5100

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Wednesday 3 May 2000 ______

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PRINCIPLES OF MULTICULTURALISM BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 May.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.00 a.m.]: Yesterday, when I had the advantage of listening to debate on this bill, I was buoyed by the support shown for this legislation by all honourable members. Most honourable members accepted and welcomed multiculturalism as a fundamental part of society in New South Wales. Those who participated in debate on this bill congratulated the Government on introducing measures which will ensure that multiculturalism is enshrined in law. The Government recognises and celebrates the cultural diversity of people living in New South Wales. It recognises their positive contribution to and their growth within a community which has English as a common language. It recognises our institutional framework in New South Wales and it recognises also that, within that framework, people from different cultures have the right to live their lives in that community.

Honourable members who contributed to debate on this bill related personal experiences of the contact they have had with members of our rich and diverse community, the impact that those experiences have had on them and the development of their view towards multiculturalism. It is sad that in some ways we have had to enshrine an issue such as this in legislation. Yesterday the honourable member for The Entrance said that only now, after a period of 20 years, have we acknowledged the fact that Australia is a multicultural society. In the past few years some divisive influences in this community sought to blame ethnicity for the economic difficulties being experienced in country and regional New South Wales. This bill will attempt to ensure that those who have made Australia their home are part and parcel of and full participants in our community. We welcome and celebrate that cultural diversity.

I welcome and applaud the input of members to debate on this issue. I welcome their recognition of and support for the multiculturalism concept. Let me present to honourable members my own perspective in this debate. I grew up in the small country town of Kendall. It was not until the 1950s that people from other communities came to live in that community. Two Dutch families, who were used to living in the country, quickly made themselves active and full members of our community. I left Kendall and commenced my teacher training in Newcastle and I then went to the country, to Tenterfield, to teach. It was not until 1965, when I was transferred from Tenterfield to teach at Newtown Boys High School, that I came into contact with the rich variety of people migrating to and taking up opportunities in this country.

It was there that I learned for the first time that it did not matter from which country people came; they came to Australia with a similar view—they wanted the best for their children. They were family oriented people who wanted to get on with and make a success of their lives. Myriad people from different communities came through Newtown Boys High School while I was there from 1965 to 1980. Many of those people started off in what I would call the sweated industries, working extremely hard to provide for their children and to give them an education and a start in life. In the time that I spent at that school it was wonderful to see the development of those children, who went on to become successful and active members of a community with strong cultural and family values. People came to Australia from every continent. In the traditional era of early arrivals people from Greek and Maltese communities settled in Newtown. Migration patterns then changed and people from southern and central Europe, Asia and South America came through the Newtown area. When I first moved to Newcastle there were far fewer migrants than there are now. However, they quickly assimilated into and participated fully in community life. Some important aspects in this legislation include multiculturalism, the celebration of 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5101 people's backgrounds and their participation in the community. I will mention a few events in Newcastle that identify that coming together of people and the celebration of their diversity. Yesterday someone said in debate on this bill, "We are one but we are many and from all the lands on earth we come." That statement could be used as one of our multicultural concepts.

Another honourable member said, "Many colours, one rainbow", which again emphasises the diversity of our backgrounds and the fact that together we are building this nation. This piece of legislation re-emphasises those concepts. In Newcastle we celebrate multiculturalism annually with a cultural stomp. People from multicultural backgrounds come together in Civic Park to celebrate with music and dance. Each year in Hamilton people from diverse communities celebrate in a unified manner a fiesta in Beaumont Street—one of the most multicultural streets in the Newcastle area. At that fiesta we see wonderful benefits, apart from the economic input of people. A diverse range of restaurants provide a variety of foods for people in Newcastle. I refer also to the Scalabrini Centre in Beaumont Street and to the Greek, Italian and Turkish restaurants. In the past 20 to 30 years we have seen many changes in the composition of that street. Those sorts of social activities have greatly benefited the people of Newcastle. I wish to reiterate the principles of multiculturalism that are contained in the bill and to recognise the general support within the House for this bill. Principle 1 states:

All individuals in New South Wales should have the greatest possible opportunity to contribute to, and participate in, all aspects of public life.

That principle facilitates access to all aspects of public life, through education and government programs, by all people who live in our multicultural society. Principle 2 states:

All individuals and public institutions should respect and make provision for the culture, language and religion of others within an Australian legal and institutional framework where English is the common language.

All people coming to this country, whilst recognising that they live within our institutional, government and legal structures, can retain their own cultural identity. Principle 3 states:

All individuals should have the greatest possible opportunity to make use of and participate in relevant activities and programs provided or administered by the Government of New South Wales.

Principle 3, which emphasises the accessibility of government programs to people of all cultures and languages, places on us a responsibility to provide services in other languages, as well as in English. Principle 4 states:

All public institutions of New South Wales should recognise the linguistic and cultural assets in the population of New South Wales as a valuable resource and promote this resource to maximise the development of the State.

As was emphasised yesterday, one of the reasons for the development of this State in the international commerce and technology field is the capacity of our industries to communicate in every language. Multiculturalism provides such economic benefits, as well as providing a welcoming and culturally diverse community in which people from all cultures can comfortably live. For a long time my community of Newcastle has celebrated the diversity of peoples. I congratulate Newcastle City Council on its promotion of multiculturalism and the way in which it has led the reconciliation process with our indigenous people. We should not forget that the reconciliation process has a long way to go, and we must continue the positive programs that have been implemented by the Government.

Since 1993 Newcastle has held a coming together day, which celebrates multiculturalism and the contribution of our indigenous people to the cultural growth of our country. On that day thousands of people sign the Hunter commitment to indigenous Australia. That is a proud record. All honourable members who have contributed to the debate recognise the importance of this legislation. In many ways the impetus for the legislation was the negative approach that some people were taking towards multiculturalism. People come from other countries to make their home here and contribute to this country. Although they are totally committed to Australia, they also wish to maintain their sense of cultural identity. They felt that they were being prejudiced and discriminated against by people who were using the race issue to divide our community. Those people did not want to cement our multicultural society or promote it as a positive aspect of Australian life in the late 1990s and into 2000. Australia has been recognised on the world stage as a country that has been successful in bringing people from around the world and melding them into a coherent culture. We recognise their differences and applaud their commitment to Australia, which has received worldwide recognition as a country that has given a start to people from many diverse nations. I support the bill. Mr GIBSON (Blacktown) [10.15 a.m.]: I am proud to support the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Bill. In many ways, the bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation 5102 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 that has been put before this Parliament. It recognises the cultural diversity of people who live in this great State and country. Many communities and organisations have placed on record their strong support for the legislation. They include the Chinese, Lebanese, Arabic, Jewish, Croatian and Italian communities and organisations throughout regional New South Wales. I also note that Mr Neville Roach, Chairman of the Council of Multicultural Australia, and Dr Paolo Totaro, the founding chair of the Ethnic Affairs Commission, totally support this legislation.

The Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Bill sets out in legislation for the first time multicultural initiatives that have been taken in this State. This legislation confirms New South Wales as one of the leaders, if not the leader, in multiculuralism. No other State, or, I think, country, has gone down this road of establishing principles of multiculturalism in legislation. I congratulate the Government on this legislation. I was born and bred in a little country town called Young. People of many nationalities have lived at Young, as they do today. I remember with great affection the owner of the Monterey Café, a Greek called Mr Michie. Mr Michie was a part of the life of every young person in the town. On many occasions if you could not afford a milkshake, you could bet your life that if you spoke kindly to Mr Michie he would give you a sample on the house.

The same could be said about Mr Quay from China, who was one of the local grocers, and Mr Mellis, a shoemaker from Malta. Amongst their children, one son became a leading children's specialist in Sydney, another became a lawyer and one daughter became a pilot. I am certain that the next generation will be as successful. Most people who have grown up or lived in country towns would understand what I am going to say. We did not look on those people as being ethnics. We knew that they came from other countries, but no-one ever referred to them as ethnics. They have never been referred to as being of ethnic origin. However, over the last quarter of century people such as Mr Michie, Mr Quay and Mr Mellis have been referred to as ethnics. I have never been happy with that word, and I do not think I have used it many times in my lifetime.

It was only when I came to Sydney in the early 1960s to play rugby league that I realised there was anything called racial discrimination. In those days everyone who came from Young was call a cherry picker¾as they are today¾and when people referred to "ethnics" I thought they were referring to us because we were called cherry pickers. It might have been a naive way of thinking, but it was the right way to think. My electorate of Blacktown has a very diverse population. Blacktown city has the largest Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population of 5,240 people. With 57,000 residents, 27.2 per cent of the population in Blacktown aged five and over speak a language other than English. The number of overseas arrivals in Blacktown from August 1991 to February 1996 was just under 6,000 people, almost 96 per cent from non-English-speaking countries. The highest proportion was from the Philippines, with 25 per cent, followed by China with 7 per cent, Fiji with 6.8 per cent and Yugoslavia with 6.7 per cent.

Many nationalities are represented in the electorate of Blacktown and I consider it offensive to refer to them as "ethnic". They have made the decision to come to Australia and, in many cases, have taken part in a naturalisation ceremony. They are Australians, as we are. It follows from the principles that we have observed for the past quarter of a century, that if Captain Cook were living in Australia today he would be referred to as ethnic. That is a silly and scandalous situation. It is interesting to consider the sporting arena. At one stage when I was playing rugby league for Parramatta a Greek chap was also playing for Parramatta. One night at training he looked fairly despondent and I asked him what the trouble was. He said, "I don't know, I have never struck this before." He came from a country town, as I did.

Mr Orkopoulos: It wasn't George Souris, was it?

Mr GIBSON: No, it was not George Souris, I do not think he ever played rugby league. He may have watched a few games. I asked that Greek chap what the problem was. He said, "The problem is this, they call me 'wog boy'." I told him that was just the friendly nature of the Australian people. I said, "Don't worry about that, because they call me 'Abo'." I suppose I have been affectionately called "Abo" from as far back as I can remember. If you were to go to Young today and ask for Paul Gibson, some people might know me, but if you were to ask for "Abo" nearly everyone would know me because of the nickname I have had. This fellow went on to become very successful in entertainment and broadcasting. The funny part of the story is that he is called "Zorba" today and is quite happy to be called Zorba. That is the great transition that has occurred.

We are all very proud of our sporting background. People I have played with and have admired over the years include Bobby Fulton, Tommy Raudonikis, George Peponis, Jersey Komorowski, Johnny Mowbray— the greats. Today we have football players in the current State of Origin side such as Webcke and Kimmorley; 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5103 tennis stars such as Dokic and Philippoussis; netballers like Avellino; and soccer players such as Viduka. I could go on and on. When we watch these people play we do not call out "Good on you, ethnic". We refer to them as Australians, and they have always been referred to as Australians. We do not say we have a team that is half Australian and half ethnic. I am pleased this legislation has come before the House, because it puts that ethnic situation to rest once and for all.

