespect to the enforcement of the payment of fines for prostitution offences"-forwarded to the Legislative Council for concurrence during the previous session of the present Parliament,not having been finally dealt with because of the prorogation of the Legislature, the Legislative Assemblyrequests that the said bill be proceeded with under the Council Standing Orders in that behalf. Legislative Assembly K R. ROZZOLI 20 March 1991 Speaker

Motion Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That pursuant to Standing Order 201, the bill be restored to the business paper and that the second readingof the bill stand an Order of the Day for the next sitting day.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That this House at its rising today do adjourn to Tuesday, 9th April, 1991, at 2.30 p.m. sharp, unless the President, or if the President be unable to act on account of illness or other cause, the Chairman of Committees shall by communication addressed to each member of the House, fuc an alternative dayand/or hour of the meeting.

ADJOURNMENT Police Service and Tape Products Research-Death ofCardinal Sir James Freeman The IIon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council) 15-44a.m.]: I move: That this House do now adjourn. The Hon. M. R. EGAN [5.44 a.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House a smelly affair. New South Wales taxpayers have lost more than $1 million, because the Government preferred a foreign companyto an innovative Australian organisationfor a multimillion dollar contract to provide sophisticated audio-visualequipment for the New South Wales PoliceService. An Australianorganisation, Tape Products Research, has come up with a world first in producing a valuable,electronic tamper-proof time code system. The Government,however, has shown no interest in the company and has preferred a much higher overseas tender. I point out that recently the Australian Federal Police called for tenders for similar equipment and gave its contract to the 1412 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

Australian organisation. In fact, the Federal police stated that there was just "no contest between the two bids". Officers of the child protection unit of the New South Wales Police Service tried to purchase the Australian equipment, which it regards as more suitable for its purposes, but was told that it must use the foreign product. Tape Products Research is making its mark in Australia with orders from the taxation, immigration and civil aviation departments, and the Royal Australian Air Force, and has also won orders overseas from the Californian Government. It is unbelievable that sophisticated equipment, invented in New South Wales and being eagerly sought by overseas governments, is being spurned by the Greiner Government. The pathetic response of the New South Wales Government is that electronic tamper proofing was not sought by the New South Wales tender specification. In a letter to Tape Products Research the Minister for Family and Community Services, and Minister for Administrative Services said: . . . it is appreciated that where electronic tamper proofing is required the TPR system would be well suited. It is not surprising that Tape Products Research is making sales to other government organisations that specify electronic tamper proofing.

Months after seeking an interview with the Government, Tape Products Research received a letter from Mr Webster detailing the alleged shortcomings of their product. These alleged shortcomings do not stand up to any scrutiny. After providing complete answers to each of the Minister's objections, TPR has now come up against a wall of silence. Neither the Premier nor Mr Webster will answer TPR's repeated requests for a face-to-face meeting. It seems that the Government is simply covering up. SVTVideo Systems received the tender, as has been claimed by the New South Wales police, and I quote a statement from a Sergeant Kilburn:

In fact the contract was won by SVT Video Systems, a company registered in New South Wales and based at North Ryde.

That claim by the New South Wales police is quite misleading. Although the company is registered in Australia, 42,500 of the 45,000 issuedshares are held by Sound and Vision Technology Limited, Heybridge Industrial Estate, Hulloway Road, Maldon, United Kingdom. In other words, it is 94 per cent foreign owned. SVT Video Systems, the firm that won the tender, has recently been unable to pay its debts. In a letter to its creditors dated 10th January, 1991, that company said:

Whilst we are normally prompt with our monthly account payments, I expect that for a period of two months we will be unable to adhere to this schedule. I would askfor your patience in this respect.

That letter was signed "Yours sincerely SVT Video Systems Pty Limited", by Michele Miller, the accounts manager. I seek leave to have the letters incorporated inHansard.

Leave granted. [See Addendum.]

An innovative Australian company has been refused a tender when it bid $1 million under the price tendered by this foreign firm. In the view of the Australian Federal Police the Australian product is top standard. I hope there are not too many other similar examples, because that would be to the great detriment of the taxpayer and Australian industry. 20 March, 1991 COUNCIL 1413

Addendum Whilst we are normally prompt with our monthly account payments, I expect that for a period of two months wewill be unable to adhere to this schedule. I would ask for your patience in this respect. To allay any concerns which may arise from this request, I advise that this situation has occurred due to an unexpected transient in our planned cash flow. The reasons behind this are: (a) Delayed payment for a significant contract completed in October in Queensland; (b) Delayed commencement of deliveries to the NSW State Contract Board (for the NSW Police Service) due to late delivery to SVT of one crucial component, resulting in high inventory as all other components and assemblies are in place. (?his is a2year period contract just starting out); (c) The need to carry on with other projects in the meantime. As a result of this passing phase we expect to be able to bring accounts partially up to date in February and to recover our normal pattern of payments by March 1991. We apologise for this delay and be assured we are endeavouring to rectify the position as soon as possible. The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) 15.48a.m.]: This House should place on record its appreciationof the life and times of CardinalSir James Freeman,who is being buried on Friday. Cardinal Freeman was an outstanding citizen of this city and an outstanding churchman. We are poorer for his passing, as we are when great men pass on, but we all must go to our Maker. As the Cardinal would have said, he had a good innings, although he was a football fan, not a cricket fan. There would not be one member of this House who does not know of him. Those of us who are of the Catholic religion certainly admired him as much as anyone. He was a very humble man, but I say again that he was an outstanding man. I thought it would be timely, even at this hour, to place on record my personal appreciation, andthat of this House, of his life and time. The Hon. E. P. PICKERING Winister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council) 15.50 a.m.]: Representing the Government in this House, I join with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the words that he has expressed at the deathof this eminent statesman. I amsure that all honourablemembers join with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the sentiments he expressed. As to the matters raised by the Hon. M. R. Egan, though the Minister for Family and Community Services, and Minister for Administrative Services has apparently been responsible for the carriage of those matters, they are matters that apparently impinge upon my administration. I cannot recall the matter coming to my attention, but that does not mean that they have not. One carries out many tasks as a Minister. I will certainly have the matters thoroughly and quickly investigated. On the surface the matters raised by the honourable member appear to be matters of concern. I will certainly have them properly checkedout to his satisfaction. Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at 5.52 a.m., Thursday. 1414 COUNCIL 20 March, 1991

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following questions upon notice and answers were circulated in Questions and Answers:

E1,ECTRICITY COMMISSION PAINTINGS COLLECTION Mr Jones asked the Minister for State Development representing the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Planning- (1) Does the Electricity Commission have a valuable collection of paintings? (2) What other valuable property does the Electricity Commission possess which has no relationship to the supply of electricity? (3) Will the Minister ensure that such property is sold off in order to provide funds for underground electricity supply in areas of high scenic quality? Answer- The question should more appropriately be addressed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy.

BEGA DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN Mr Jones asked the Minister for State Development representing the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Planning- (1) Have community objections been raised to amendment number 38 to the Bega Valley Shire Council draft Local Environmental Plan (L.E.P.) which applies to the Yowaka, Pambula Rivers and Broadwater Lake area? (2) Will the proposed rezoning from la to lc risk damage to the ecology of the whole 1akeJestua1-yarea? (3) Is such zoning in accordance with the Government's new Coastal Policy? (4) What action does the Minister intend to take to ensure that the ecology of these river and lake areas are fully protected? Answer- (1) Yes. (2) My Department has requested the Council to provide an assessment of potential impact on the ecology and provide advice should it submit this matter for my determination. (3) The subject land is not affected by the Coastal Policy. (4) See answer (2).