I attend many citizenship ceremonies in my electorate. We have a citizenship ceremony in Blacktown probably every six weeks and perhaps 200 or 300 people are naturalised. Those people come from cultures that are thousands and thousands of years old. We are a very young country, just over 200 years old. Everybody who becomes an Australian citizen adds to the wealth of this nation. If one thinks of the wealth these people have given us, not only with their manpower and friendliness but with the different foods that we eat today, the different music we listen to, the different architecture they have brought to the place—which is something very close to the Premier's heart at the moment—one sees what a great asset these people have been. It is a misnomer to call them "ethnic"; that should not have happened.

I have a very good friend who, for the sake of a name, I will call Tony. Tony came to Australia in the early 1970s with $14 in his pocket. Today Tony is a very wealthy and successful businessman who has raised three beautiful kids. Tony often says that at one stage he was working five jobs in the concrete business, laying concrete all day and half the night on many occasions. He used to get very offended when people called him an ethnic. He said, "I have been here for 30 years, I have been paying my taxes and I have raised three kids here, yet they still call me an ethnic." He has a good friend I will call George. George was born here and has been here all his life. George's father and uncle were killed in the war—not fighting for Italy or wherever they came from, but fighting for Australia. He also gets very offended. He says, "My family has fought for this country and we are still being called ethnic." This legislation will make Tony and George, and people like them, very happy.

People from many nationalities make up the constituents in my electorate. A large percentage of those are Filipinos. A Filipino function is a festivity in itself. These people have been great supporters of me but also great supporters of Australia and the Australian way. They turn up to these functions in their national costumes. That is something this Parliament might look at somewhere down the track. We would be the only nation in the world today that cannot boast a heritage like other nations and we do not have a national costume. It would do no harm if at some stage we looked at the possibility of adopting a national costume like other nations have.

There is no doubting that we live in the greatest country in the world today. That is because of the diversity of ideas and the cultural differences that people have brought here. I suppose the greatest advertisement for this country—and it makes us the envy of the world today—is that we are multicultural, we live under a big friendly umbrella and we do not see the same troubles erupting here as are occurring in the countries from which many of these people came. The reason we do not have internal troubles like other nations is that we have mutual love and respect for one another and we live under the big friendly umbrella called multiculturalism. It has been of great benefit to this nation in the past and it will be of greater benefit to the nation in the future. I totally support the legislation.

Mr W. D. SMITH (South Coast) [10.28 a.m.]: I am very pleased to support the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Bill. This legislation will enshrine principles of multiculturalism in law and remove the term "ethnic" from legislative discourse. The term "ethnic" has become a divisive one in the New South Wales community. When I was a child attending primary school in the Auburn-Lidcombe area the term "ethnic" was never used; instead there were other derogatory terms, such as "wog ", "dago" and "spic". It was interesting to note that these words were not used by the students, my classmates or my friends; they were used by the adult community. My friends had names like Pantazopolous, Pastinasky, Tomajeski, Trabesius and so on. Their parents took me on outings with them and invited me to their birthday parties. The food that I experienced on those occasions was new and different to me, as was some of their clothing.

I found that difference interesting and thought it logical, and quite fair, that they should continue the traditions that had been with them for so long. What I did not find logical or reasonable were the negative words used against them. In more recent years, as our Asian neighbours have become part of our way of life, I have heard the words "slope" or "chink" used in the same negative context. Most recently the word "ethnic" has assumed that same unacceptable status. It is time for it to go, and the legislation will ensure that. Why do people use these words in the first place? I feel it is a form of fear: fear of minority groups threatening the status quo, fear of difference—different skin colour, different eye shape, different religious beliefs and different accents. 5104 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

I am amazed that these fears still exist today as they existed some 40 years ago when I was growing up in Auburn. The Government has shown maturity to eliminate the word "ethnic" from the legislation. Now we, as a community, must show the maturity to act on the legislation by changing our attitude. We were a multicultural community when I was a kid, but it was not readily accepted then. It is most important that we, as a community, embrace it now both intellectually and behaviourally. I note that the preamble to the legislation makes a strong philosophical statement of commitment to a cohesive and inclusive society where individuals have rights and obligations, and where English is the common language.

It is a clear and unambiguous statement of how our society is a varied one, the acceptance of that variety and the wonder of it. It was interesting listening to the debate last night. I noted that members who are not of Anglo-Saxon or Celtic backgrounds invariably had a negative story to tell of their formative years growing up in Australia. It was also interesting to note that all members had positive tales to tell about different cultural groups and their experiences with them. In that light, I would like to support the remarks of the honourable member for Bega about the Italian community of Ulladulla, and the wonderful weekend we had over the Easter period to celebrate the blessing of the fleet.

The Italian community has been extremely active in Ulladulla for some decades. I would like to mention the work of Elizabeth Abood, who was responsible for the organisation of the blessing of the fleet celebrations. The Italian community is a huge part of the community of Ulladulla. Their work and contribution over the years to our society in that area of the world should be acknowledged and endorsed. In the electorate of the South Coast I am organising links with the Filipino community. I have been invited to a number of their functions, which are absolutely fantastic. Their costumes, their dancing and their singing make me feel most welcome when I am invited to their functions. The Filipino community contributes greatly to the community of the South Coast. The South Coast also has a fairly strong Greek community. During the Easter period I spent a very pleasant day on one of the farms on the South Coast owned by a Greek family.

Members of the family are well-established businesspeople in Sydney. They are looking to move to the South Coast and invest their hard-earned dollars in the community. They are very interested in winegrowing and grape growing, as well as ecotourism. This family is quite prepared to pull up stakes in Sydney, move to the South Coast, invest their money and contribute most strongly to the economic growth of the South Coast area. We really need those sorts of people in my electorate of South Coast. They are the sort of people who continue to contribute to the broader community of New South Wales and Australia. I would like to quote from endorsements from different groups in the community. The Committee for Community Relations Commission and the Principles of Multiculturalism wrote to the Premier in the following terms:

We wish to advise you of our unanimous support for the bill, for the reasons that the bill would enshrine the principles of multiculturalism in legislation, expand the functions of the commission, expand the commission consultative structures and create more co-operative structures between government agencies, business and community.

The Australian Croatian Community Council endorsed the bill in the following terms:

We believe that the proposal to change the name of the Ethnic Affairs Commission to the Community Relations Commission is a timely one, and it will bring a great benefit to the community at large. As Australians we all need to pull together and be proud of our multicultural society. Through its activities the Croatian community has always sought to bring benefits and enrichment to our broader society. The inclusion of the principles of multiculturalism is also to be commended, as it represents a significant strengthening of the current policy. For the first time we will have a law recognising that while we are proud Australians, we are free to preserve our Croatian heritage. We wish to congratulate your Government on this bill.

An endorsement from the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies said:

I take the opportunity to commend you and the Government for consulting with the ethnic communities in detail about the specific provisions of the bill in order to arrive at consensus. The passing of the bill into law, I am sure, will be seen by the whole community as a milestone achievement.

A variety of Lebanese organisations endorsed the bill in the following terms:

We applaud the intent of the Government's proposed bill in seeking to broaden and strengthen the participation of people from all backgrounds in life and work of this State, whilst promoting a strong sense of inclusiveness. We, along with the Government, believe strongly in the benefits a culturally diverse community can bring to our State.

These are strong words of endorsements from a variety of cultural groups. As a child growing up in the Auburn- Lidcombe area I was astonished by the negative comments made to me during my formative years about my friends. It is interesting to note that times have not really changed in many ways, but it is great to see that the 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5105

Government has acted in a positive way and is putting legislation through the Parliament that, hopefully, will ensure that those negative comments—those negative words and derogatory statements—made about different cultural groups in our community will be eliminated. I commend the Premier and Minister Iemma for their work and initiatives. I support the bill.

Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [10.38 a.m.]: Apart from some amendments of a substantially minor nature, the Opposition will support this worthwhile legislation. Quite clearly, the main purpose of the bill is to recognise that the people of New South Wales are of different linguistic, religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds, and also to promote the equal rights and responsibilities of all the people of New South Wales within a cohesive and harmonious multicultural society in which diversity is regarded as a strength and an asset, individuals share a commitment to Australia and English is the common language. That overview of the bill sets out the situation very well. My electorate of Baulkham Hills, like the rest of metropolitan Sydney, is an electorate that has a diverse population from many different backgrounds. It was my privilege on Australia Day this year—the beginning of the new millennium and the end of the last century, as most people accepted—to comment on how dramatically our district had changed within a few years of the arrival of the First Fleet down under.

In 1791 Governor Phillip led the party of 22 volunteers who trudged from Parramatta through the scrub to reach the Hawkesbury River below the old Pitt Town Punt crossing, opening up the country for settlement. By Australia Day 1839 the population of what became Baulkham Hills shire was some 150. In the 1851 census there were 87 homes and 486 settlers. By 1911 the shire had grown to 3,498 residents; 22 years later it was 8,075. On Australia Day 1960—some 40 years ago—the Baulkham Hills shire boasted 21,000 ratepayers. In the next 10 years the population more than doubled to 52,900, then almost doubled again to 100,000 by 1980. A modest 18,797 extra people moved in or were born here between 1980 and 1996. But almost as many again had helped to boost the Baulkham Hills population to an estimated 130,000 by the beginning of the new millennium. Reading statistics from the Electoral Commission, I realised the enormity of the changes that have taken place. In colonial days the shire was predominantly of English-Irish-Scottish origin. Today we are a multicultural society, reflecting the national mix.

Of the 61,000 people living in my electorate, 43,614 were born in Australia. Some 3,700 were born in the United Kingdom and Ireland, but a surprising number came from other diverse places: 170 from America, 122 from Canada, 97 from Chile, 620 from China, 226 from Croatia, 219 from Egypt, 264 from Fiji, 409 from Germany, 226 from Greece, 1,202 from Hong Kong, 92 from Hungary, 590 from India, and 187 from Indonesia. There are 558 Italian-born Baulkham Hillites and 240 Lebanese Australians. We have 18 Macedonians, 694 Malaysians, 258 Maltese, 266 people from the Netherlands, 918 from New Zealand, 419 from the Philippines, 216 from Poland, six from Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic, 195 from Singapore, 289 from South Africa, and 410 from Sri Lanka.

That is an enormous change in the ethnic mix from the days of yore, when the early settlers scratched out a difficult living below the coastal cliffs of Sydney Town two centuries ago. A classless nation has evolved since 1788, and we all share this vast land forged by a pioneering spirit, war and subsequent migration, and technology. This bill exemplifies the aim of all Australians—that is, that we are Australians first. It has been introduced in appreciation and recognition of the different ethnic cultures, traditions and heritage of these people, who rely greatly on that heritage, culture and background in their day-to-day existence. At the end of the day we are Australians first, but we never forget our own individual backgrounds. Ethnic people have made an enormous contribution to Australia and, indeed, to my electorate. Many years ago I lived in the Merrylands-Granville area near Parramatta and I attended the local primary school at South Granville. There was not an invasion, but suddenly a lot of new children started attending the school. Originally they had come from Eastern Europe and were being housed in the exWorld War II army camp on Woodville Road at Granville near Merrylands. To us kids everything seemed to change because these children spoke slightly differently and had a different culture. I suppose that was the first time I understood that we were not all exactly the same insofar as we were not all born in Australia, and that other people had different cultures. I learnt that lesson when I was a child of about 10. After a while we realised also that these children ate different foods. Whereas we had sandwiches that our mothers had packed, these children seemed to have different foods. I must admit that even in those days the foods they brought to school were more exciting than the school lunches we were given. Of course, that has continued. I can remember some years later someone suggesting to me that we go and have a Chinese meal. I remember asking what the devil was a Chinese meal! In the restaurant the only thing on the menu that seemed familiar was duck, so I ordered that. They then brought out prawns. 5106 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

Mr Moss: The honourable member had a sheltered upbringing.

Mr MERTON: Indeed, I did. The restaurant staff then brought out all these delicacies. Suddenly I realised that there was a whole new world of culinary delights. That is only one illustration of the exemplary contribution made by those who chose to make Australia their home. Having worked as a practising solicitor in later years, I can endorse the hardworking nature and conviction of the many ethnic people who came to Australia to establish their businesses. They were real achievers; they went out and created things. These people should be congratulated on the enormous contribution they have made to the Australian community.

As I said, at the end of the day Baulkham Hills is a multicultural electorate. We have one thing in common, irrespective of country of origin: we are all Australians today. We pledge allegiance to Australia but we never forget the backgrounds of those who form our community. I support this legislation and I commend the Government for introducing it. Our nation is strengthened by the diverse composition of its population. We enter the new millennium with renewed hope for a united, fulfilling future on the world stage, beginning soon with the Olympics. Regardless of our origins, as Australians we will all share equally in our future as a great nation.

Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [10.47 a.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, and I welcome the bipartisan support for this important bill. . Certainly, I welcome the Premier's initiative in bringing forward the legislation because, as previous speakers have said, it promotes harmony and recognises the positive aspects of multiculturalism. Some people in the community try to use multiculturalism as a divisive and negative force. However, without a shadow of doubt multiculturalism has enriched Australia's cultural development. When the honourable member for Baulkham Hills talked about culinary delights he reminded me that we are getting close to lunch time.

Mr Richardson: It's a little early. Mr MARTIN: It is a little early. However, those culinary delights have enriched our nation. The introduction of this bill by the Premier is timely, particularly because of the current debate on reconciliation. Unfortunately, some sections of the community and some people in high places are dragging their feet in terms of signing off on reconciliation, which would enable us to recognise that important part of our history. The introduction of this legislation and establishment of the Community Relations Commission has highlighted the fact that we need to address the issue of reconciliation. I ask all parties to approach reconciliation in a bipartisan way. The Community Relations Commission will replace the Ethnic Affairs Commission. From that change it should not be construed that the Ethnic Affairs Commission has been a failure; indeed, it has been far from a failure.

During 20 years of existence, the organisation pioneered the provision of language and other services for migrants. These have been important factors. It has been active in promoting the benefits of multiculturalism and community harmony while fighting against racism and intolerance. As earlier speakers in this debate have said, we must keep addressing that issue and be eternally vigilant as there is no greater cancer in our society than racism. Unfortunately, the term "ethnic" has become increasingly divisive largely due to the way it is used in the media, with negative connotations and stereotyping certain community groups. To many people the use of the word "ethnic" brings forward a host of negative images. This legislation addresses that controversy over the term "ethnic". Our society is diverse with ethnic groups, and many of their organisations were consulted as part of the preparatory process of this legislation. The honourable member for The Hills referred in great detail to the many different cultures within his electorate. There is a wonderful kaleidoscope of groups within that community, each with its traditions and heritage. This legislation will bring those committees together and ensure that they are not isolated. I am pleased the Government went to much trouble to consult these organisations. This legislation has bipartisan support in this House and throughout the community. All ethnic groups that were consulted unanimously acclaim the legislation. I shall read into Hansard comments of the executive officer of the Sydney Islamic Centre, which examined the booklet "The Way Forward: A Consultation Document Leading to a Community Relations Commission" that was issued last year. The centre's response sums up the positive points about this legislation. I suggest that those who want to doubt or retract it should read these comments. The executive officer of the Sydney Islamic Centre said:

This document gave me the sensation of a dawning of a new era over the state of New South Wales. The suggestions and recommendations that were contained in this booklet have given Multi-Culturalism in Australia a new robe that confirms the sincerity of this policy and gives it a more fitting identity. It has also added a new dimension and sealed the cracks and plugged the gaps that were emerging in the previous policy. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5107

The word "Ethnic", or "Ethnic Communities" always imposed upon a large section of the Australian community a variety of negative impressions that threatened Multi-Culturalism. Amongst these negative impressions were:

1. That Australian citizens were of two types, one that represented the owner and another that represented the lessee, particularly as the term "Ethnic" used to also include the Australian-born citizens, even if none of these had ever seen the lands of their ancestors.

2. It created a type of despair with the youth who came to Australia from elsewhere. It also formed a barrier for them that obstructed them from offering complete loyalty to the new nation; Australia.

3. The "Ethnic" expression created a large gap that gave the Australian media a great leeway to sensationalize issues relating to large sections of our Australian community whilst hiding under a term that was given legitimacy by the government of the land. This sensationalism has created many gaps and crevices in our Australian community.

4. Applying the word "Ethnic" as an adjective to Australian citizens who have resided here for several decades and have given birth to Australian children made me feel and hear from others that we are regarded by the law and the media as second class or as "Part Time" Australians and not "Full Time", or like "De Facto" Australians.

Those comments put into perspective what this legislation is about. It underlines the fact that people have suffered under the term "ethnic". Many people think that multiculturalism and ethnicity are purely creatures of large urban areas. That is certainly not the case. Honourable members from rural areas have spoken about how multiculturalism has affected their communities. An important part of the Bathurst electorate is the city of Lithgow, my home town. It is a significant place for industrial development—indeed, it is the industrial cradle of Australia. If one looks at the history of this country town, which is based around coalmining and other activities, one will see names such as Fachinna, Butta, Inzitari, Stanbe—all of Italian background. Since the start of the century the Italians have been involved in all sorts of local community pursuits, from farming to coal production.

I am reminded particularly of Angelo Butta. He was born in Lithgow but his father came from Italy and started life the hard way by growing potatoes and selling greengroceries. Angelo and his brother-in-law Dick Austin together were able to buy a small coal run in a mine and eventually developed Austin and Butta collieries, which was later bought by the Shell company and became the first mining company to export coal from the western coal fields in the 1960s. They made a marvellous contribution to the Lithgow economy.

The Inzitari and Stanbe families also made a wonderful contribution to Lithgow. Generations of those families remain heavily involved in commerce and community industry. I remember that just after the war Lithgow had a migrant hostel; many of my childhood friends started their early days in Australia at that hostel. I particularly remember Brian Morrissey, who came from Ireland as a baby and started his Australian life in that hostel. He is now a councillor on Lithgow City Council and the principal of the local Catholic high school. The fathers of the Koro family from Hungary and the Hoeuer family from Germany fought for the German army during the Second World War but came to Lithgow after the war. The Koro family started life in the hostel and both families then went on to play import roles in the Lithgow community.

I fondly remember Bill Heuer turning up in his German army uniform on Anzac Day and being greeted in the bar of the local RSL club! The late Bill Heuer certainly exploded the myth that Australians, particularly country Australians, were intolerant. Those families had trouble fitting into the mainstream of a country town—there was always the feeling that they were ethnics and they were not quite Australians. Fortunately, time has eroded that concept. I am pleased to count those people amongst my closest friends. I know that today they would welcome this legislation because for the first time anywhere in Australia multiculturalism will be embraced as the law of the land. For that reason I commend the Premier for introducing this legislation. I am delighted that it has bipartisan support.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [10.58 a.m.]: I was prompted to speak in this debate by comments made by Government members, particularly by the honourable member for Bankstown, who seemed to be trying to politicise an issue that clearly has bipartisan support. The honourable member for Albury said he would not like people to think that only Government members represent electorates with constituents from a diverse range of backgrounds. We on this side of House have a significant number of nationalities represented within our electorates, as indeed I am sure do all honourable members. However, that is not surprising considering that more than one-third of Sydney's residents were born overseas.

Perhaps that has prompted the Government speakers to change the tenor of the debate this morning. I was pleased to hear the honourable member for Bathurst say that he welcomed the bipartisan support that the legislation has received. As the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai said earlier in this debate, the Coalition Government introduced the Charter of Principles for a Multicultural Society. So no-one should be under any 5108 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 illusions that the Labor Party has a monopoly on tolerance or support for multiculturalism. Indeed, the principle of multiculturalism was introduced by the Fraser Government, and it was a Coalition Government in the 1960s that abolished the White Australia Policy, which a Labor Minister for Immigration had brought in. I put those comments on the record simply to refute the statements made by the honourable member for Bankstown, which I believe were unfortunate given the bipartisan support for the bill.

Unlike most speakers in this debate, I am a migrant; I do not merely come from a migrant background. I arrived in this country from Britain in 1957 on the SS Strathnaver at the age of eight. I remember very distinctly our arrival in Sydney. We sailed through the Heads. My mother came down to get my brother, Alan, and me out of bed. We came up on deck at dawn, when the harbour was at its pristine best. I was absolutely overwhelmed by that sight. I recall that we sailed underneath the Harbour Bridge and then berthed at Pyrmont. I had never seen a bridge as big as the Harbour Bridge. Of course, there are bridges as big as that in Britain, the land of Isambard Brunel, but I had not seen one. Forty-three years later I still remember that experience. My father had flown out to Australia before us and bought a house in Lindfield. He did not know much about Sydney. He said to one of his colleagues at the company he was working for, "I have been offered this house in Lindfield. Is that a good suburb?" Of course it was a good suburb. From our front windows we could see Bradfield Park migrant hostel up on the hill. A large number of predominantly British migrants had come to Lindfield in those days.

I went to school at Lindfield Public School. There did not seem to be too many migrants at Lindfield Public School. I recall that the very first day I was there I was surrounded by a lot of other boys who were not keen on my accent and the fact that I was different from them. I mention that because one would be led to believe that only those from a non-Anglo-Celtic background have suffered a degree of prejudice. As you would be aware, Madam Acting-Speaker, as a British migrant yourself, in the 1950s things were very different and this country was not as tolerant as it is today. I am delighted to say that there has been a sea change in attitudes, which I suspect has been brought about largely by the bipartisan approach to multiculturalism that has been a feature of the last 25 years of politics in this country.

I am sure that you, Madam Acting-Speaker, can empathise with those experiences of mine. I became an Australian citizen in 1976. I note that you became an Australian citizen in 1983. I married a New Zealand girl, and we both became Australian citizens on the same day and were proud to do so. I never think of myself as being other than Australian, although occasionally some people describe me as a pommy. They say, "Oh, you are a pommy, are you?" You, Madam Acting-Speaker, probably receive similar comment. As I said, I simply do not think of myself as being anything other than Australian. I am sure that is the case for most people who are making this country their home.

More than 20 per cent of the population of the part of Hornsby shire which is my electorate are of Chinese, Sri Lankan or Indian extraction. Those people make an enormous contribution to this country. They are hardworking and dedicated, they value their families, and they value education. A common trait of most Asian people is that they strongly value education. Of course, their children are achieving marvellous results in the Higher School Certificate and at university, and they are the people who will drive this nation in the twenty-first century.

I should like to pay tribute to the Cherrybrook Chinese Community Association in my electorate, which is one of the largest multicultural groups in New South Wales, with a total membership of more than 1,200 families. I regard Patrick and Lisa Ho, James and Polly Chang, Yue-Yan and Polly Chan, Stephen and Marianne Law, and Wilson Tong, the founder of the organisation, as good friends of mine. They do a fantastic job in assisting new migrants to the Cherrybrook area get over the cultural differences they experience and the problems they sometimes have with language, despite the fact that many of them come from Hong Kong. They are also outreaching to the general community, which I believe is extremely important. For example, if I attend a fundraising event for Inala special school in my electorate, I will find the ladies of the Cherrybrook Chinese Community Association there selling food to raise money for Inala.

The association is also involved in the Red Cross Doorknock Appeal, which is coming up shortly. It conducts a Chinese language school at Cherrybrook Technology High School on a Saturday morning, which I have been privileged to attend. I must say that the students there are perhaps less enthusiastic about learning Mandarin than their parents are about them learning Mandarin. However, they are maintaining their cultural traditions, which is a very important aspect of multiculturalism that the Cherrybrook Chinese Community Association has recognised. The association runs a women's group, which organises regular family activities, health talks, cooking demonstrations, visits of observations, interest classes and dance parties, and provides 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5109 support to community-wide programs. The association's seniors group is well attended. The association also runs sports groups in Tai Chi, badminton and golf. It runs quarterly seminars, and it also has a part-time social worker at the Cherrybrook Technology High School to assist Chinese students to deal with their individual problems. All of that is a very important series of programs.

The Cherrybrook Chinese Community Association celebrated its tenth anniversary last year. Not only has the association survived that length of time, but the fact that it enjoys such widespread representation amongst the Chinese community in Cherrybrook is testimony to the work that it is doing. Each October during New South Wales Children's Week the association organises the Cherrybrook Lantern Night, a function which builds bonds between Australians of different nationalities. I commend the function to all honourable members. Provided the weather is fine, the function attracts an attendance of 5,000 to 6,000 people from a broad spectrum of cultural backgrounds.

I attend the Baulkham Hills Shire Council citizenship ceremonies together with the honourable member for Baulkham Hills. An enormous number of nationalities are represented at those citizenship ceremonies. I recall that the last one I attended recently was also attended by people from Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Taiwan, Afghanistan, Iran, Fiji, Lebanon, the United States, and—a first for the citizenship ceremonies—a representative from Venezuela. That is indicative of the ethnic composition of the Baulkham Hills population. Kellyville, in the western part of my electorate, was settled after the war by Italian and Maltese market gardeners. They still form an important component of the population. In many instances their children have gone on to university and attained professional degrees. They share the trait that I know my father had when he came to this country, a trait shared by most migrants—that is, the desire to get ahead, to work hard, and to do better.

People who choose to emigrate—and it is a huge step to take—do so because they seek a better life for themselves. That is certainly true of people who constituted the huge waves of migration across the North Atlantic to the United States of America and who forged the most powerful nation on earth. By and large, the people who travelled across the North Atlantic were not wealthy and did not bring with them large resources apart from the desires to work hard, get ahead and prosper. Those values are exactly the same as those that have been experienced in Australia. Those values are what has made this country so great. Those values are absolutely fundamental to my understanding of what Australia is now. The principles underlying those values are embodied in the legislation before the House.

The objects of the bill are to recognise that the people of New South Wales are of different linguistic, religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds and to promote the equal rights and responsibilities of all the people of New South Wales within a cohesive and harmonious multicultural society in which diversity is regarded as a strength and an asset, individuals share a commitment to Australia, and English is a common language. At citizenship ceremonies I note the very evident pride with which people from diverse backgrounds become Australian citizens. They often line up to have their photograph taken and a large number have a cup of tea and talk to local political representatives afterwards. The proposed legislation before the House strengthens the principles of multiculturalism, and that is why the bill enjoys bipartisan support. As I said previously, it is a pity that the honourable member for Bankstown attempted to politicise the debate.

Mr ORKOPOULOS (Swansea) [11.12 a.m.]: I support the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Bill, which replaces the Ethnic Affairs Commission Act 1979. I, too, welcome the bipartisan approach adopted to the objects of the bill by all political parties represented in this House. At the outset, I cite the words of Imam Tajeddine El-Hilaly—who I understand is a very controversial figure—which very much ring true to my mind in describing the migrant experience of many people:

Until now we were like tenants in a rented house, but we will now be one of the owners of the home we live in.

That is a very important statement. From the time my mother and father came to Australia from Greece in the early 1950s, my earliest memories of growing up in the inner-city area of Newcastle were of apart-ness. Our strength was in being part of the Greek community, in which I was an enthusiastic participant for many years. Since that time, Australian society has come a very long way. I continue the bipartisanship approach to this measure by observing that the path towards multiculturalism was created after the election of the Whitlam Labor Government by the enthusiastic vision of a former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Al Grassby. That groundwork was built on by Malcolm Fraser when he was Prime Minister by his introduction of the concept embodied in the term "multiculturalism". The antecedents of the vision set forth in the bill for the Australian community has bipartisan roots. 5110 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

As the honourable members who have preceded me in this debate have already mentioned, the Ethnic Affairs Commission operated for 20 years. During that period, I served two terms on the Hunter advisory board during Commissioner Violetta Walsh's term and represented the Greek community in Newcastle. As a new participant in work at the board level, that was an extremely interesting period for me and it put me in contact with the vast range of ethnic communities in the Hunter region. In contrast to Newcastle, in Lake Macquarie, especially in the electorate of Swansea, less than 3 per cent of the people have a non-English speaking background. That means that 97 per cent of the people who live in the Swansea electorate have an Anglo-Celtic background, which is reflected in the strong mining and shipbuilding tradition that constitutes so much of the history of Swansea and the Lake Macquarie area. The bill builds on the successes of the Ethnic Affairs Commission. I commend the recent statements by Dr Paolo Totaro, the founding chair of the New South Wales Ethnic Affairs Commission, who stated:

When the Ethnic Affairs Commission was established its ultimate achievement would have been to do itself out of a job. The changes now proposed for the Commission are a way of acknowledging that some of its charter has been achieved and it is time to move on to new challenges and to present the ancient themes of diversity and acceptance in a new language.

I commend that statement to honourable members because I believe it shows that Australian society has arrived at a stage of reforming the commission and refurbishing it with the enshrined principles of multiculturalism contained in this bill. I do not believe that dropping the term "ethnic" is really an issue at all. The objects of the institution that honourable members are currently debating are what is important. As all honourable members know, the objects are to recognise that the people of New South Wales are of different linguistic, religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds, which is self-evident, and to promote the equal rights and responsibilities of all the people of New South Wales within a cohesive and harmonious multicultural society in which diversity is regarded as a strength and as an asset, individuals share a commitment to Australia, and English is the common language.

How can anyone quibble with those objects when the issue for all Australians, irrespective of their cultural and linguistic backgrounds, is access to shared values of respect for the law, respect for each other and respect for each other's cultural and linguistic heritage? I believe that this measure will go a considerable way toward promoting the time-honoured Australian heritage of a fair go and looking after one's neighbours or mates, while providing a much better institutional framework in which to perpetuate those ideals. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Hornsby) [11.19 a.m.]: Together with other honourable members I commend Australia as a nation amongst nations for promoting the cause of a multicultural understanding in the world. New South Wales has been a forerunner in that endeavour for many years. Indeed, as other Opposition members have noted, the former Fahey Government passed legislation which enshrined the important principles for a diverse society which still guide policy today. The principles reiterated in this measure go no further than the principles that were passed into law by the Fahey Government. I am proud that I, as a member of this House, voted for that legislation before it was passed, as I shall vote today on the current bill.

Many honourable members in this debate have rightly focused on language because much of the bill seeks to expunge the word "ethnic" from our daily language. I studied linguistics at university when I did my communications degree and I understand well the power of language and the importance of words. I also understand the importance of symbols, particularly national symbols and symbols that guide our culture. A number of speakers have said during the debate that they remember terms or epithets that were used against people from other backgrounds in their own childhood. I recall those same words being used when I was a student at Roselea Public School, Carlingford, or more so when I went to Eastwood Public School, which had a more culturally diverse student population, and even later when I went to Carlingford High School.

All honourable members could tell stories about how language was used to put down people who were considered to be different either ethnically or, for example, because of a disability or physical characteristic that set them apart. With my red hair and my short stature I was certainly a target, as honourable members could well imagine. While "ethnic" may have become a term of derision in some people's minds today, and we will try to expunge that from our language with this bill. Tomorrow some other word, probably “multicultural”, will be used in that same way. In 10 years time earnest members of Parliament will probably be debating the rights and wrongs of using the word "multicultural" as a term of derision. Language changes but, sadly, the human heart stays the same.

We need to do everything we can to enact good law based on good policy principles that foster better relationships in the community. That is one aim of the bill and I support it. We can legislate against the use of 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5111 certain terms but only good policy will change hearts. Try as we must, that cannot be achieved by legislation. Good social policy will create good, positive relationships based on trust, mutual understanding and recognition of diversity within the community.

I have responsibility, on behalf of the Coalition, for policies for the disabled. Recently I met with the Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association, which is concerned with disability and its intersection with non- English speaking background [NESB] status. On top of other levels of unmet need, three out of four people from non-English speaking backgrounds with a disability miss out. Currently the Legislative Council social issues committee is conducting an inquiry, the terms of reference for which were written by myself as shadow Minister. The committee will provide important findings about unmet needs in our community. I look forward to the Government's policy response. I hope the Government will make a response, although none was made to the group homes inquiry. I hope that the social issues committee report will reflect additional unmet needs amongst people with disability and those of non-English speaking background.

People with that background have difficulty obtaining information about disability services because the services may not always be provided or made available to them in community languages when they require them. I have been told that provision of pamphlets in languages other than English is a blunt-end-of-the-stick policy response. That response is the simplest but it is also the least effective in bringing people in need through the front door of a service. More should be done to help providers meet the needs of people with disability by becoming more culturally inclusive in their service provision.

A person of non-English speaking background and with a disability, once through the front door of a service, wants to be accepted within that service. However, the task of maintaining a relationship with a service that provides accommodation and other support services is often difficult for such a person. An added complexity, for example, is that it is virtually impossible for anybody these days and particularly for a person from a non-English speaking background with a disability to get accommodation in a group home setting. When accommodation is secured, however, the ethnic and multicultural mix of that group home is the last thing considered: the first imperative is to get into a service. A person with a disability on entering a service may find that no-one else there is from their own ethnic or multicultural background. That adds to the difficulties faced by people who live their daily lives in group homes. I wanted to highlight the more obvious levels of difficulty for people from a non-English speaking background.

The less obvious levels of difficulty include anecdotal evidence which has not been adequately studied. Good anecdotal field evidence is that the proportion of disability amongst NESB communities may be higher than amongst communities that have been in Australia longer. That might be because refugees, given the traumas they have experienced, suffer greater levels of disability in the community, particularly mental illness, psychiatric disability and other disorders. Again anecdotally, the higher incidence of work-related accidents amongst people from non-English speaking backgrounds may account for greater disability levels amongst NESB populations. Another cultural issue is that there is an increased likelihood that people from a NESB are born with a disability. Socioeconomic reasons also need to be taken into account. People from NESBs generally rank lower on the socioeconomic scale in Australia than their Anglo-Australian counterparts, both in educational background and other measures of achievement. For those reasons there is probably a higher proportion of people with disability in NESB communities who are less able to access services provided by government and non-government agencies. The Government has to address that issue.

Earlier I spoke about changing language. The Government can talk about support for a multicultural Australia, but extolling symbols, important as they are, is not nearly as vital as actually doing the job—walking the walk. I call on the Government to do more than it is doing, which is virtually nil, to make sure that people from non-English speaking backgrounds have access to accommodation and other services for people with disabilities similar to that available to the general population. Where are the plans for the Department of Community Services and the Ageing and Disability Department under the disability services legislation that was passed by this Parliament—again landmark legislation passed by the Fahey Government—requiring all government departments to provide information and a plan for making all their services appropriate for people with disabilities? How do those plans reflect the need to provide for people of multicultural background? The Coalition will continue to press the Government to make sure that it lives up to its rhetoric in relation to providing multiculturally appropriate services for people with disabilities.

In the few minutes left to me I want to touch on a number of other matters. Firstly, and importantly, the character of the Hornsby electorate is changing rapidly. Predominantly, migration to the electorate of Hornsby has been by people from the United Kingdom. Though the major group of people migrating to Australia and 5112 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 settling in Hornsby still come from the United Kingdom and related areas, in recent times there has been an explosion of people coming from more diverse backgrounds, particularly from Asia, Europe and from places that have been the subject of international concern because of human rights and other abuses. People from all of those backgrounds form part of the multicultural mix in Hornsby that makes it a much more exciting place in which to live. That Hornsby now has a much more diverse community is demonstrated by not only the changing mix of foods, as was mentioned by the honourable member for Baulkham Hills, but also the changing nature of our streets. The exciting relationships that one experiences in Hornsby are now much different from those of even five years ago, but certainly 10 or 20 years ago. Schools such as Waitara Public School and Hornsby South Public School have within them as many ethnic communities as there are in Auburn and other areas that have traditionally been regarded as the major ethnic mix areas. Those schools do an excellent job in promoting the cause of multicultural education and community harmony. In particular, the Waitara school received a director- general's award a couple of years ago in recognition of its work in multicultural education. I pay tribute to Waitara Public School and Hornsby South Public School and other Hornsby electorate schools with large mixes of multicultural communities. When I was growing up and going to Carlingford High School my two closest friends were from backgrounds that were vastly different from mine. My friend Robert was from a German-Jewish background. His family had suffered dreadfully during the Holocaust. As a young Australian growing up, it was important for me to understand, through Robert's family, just what the significance of that was to us as citizens of the world. I did not regard myself as a citizen of the world when I first met Robert in year 5, but I came to understand more about that as I learned about his family background. My friend Victor was from a Ukrainian background. He is now a leading proponent of the bandore on the international stage, having studied at the Kiev Conservatorium. He now teaches music in Canada. The three of us made quite an unusual mixture, but it was a good mixture, a very Australian mixture. I am proud to say that it happened on even the North Shore. I say "even the North Shore" because that area has not always been recognised for its multicultural mix. But it should be, because that experience at Carlingford High School all those years ago was the essence of Australia: three mates living, learning and growing up together. It was a very positive experience. I am proud of my friends, and I am proud of what they have achieved. I am proud to support the bill. Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Routine of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [11.32 a.m.]: I move:

That, for the remainder of the budget sitting, standing and sessional orders be suspended to provide as follows:

(1) The routine of business on each sitting Thursday is to be as set out in the sessional order for days other than the last sitting day of the week.

(2) General business shall be called over on each sitting Thursday during the placing or disposal of business.

(3) The Speaker, at the request of the Leader of the House, shall leave the chair on each sitting Thursday until the ringing of one long bell at 10.00 a.m. on the following Friday.

(4) On each sitting Friday (Private Members' Day):

(a) General business shall be dealt with from 10.00 a.m. until 1.00 p.m.;

(b) Committee reports shall be dealt with from 1.00 p.m.;

(c) General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) from 2.15 p.m.;

(d) Private members' statements shall be called on at 4.15 p.m. and at any other time by motion without notice; and

(e) At the conclusion of private members' statements, which commence at 4.15 p.m. (or earlier by motion without notice), the House shall adjourn without a motion.

(5) Debate on the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills shall take precedence of all other business, unless otherwise determined by the House, on each sitting Friday. While the motion may seem complicated, in essence it means this— 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5113

Mr Fraser: There will be no question time on Friday.

Mr WHELAN: It means that the call-over for private members' day, which will now revert to Friday, will be on Thursday, so that the House will consider that on Thursday. The honourable member is correct: the House will not have question time on Friday. It never has had question time on Friday.

Mr Hartcher: It does not normally sit on Friday.

Mr WHELAN: Correct: it normally does not sit on a Friday. But it will do so to provide a private members' day. Friday will be private members' day, giving private members, particularly those in the Opposition, the opportunity to deal with private members' bills and notices of motion—that is, if Opposition members decide to turn up in this Chamber. It was evident on the last Friday when this House sat that fewer than 20 Opposition members attended this place. When the motion to adjourn the House was moved the honourable member for Gosford was afraid to call a division because most members on the Opposition side had gone home and the number of Opposition members who could have attended any division could have been counted on the fingers of one hand.

On the last occasion that this Chamber debated the Appropriation Bill the Government decided—a correct decision, even though it was opposed by the Opposition—that on Friday honourable members would be permitted to make longer speeches on the Appropriation Bill than they normally could. I will talk to the Opposition about speaking times. I would envisage that on Friday private members will have the opportunity to make speeches of up to 30 minutes duration on the budget. This will be the first time that honourable members have had the opportunity to debate the budget in such detail. As the Government already has indicated publicly, Ministers from the lower House will attend for grilling by the general purpose standing committees, which will be dealing with the budget estimates. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [11.36 p.m.]: The Coalition does not support this motion for the suspension of standing and sessional orders. I move:

That the motion be amended to:

(1) leave out paragraph (3); and

(2) insert before "General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) from 2.15 p.m." in subparagraph (4) (c), the words "Question Time and".

The Coalition has two reasons for not supporting the Minister's motion. One is that the Leader of the House continues with his practice of indicating to the Speaker how the House shall be run. The Speaker is the guardian of the appropriate functioning of the House and has been elected by all honourable members to apply the standing orders to ensure responsible debate in this Chamber. The Speaker is not the creature of the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House is not entitled to say to the Speaker, "I now tell you to leave the chair, and you will come back at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning." The House determines such matters, not the Leader of the House.

In the final analysis, the Leader of the House may have the numbers in this Chamber to back him up, but the appropriate procedure is that this House makes such decisions. The Leader of the House may think that his motion merely short-circuits the forms of the House, but in fact it denigrates the Speaker to the status of a creature of the Leader of the House. Therefore the Coalition does not agree with paragraph (4) of the Minister's motion. Coalition members would never agree to such a motion. That is an important point to make. The next point, which is even more significant, is that question time is a form of this House that is used to ensure accountability of government. Question time is not intended to provide the Premier with an opportunity to engage in theatrical displays or to unable Ministers to compete against one another in providing non-answers. Question time is designed to ensure for the people of New South Wales that the State has an accountable and responsible government. That is why this State has a Westminster system rather than an Executive style of governance. The Executive must come before the Parliament and account to the Parliament by responding to questions asked at question time.

That is gradually being reduced in the sense that Ministers do not answer questions. A new precedent is now being set. When Parliament sits, question time is not automatic. Earlier the Minister made the extraordinary statement that we do not have question time on Fridays. But the Legislative Assembly does not normally sit on Fridays! That is why we do not have question time on Fridays any more than we do not have question time on 5114 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

Saturdays or Sundays, when Parliament does not sit. If the Parliament does sit, it is appropriate that the Government be responsible and accountable to Parliament as part of the ordinary routine and business of the House, as laid down by its standing orders. That is the expectation of the people of New South Wales. One matter involving the administration of the Parliament in which people will take an interest is whether there is a question time. People do not take an interest in or have an understanding of the intricacies or nuances of the standing orders, but they know that the Executive is responsible to the Parliament. They well remember the example of Paul Keating, who determined that the Prime Minister would be available for question time only on certain days. They well remember the extraordinary remark made by Paul Keating that question time was an indulgence the Executive gave to Parliament. For that reason Paul Keating earned the just opprobrium of Australians. That was one of the many reasons they threw him out of office so convincingly in 1996. This motion is a further demonstration of the arrogance of the Government. The Speaker simply has to accept the dictates of the Leader of the House. He is told what to do and when to do it. We are told that the House will sit only to deal with the business that the Government wants it to deal with and not to deal with the business that the people of New South Wales expect it to deal with. I have moved my amendment to the motion for that reason. I hope that those members of the House who take an interest in the role and responsibility of Parliament will support my amendment. Perhaps at the end of the day the Leader of the House will have the numbers to enforce his will but one hopes that honourable members opposite, for once in their lives, will stop to think about what has been achieved by abandoning question time. Why do the Leader of the House and the Government want to abandon question time? Is it because they acknowledge that question time makes them more accountable than they should be? Finally, I refer to the sitting of the House on Friday 14 April. Seven of the 15 Government Ministers failed to put in an appearance. That is an extraordinary demonstration of the Government's contempt for Parliament and for this House. The way in which the proceedings of that day were organised simply rendered any form of accountability null and void. It ensured that those on the back bench provided the industrial muscle for the Government to achieve its will without ensuring that Ministers were present and accountable to the House and to Parliament. Question—That the words stand—put. The House divided. Ayes, 46 Ms Allan Ms Harrison Ms Nori Mr Amery Mr Hickey Mr Orkopoulos Ms Andrews Mr Hunter Mr E. T. Page Mr Ashton Mr Iemma Mr Price Mr Bartlett Mr Knight Dr Refshauge Ms Beamer Mr Knowles Ms Saliba Mr Black Mrs Lo Po' Mr W. D. Smith Mr Brown Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Mr Campbell Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Collier Mr McManus Mr Whelan Mr Crittenden Mr Markham Mr Woods Mr Debus Mr Martin Mr Yeadon Mr Face Mr Mills Mr Gaudry Mr Moss Tellers, Mr Gibson Mr Nagle Mr Anderson Mrs Grusovin Mr Newell Mr Thompson Noes, 32 Mr Armstrong Mr McGrane Mr Slack-Smith Mr Barr Mr Merton Mr Souris Mr Brogden Ms Moore Mr Stoner Mr Collins Mr O'Doherty Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr O'Farrell Mr Torbay Mr George Mr Oakeshott Mr J. H. Turner Mr Glachan Mr D. L. Page Mr Webb Mr Hartcher Mr Piccoli Mr Windsor Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Tellers Mr Kerr Ms Seaton Mr Fraser Mr Maguire Mrs Skinner Mr R. H. L. Smith 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5115

Pairs

Mr Aquilina Mrs Chikarovksi Miss Burton Mr Hazzard Ms Meagher Mr Humpherson Ms Megarrity Mr R. W. Turner

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

ADMISSION OF THE TREASURER INTO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [11.51 a.m.]: I move:

That on Tuesday 23 May 2000 standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow:

(1) the Premier to adjourn the debate on the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills immediately after moving, "That these bills be now read a second time";

(2) the Honourable M. R. Egan, M.L.C., Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, to be immediately admitted to the House for the purpose of giving a speech of unlimited duration in relation to the New South Wales Budget 2000-2001; and

(3) the Premier to give the second reading speech at a later time upon the order of the day being read for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills.

[Interruption]

In answer to the interjection, may I say that the Government has already agreed that every Minister will appear to answer questions before the upper House general purpose standing committees. For the past five years members opposite have rejected the opportunity to have joint estimates committees. It has been announced publicly that each Minister will submit his or her portfolio to the diligent scrutiny of members of the upper House. In anticipation of comments that might be made about the Treasurer, I do not think the former member for Cronulla, who is now the Treasurer of the State of New South Wales, should be castigated in this Chamber. He is no longer a member of this House. I am confident that for the sixth year in a row we will have a record budget. I ask honourable members to be nice to him.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [11.52 a.m.]: I acknowledge the motion moved by the Leader of the House. I move:

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

(4) That this House notes that the people of Cronulla determined in 1984 that the Hon. M. R. Egan MLC was not suitable for membership of the Legislative Assembly and commends the people of Cronulla for their decision; and

(5) That upon conclusion of question time on the first sitting day after his address, the Hon. M. R. Egan MLC be again admitted to the House for two hours to answer questions on the appropriation bills put to him by members in accordance with the standing orders. There will be a conscience vote on the first paragraph of the amendment! The Constitution of this State provides that money bills shall originate in the Legislative Assembly. Under the Constitution the people of this State have determined that the Legislative Assembly should be the House to have control over money and expenditure. It is for that reason that the Treasurer delivers the budget in this House. However, he is not then accountable to this House for the budget he has given. The Opposition asks for what it has asked for each year for the past five years. Although the Treasurer is a member of the Legislative Council— [Interruption] The Opposition accepts that there are two Houses of this Parliament, but if the Treasurer is a member of the Legislative Council he should be accountable for his budget to the Legislative Assembly, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Although the Legislative Council is a House of review it has the same powers as this House in relation to all matters save money bills. 5116 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [11.54 a.m.]: I move:

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 46 Ms Allan Ms Harrison Ms Nori Mr Amery Mr Hickey Mr Orkopoulos Ms Andrews Mr Hunter Mr E. T. Page Mr Ashton Mr Iemma Mr Price Mr Bartlett Mr Knight Dr Refshauge Ms Beamer Mr Knowles Ms Saliba Mr Black Mrs Lo Po' Mr W. D. Smith Mr Brown Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Mr Campbell Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Collier Mr McManus Mr Whelan Mr Crittenden Mr Markham Mr Woods Mr Debus Mr Martin Mr Yeadon Mr Face Mr Mills Mr Gaudry Mr Moss Tellers, Mr Gibson Mr Nagle Mr Anderson Mrs Grusovin Mr Newell Mr Thompson Noes, 32 Mr Armstrong Mr McGrane Mr Slack-Smith Mr Barr Mr Merton Mr Souris Mr Brogden Ms Moore Mr Stoner Mr Collins Mr O'Doherty Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr O'Farrell Mr Torbay Mr George Mr Oakeshott Mr J. H. Turner Mr Glachan Mr D. L. Page Mr Webb Mr Hartcher Mr Piccoli Mr Windsor Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Tellers, Mr Kerr Ms Seaton Mr Fraser Mr Maguire Mrs Skinner Mr R. H. L. Smith Pairs Mr Aquilina Mrs Chikarovksi Miss Burton Mr Hazzard Ms Meagher Mr Humpherson Ms Megarrity Mr R. W. Turner Question resolved in the affirmative. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put. The House divided. Ayes, 32 Mr Armstrong Mr McGrane Mr Slack-Smith Mr Barr Mr Merton Mr Souris Mr Brogden Ms Moore Mr Stoner Mr Collins Mr O'Doherty Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr O'Farrell Mr Torbay Mr George Mr Oakeshott Mr J. H. Turner Mr Glachan Mr D. L. Page Mr Webb Mr Hartcher Mr Piccoli Mr Windsor Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Tellers, Mr Kerr Ms Seaton Mr Fraser Mr Maguire Mrs Skinner Mr R. H. L. Smith 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5117

Noes, 46

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

Pairs

Mrs Chikarovski Mr Aquilina Mr Hazzard Miss Burton Mr Humpherson Ms Meagher Mr R. W. Turner Ms Megarrity

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.

SENATE VACANCY

Joint Sitting

Mr SPEAKER: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:

Mr SPEAKER

The Legislative Council having taken into consideration the Legislative Assembly's message dated 2 May 2000 agrees to meet the Assembly for the purpose of sitting and voting together to choose a person to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator David Brownhill, in the Legislative Council Chamber, on Thursday 4 May 2000, at 3.30 p.m.

Legislative Council MEREDITH BURGMANN 3 May 2000 President DISTINGUISHED VISITOR Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of the former Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Tim Fischer, who formerly represented the State electorate of Murray. I am sure all honourable members will agree that he was a much-loved member of this House. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT (POLICE OFFICERS) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 12 April. Mr TINK (Epping) [12.13 p.m.]: The Opposition is pleased to support the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Police Officers) Bill, the object of which is to confirm that police officers are employees of 5118 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 the Crown for the purposes of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The bill removes any doubt about the status of police officers under the Act that may arise because police officers exercise independent functions. The bill highlights two issues relating to police. First, going back to the days of Sir Robert Peel, police officers exercise special powers and functions providing them with an independent discretion that makes them unique and unlike any other public servants in the State. It is very important that police officers have that independent discretion.

Contrary to what the public largely believes, there are many circumstances in which the discretion of a constable is absolute to him or her and beyond the control of his or her superior officers, and rightly so. It is a very special position that police have in that respect; it is a very important part of the checks and balances and independence of the judicial system in this State. Issues arising from that special and unique position of police officer can create problems with respect to the application of legislation that applies to other public servants whose legal position when it comes to being subject to direction is a lot clearer.

Notwithstanding that special position, it is extremely important that police are covered with regard to occupational health and safety, in the same way that other public servants are covered. Indeed, it need hardly be said that the position of police officer with regard to occupational health and safety is more important than that of any other group of public servants. As I have said in this House on previous occasions, all other people in the State have the luxury of being able to step away from danger, providing they immediately call for police assistance when a situation they cannot deal with arises.

For example, there may be situations of danger involving the rescue of persons or the apprehension of dangerous criminals that are beyond the average citizen's capacity to deal with. In those situations the average person has the luxury of stepping back and calling 000. The same does not apply for police. When everyone else steps back, the police have a duty to step forward. We should always remember that in this House, as I am sure honourable members do. For that reason, police are in a separate category from other people in this State with regard to the need for proper coverage for occupational health and safety. Indeed, it should be an even higher priority for police than for other public servants, which is another reason for the introduction of this bill. A further extremely important issue that is provided for in the bill relates to off-duty police having to recall themselves to duty in situations of peril. I understand that that issue is virtually unique to the Police Service. It is in circumstances where police recall themselves to duty that they are at the greatest risk of harm. Two recent experiences stand out very starkly in my mind. One concerns a policewoman from the Gordon area who was travelling on a bus during off-duty hours. She was dressed in civilian clothes and was indistinguishable from any other member of the public. She recalled herself to duty to deal with a very nasty brawl that was taking place in the back of the bus. As a result of recalling herself to duty, she suffered a very badly broken leg. That is an outrageous outcome and it represents a disgraceful attack on a police officer. I sometimes suspect that the reaction to off-duty plainclothes police officers who recall themselves to duty is particularly extreme and they face a situation of peril. The other example of extraordinary consequences involved David Carty. An appalling attack on him resulted in his shocking death, which occurred when he was off duty and drinking with work colleagues in a hotel. He recalled himself to duty to deal with a disturbance with a resultant shocking outcome. It was one of the worst murders—although they are all terrible—of a police officer on record. I think I am correct in saying—and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary or the honourable member for Wallsend, who is in the Chair, will correct me if I am wrong—that Peter Forsyth was off duty and accompanied by a couple of friends while walking in his local neighbourhood. He recalled himself to duty to deal with people whom he reasonably believed were involved in drug dealing. As events turned out, he was spot on. However, he paid for his intervention with his life. These extraordinary situations underscore the extreme peril that attends off-duty plainclothes police officers who recall themselves to duty. This legislation's occupational health and safety measures should admit no daylight whatsoever in meeting these situations. Incredible though it is, the need for that type of legislation extends to the families and next of kin of officers who have died in the performance of their duty. The requirements of police officers to recall themselves to duty is a critically important part of police responsibility. For all the reasons I have outlined, it is important for this Parliament to ensure that police officers are adequately protected by legislation. When problems arise because of additional duties that police officers are required to perform, members of Parliament should recognise the duty that is owed to police officers to ensure that the legislation covers them unreservedly. I think it is very important to close loopholes and to eliminate any daylight in legislation of this type. For that reason, the Opposition supports the Government in the passage of this legislation. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5119

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.21 p.m.]: I acknowledge the contribution made to this debate by the honourable member for Epping, who referred to issues that confront police officers in the performance of their formal duties or when they are recalled to duty. As the honourable member said, unlike other members of the community, police officers are often exposed to danger and have to use discretion in carrying out the commission under which they have been sworn to serve. Unfortunately, as the honourable member for Epping described, situations have arisen in which there has not been seamless coverage that police officers should have under the law.

The Minister for Police outlined the provisions of the bill in his second reading speech to make it abundantly clear that when the provisions of this bill begin to operate police officers will be categorised as employees of the Crown for the purposes of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983. This legislation removes any doubt about the status of police officers as employees and also makes it clear that the Crown's obligation as an employer applies when police officers are on duty, but only when they are on duty. A police officer being on duty can be when the police officer is officially rostered for duty or when an officer, although not officially rostered, acts as a police officer and recalls himself or herself to duty. In most cases, police officers recall themselves to duty in situations in which they will be exposed to danger.

As recently as this week in the Hunter region a police officer from the Late Macquarie Local Area Command was shot during the performance of duty. Far too often situations of that type confront members of the Police Service. Police officers should be in no doubt that when they carry out their duties and when they are confronted by a situation in which they have to make decisions possibly leading to serious injury that they will be covered by the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The bill clearly allows WorkCover to prosecute the Crown under the Act and all police officers, while serving the people of New South Wales, will have automatic and seamless coverage under that Act.

It is important to note that during this Government's term of office it has done all in its power to provide police officers with safety equipment. The Government has allocated $30 million to ensure that New South Wales police officers have the best available equipment to enhance their safety in the performance of their duty. The equipment—including bulletproof vests, wet weather safety gear, sunglasses, extendable batons and capsicum spray—is provided to assist police officers in the performance of their duty and to assist in the safe operation of policing functions. Beyond that, it is also important to ensure that police officers have every possible statutory coverage. As the honourable member for Epping and the Minister have already mentioned, in addition to providing coverage for police officers and increasing their confidence while performing their duties, this amending bill clarifies the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act for the assistance of police officers and WorkCover.

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [12.26 p.m.], in reply: The Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Police Officers) Bill is a small bill with an important purpose. It contains provisions to clarify that the protections of the Occupational Health and Safety Act apply to police officers just as they apply to all other employees. The current Occupational Health and Safety Act commenced in 1983. The bill has wide- ranging provisions that are designed to embrace every area of the work environment, every hazardous occupation, and every use of dangerous substances and chemicals. The general duties clauses are sufficiently broad to cover virtually every conceivable risk in a work situation. The breadth of coverage, particularly in relation to the Crown, was a very significant initiative. Crown employees are exposed to risks to their health and safety at their workplace. As honourable members would agree, police officers are placed at special risk owing to the inherently dangerous nature of some of their duties. Members of the public are grateful to them for protecting members of the community from the actions of criminals.

I turn now to the provisions of the bill. The bill does not represent a new initiative; rather it is a clarification of the original intent of the Act. The original intent to cover all Crown employees is found in section 6 of the current Act, which begins with the words "This Act binds the Crown ...". Because of the doubt that had been raised, the bill inserts a specific reference to police officers as Crown employees. The nature of the police role is such that a police officer may be on duty as a result of normal rostering or when circumstances necessitate during otherwise off-duty hours. The amendment contained in the bill will ensure that occupational health and safety requirements apply in all situations where police officers are performing in that capacity. Police officer safety is a priority for this Government. Its record on this issue speaks for itself. I thank the honourable member for Epping and the Parliamentary Secretary for their contributions to the debate. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages. 5120 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

PENALTY NOTICES VALIDATION BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 November 1999.

Mr TINK (Epping) [12.39 p.m.]: The overview of the bill states that section 18B of the Traffic Act 1909 enables penalty notices to be issued by prescribed officers in respect of certain offences. Regulation 130A (1) (f1) of the Motor Traffic Regulations 1935 provides that, for some parking offences, certain employees of councils are prescribed officers. The bill seeks to address the problem that some penalty notices were issued between 22 June 1995 and 24 March 1999 without the requisite authorisation of the council having been given. The Opposition does not oppose the bill for the important reason that what is sought to be remedied by it does not relate to whether the substance of the offence has been committed. In other words, on my understanding of it, nobody who might otherwise escape on a technicality is disadvantaged in relation to the substance of being found to have committed a parking offence.

To that extent that position is different from recent developments about the use of speed cameras and the exercise of tolerance on whether a substantive offence has been committed. It seems that nobody will be disadvantaged on the question whether they committed an offence in substance. That sorry state of affairs is outlined on page 42 and following pages of a performance audit report by the Auditor-General on enforcement of street parking penalties, which was presented in November 1999 to Parliament. In 1995 the Police Service legal services reviewed the service agreement and in a letter of 26 May 1995 advised the Acting Deputy Commissioner that it was not an authorisation pursuant to the Motor Traffic Regulations, as was thought to be the case.

Such an authority needs to be in existence before an agreement can be carried out. It is a fundamental legal problem which may have had a complex background and may have required some changes. Perhaps the matter was regarded as being highly technical and one that should be cleaned up at the first opportunity. It is particularly important, especially if the Police Service delegates power to other authorities, that legal arrangements enabling other authorities to operate are beyond question. In the future, before such arrangements are put in place advice should be obtained to ensure that the legal sequence in the chain of documentation and authorisation is absolutely beyond question. If any question arises I hope legislation is enacted before such arrangements are entered into.

Many councils were caught out by arrangements which struck at the heart of their authority. A parking ticket must be a credible deterrent to the commission of a parking offence. Parking offences are at the bottom end of the criminal scale of offences but have a significant effect on the community. We often lose sight of that fact when we concentrate in this Chamber on legislation covering more serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter, sexual assault and so forth. Parking offences embrace safety, commercial and other issues that we tend to lose sight of. I am sure the Minister is constantly reminded, as I am, by Mr Scruby from the Pedestrian Safety Council of the importance of having an effective illegal parking deterrent.

It is critically important that regulations in relation to parking restrictions near schools are credibly enforced. Large numbers of school children use school pedestrian crossings. It is infuriating and unbelievably dangerous when somebody stops in a no-stopping or no-standing area near a pedestrian crossing because that action prevents other motorists seeing children and other pedestrians entering the crossing. Signs are put in place to keep lines of vision clear for motorists driving towards an intersection so that they can see children stepping off the kerb and onto the crossing. Parking regulations enhance physical safety and save lives. The bill will bring greater credibility to parking regulation enforcement. Parking signs should deter motorists from blocking the line of sight of pedestrians and drivers at pedestrian crossings.

Parking restrictions are in force for commercial reasons. Areas of shopping centres and main streets are designated for parking turnover so that motorists do not use them for commuter car-parking purposes. Business people in Ashfield or Epping have a right to expect business turnover. Special parking areas ensure that people from Parramatta or Castle Hill do not park in the main streets of Ashfield or Epping all day. Such parking would prevent customer and business turnover. Legitimate commercial and safety considerations apply to parking in residential streets, but commuter car parking also requires effective enforcement of car parking rules. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5121

The Auditor-General said also that although due warning was given in 1995 for the letters of authorisation issued to councils prior to 22 June 1995, no such letters were issued for that period even though the problem was recognised in 1995. From 1 July 1995 to 14 April 1999 the 28 councils "authorised" had, in fact, issued 26,000 dud parking infringement notices with a monetary value of $19.4 million because of the problem with authorisation. The efficacy of the parking system and the deterrent effect of the existing notification system comes under question. Surely a legal problem that came to notice in 1995 should be brought to light without the community having to wait for four years and an Auditor-General's report.

It seems to me that there is a problem within the Legal Services Unit with effectively vetting systems that are put in place to delegate authority to bodies beyond the Police Service. The second issue sought to be covered by this legislation is the extent to which the Legal Services Unit and others, when put on notice about a problem, actually go back and check the wider consequences of that problem, once identified. It is extremely regrettable that the Auditor-General's report to Parliament indicates that in 1995 some people were asleep at the wheel even though those people had a duty to consider the wider ramifications of the issues that were raised in 1995 when it came to councils which, prior to that time, should have had authorisations but did not have them.

We must do better than this. What has occurred does not reflect well on the public sector of this State or on its Police Service. Ultimately, it does not reflect well on the good government of this State that the Parliament must pass retrospective legislation to sort out such a problem. It should not have been necessary for this matter to come to the Parliament. There should not be a need for retrospective legislation. Let there be no doubt that this is retrospective legislation, designed to cover criminal offences. It is a grave shortcoming of the Government of this State that this Parliament must contemplate and pass retrospective legislation to validate criminal offences. That is a serious in-principle problem. It is a serious indictment on the Government that such legislation is necessary.

It can be said that this bill deals with a small matter. It is true that the offences are at the small end of the criminal spectrum, but nevertheless they are offences that can affect peoples' lives. Even though parking is at the lower end of the range when it comes to criminal offences, a failure to have credible laws that are properly enforced, with authorisations that are validly issued, strikes at the heart of deterrence, and that can affect peoples' lives in a very direct sense. It is not good enough for the Government to come before this Parliament seeking retrospective legislation to deal with problems emanating from sloppy administrative arrangements by which authorities that were put on notice of a problem did not give the 360-degree attention necessary to identify all foreseeable consequences of the problems raised in 1995.

I put this in two categories. The problem identified in 1995 should not have occurred in the first place. I sincerely hope that arrangements are in place to ensure that such problems do not arise again. The other issue is the need to ensure that all of the foreseeable consequences of the advice should have been followed through at that time, and they were not. The only reason that the Coalition will not oppose the bill is that there are serious consequences in having to pay back $20 million, given that present police budget problems have resulted in police vehicles not having sufficient tread on the tyres, officers catching trains to take drug exhibits to courts, and so on. To take $20 million from the budget and return it to people who, to all intents and purposes, committed offences, could not be tolerated by the Coalition. However, it must be said that it is totally unsatisfactory that the Government must come to this Parliament and seek retrospective validation of criminal offences. It is important that I place those matters on the record. I sincerely hope that I never have to do so again.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville—Deputy Premier, Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for Housing) [12.43 p.m.], in reply: The Government strongly welcomes the Opposition's support for the Penalty Notices Validation Bill and its strong endorsement of it.

Mr Tink: I am being verballed!

Dr REFSHAUGE: With the qualifications that the honourable member has made, which fall short of total blanket support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages. 5122 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PRINCIPLES OF MULTICULTURALISM BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville—Deputy Premier, Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for Housing) [12.45 p.m.]: A couple of years ago the United Nations declared the International Year of Tolerance. That seemed to me to be a bit out of date for Australia, which has moved from tolerance of differences to celebration of differences. Australia possibly was a tolerant society for some time, but its strong movement to celebration of multicultural differences is recognition that we were not in fact putting ourselves out but building a stronger, more cohesive country. The objectives of this legislation are very clear. The first is:

to recognise that the people of New South Wales are of different linguistic, religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds.

That is the clear expression of the bill. The second is:

to promote the equal rights and responsibilities of all the people of New South Wales within a cohesive and harmonious multicultural society in which diversity is regarded as a strength and an asset, individuals share a commitment to Australia, and English is the common language.

Clearly, what the Government is doing is demonstrating in legislation the changes that have occurred in our community so strongly over the past couple of decades. The principles of multiculturalism that we put into law for the first time are clearly spelt out in clause 3 of part 1 of the bill. Principle 1 is:

All individuals in New South Wales should have the greatest possible opportunity to contribute to, and participate in, all aspects of public life.

Principle 2 is:

All individuals and public institutions should respect and make provision for the culture, language and religion of others within an Australian legal and institutional framework where English is the common language.

Principle 3 is:

All individuals should have the greatest possible opportunity to make use of and participate in relevant activities and programs provided or administered by the Government of New South Wales.

Principle 4 is:

All public institutions of New South Wales should recognise the linguistic and cultural assets in the population of New South Wales as a valuable resource and promote this resource to maximise the development of the State.

This is the first time that the principles of multiculturalism have been enshrined in law. This bill makes it clear that we are not a "tolerant" society; we are bigger and better than that. We are an inclusive society, a society that celebrates its differences and ensures that those differences are used to our advantage. Business opportunities have increased in New South Wales, particularly in Sydney. Increased opportunities is portrayed as one of the reasons that American Express set up its processing headquarters for South-East Asia in Sydney, New South Wales. Apart from the whole range of economic reasons, the extra feature that made Sydney a winner is our multilingual workforce.

We should realise that our multicultural differences are of great economic benefit when competing internationally. Sydney is an international city. There is no doubt at all about that. Melbourne is possibly thinking about it, but Sydney is the international city of Australia. The diversity of the New South Wales community, with its multicultural and multilingual workforce, adds to the advantages already inherent in this State. That is quite apart from the fact that New South Wales has the further advantage of having a Labor Government. That multiculturalism enhances the already enormous ability of this State to function very competitively in the international sphere. I should point out that a number of other arms of government have been a little slower in coming to recognise the value of our multicultural presence. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5123

We have seen a significant movement in the heritage area. I have insisted that we receive strong support for the recognition of our multicultural heritage. That is certainly one of the priorities I have placed on the Heritage Council during the next three years. In 1999 the Yiu Ming Temple in Alexandria, the Chinese Market Gardens in La Perouse and the Wing Hing Long Store in Tingha were added to the Heritage List as part of a significant and concerted push to bring multicultural history into mainstream history. We must recognise it, celebrate it and show its significance. The Heritage Office has also formed a partnership with the Italian community. Currently a conservation management plan is being prepared for the eventual listing on the State Heritage Register of New Italy near Woodford in the north of the State. The Government plans to work with other communities to add more items to the State Heritage Register so that it truly reflects the diversity of our cultural history. I should mention the significance of my electorate to the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Bill. My electorate is one of the most ethnically diverse electorates in this State. It is of great significance that it is also one of the most harmonious. We have our difficulties and there are potential tensions. But when we compare our model with overseas models where there are poor race relations, we in the broader Marrickville area enjoy incredibly harmonious relations. That has happened because people have worked at developing those harmonious relations. Each community sees itself as part of a broader community. Their own specialness is important. They are respected, more than tolerated, celebrated and part of a broad and diverse community. They work to bring that together. Addison Road Community Centre, for example, houses a plethora of organisations, all of which provide services and other facilities for their communities and work together on the same management of Addison Road Community Centre. There is no doubt that the models that we have been able to develop in Australia—which are clearly portrayed in Marrickville—are models that the world should come and see. I hope that one of the spin-offs of the focus on Sydney when the Olympics are being staged will be the success of our multicultural society and the way in which we have gone about race relations. We have built people up rather than divide them. Australia is not only a tolerant society, although we have certain great strengths and tolerances; we are much stronger and better than that. We are a celebratory, inclusive society that recognises the great strengths of our diversity. We will ensure that our legislation is much more updated and in tune with the realities that we face. I support the bill. Mrs GRUSOVIN (Heffron) [12.53 p.m.]: I support the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Bill. Once again New South Wales is showing leadership in this great country in promoting the benefits of multiculturalism in our society. Under this legislation, multiculturalism will become the official policy of the State. As I just said, New South Wales will be the first State in Australia to enshrine the principles of multiculturalism in law. The bill will enable the setting up of an inclusive and proactive Community Relations Commission. Being the first State to take these steps, we will continue the achievements of the Ethnic Affairs Commission—I will refer later to the Ethnic Affairs Commission—and we will see a much stronger emphasis on and direction towards inclusiveness and an end to the marginalisation that some of our ethnic communities have experienced. The preamble to the bill will, for the first time, recognise the cultural diversity of the people of this State. It will see it as a strength in our society and an asset for the community. This Government is clearly committed to this inclusive society. The new Community Relations Commission will be given legislative power to monitor government departments and agencies in the development and delivery of quality services to ethnic communities. The commission will have an ability to assist in and assess the effectiveness of public authorities in observing the principles of multiculturalism in the conduct of their affairs, particularly in connection with the delivery of government services. That is an important step. The Ethnic Affairs Commission, which has carried out great work over the past 20 years, has played a valuable role on behalf of many different groups of people who have come to Australia from many different cultures. We should note in the course of this debate that everyone in Australia came from somewhere. At some stage all of us would have related to the term "ethnic". It is important not to lose sight of that factor. One of the difficulties we have faced in recent years is that those who have come to Australia—and some not all that long ago—become very protective of this country about whether it is being overpopulated. They are keen to ensure that it is as difficult as possible for others to take up the same opportunities that they were given in an earlier decade. [Interruption] We are pleased about some of our Irish imports. They have made a great contribution to this Chamber, and they continue to do so. 5124 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

Mr Fraser: And the Scots.

Mrs GRUSOVIN: And the Scots. I have a bit of Scots blood too; I am not totally Irish. If we went through our bloodlines we would discover that not too many of us could claim to be thoroughbred. We must remember the great changes that occurred in our society, the great diversity that was introduced when Australia opened its doors to the troubled people in refugee camps throughout Europe at the end of the Second World War. People who came to Australia made a tremendous contribution and they radically changed Australia from the way it was then to the way it is today. I can only say thank God. We have the privilege of living in a far more exciting, challenging, interesting society—a much cleverer society because we have had the benefit of all those talents.

I mention also the role that has been played, for example, by the Greek community in this country. I had the privilege of growing up and living in the midst of a Greek community. At one stage only one boy in the soccer team at our local primary school spoke English and he had a great deal of trouble coping with the fact that he was the only one who could not speak the general language. Looking back at the sacrifices and contributions that many of those people made when they came to this country, we can be grateful for what occurred in the past. I have some regrets at present about the fact that it is becoming immensely difficult for people to gain entry to Australia—people who could make a contribution to this country. I regret the way in which the populist press has reported many cases relating to people who have supposedly acted illegally and who are doing dreadful things in their attempt to become part of the Australian community. Not all that long ago we desperately encouraged, pleaded with people and paid their fares to enable them to come to this country.

The Ethnic Affairs Commission has played an important role over past years. Increasingly, everyone now understands that the word "ethnic" has reached its use-by date. We really need a more inclusive term, such as Community Relations Commission. The Government recognised that there was concern within the community. In 1999 the Premier gave an undertaking that, as part of this process of change, a program of consultation would be undertaken to ensure that there was sufficient public input into the setting up of this new commission. There is no doubt about the fact that that has born fruit. One need only go through some of the correspondence that the Government has received from various well-known cultural groups within our community—from the Lebanese community, the Chinese community, the Muslim community and the Croatian community—all congratulating the Government on giving them an opportunity to participate in consultation, and all committed to expressing support for this legislation. I commend the Government for introducing this bill. I am pleased that there is bipartisan support for the legislation from both sides of the Chamber, as there should be. Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Anderson. [Mr Acting Speaker (Mr Mills) left the chair at 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

NEW SOUTH WALES TARTAN Ministerial Statement Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [2.15 p.m.]: I have pleasure in announcing the creation of the New South Wales tartan. As many honourable members would know, tartans, which have been around since the fifth century, are the symbols of clans or counties. Tasmania, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory already boast tartans of their own. Therefore, in making this announcement I am proud to sport a tie in the colours of the official New South Wales tartan, which is recognised by the Scottish Tartan Society, the world's governing body of tartans and the register of all tartans throughout the world. The tartan will be launched formally tomorrow night at Glen Innes, in the electorate of Northern Tablelands, as part of the New England Wool Fashion Award activities. I predict that the tartan will take its rightful place alongside the other symbols of this great State. Its creation is timely given that the House is currently debating the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Bill. In that debate many members have advised the House of the origins of their parents and grandparents. For example, the ancestors of the honourable member for Willoughby were from Ireland. Another member spoke of his connections with Greece. Like many other members here—such as the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the honourable member for Bankstown—I have a Scottish heritage, and I am extremely proud of that heritage. The Face side of the family was forced to flee from France and Germany to Scotland because of religious persecution. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5125

The honourable member for Coffs Harbour, the former member for Manly, Peter McDonald, and the former member for Maitland, Peter Blackmore, and I have been patrons of Scottish House in this State for some time. I note that today the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is sporting the Hunting Fraser Tartan. I congratulate Betty and Bradley Johnston of Murrumbateman—which is located in the Southern Tablelands between Yass and Canberra—who designed the New South Wales tartan. I am sure the honourable member for Burrinjuck is proud of them also. Although the tie was designed in Scotland, the Johnstons assure me that only premier Australian wool was used in its production. So, although the tie could have been woven in Pitlochry—a beautiful town I visited in 1998 when I toured France, Belgium and the United Kingdom with a pipe band to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Western Front—it is made of Australian wool.

In designing a tartan for New South Wales the Johnstons selected colours that were both visually appealing and eminently wearable. The red represents the colour of the Waratah, the State flower, and the St George cross on the New South Wales coat of arms. The gold represents the golden lion and golden stars on the New South Wales coat of arms and the colour of our national flower, the wattle. The black and two-tone green colours provide a balance to the tartan and give it a depth of colour that will enable it to be readily recognisable from a distance. Once again, I congratulate the Johnstons on bringing to fruition the New South Wales tartan. Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [2.20 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to join with the Minister for Gaming and Racing to note the launch of the official New South Wales tartan this weekend at Glen Innes. As the Minister said, there are many members of this House—me included—who are of Scottish descent. The State owes a great deal to the Scots, who have made a significant contribution to the establishment of New South Wales over the years. Many Scots were engineers, and many worked in the farming industries. Glen Innes, where the tartan is being launched, was named after Glen Innes in Scotland. In congratulating Betty and Bradley Johnston on their contribution, I recognise the tradition of the Scottish people. I note that today honourable members will discuss as a matter of public importance the tradition of Anzac Day. I remind honourable members that Scottish bands lead most Anzac marches and that Scottish pipers play the laments at most dawn and other services. We Scots have a great pride in our heritage.

The Minister is the drum major of the United Mineworkers Pipe Band. For many years my younger brother, Simon Fraser, played the pipes for that band, which the Minister led on Anzac Day. Simon now plays for the New South Wales Police Pipe Band. On Anzac Day this year my young son played the pipes for the Woolgoolga-Coffs Harbour Pipe Band. That was a moment of great pride for me. I missed the Minister at the Plains Scottish Festival a fortnight ago. I do not believe the rumour that the Minister fell over while in regimental dress at the festival some years ago. If the Minister does not already have them, he should get a pair of boxer shorts in the colours of the New South Wales tartan so that he does not embarrass himself or anyone else should he ever fall over while wearing his regimental dress. Recently the people of Bundanoon designed their own tartan to reflect the colours of the area and the railway line that runs through Bundanoon. I commend the people of that district for designing their own tartan. Yesterday the honourable member for Monaro wore the Australian tartan into this House. The tartans for all the States and the Australian tartans are made from New South Wales wool, which is a great joy to the National Party. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, has a very Irish name. I recall my grandmother, who was a Morrison and a very strong Scot, saying regularly that there are two types of people in this world: those who are Scots and those who wish they were Scots. BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL OPERATIONS Ministerial Statement Mr WOODS (Clarence—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [2.23 p.m.]: The New South Wales Department of Local Government and the community have ongoing concerns about the operation of Byron Shire Council. During the previous council term the department conducted an investigation into the council's financial position, as well as a number of issues arising from complaints from the community. The Department of Local Government had hoped that the situation would improve after the election of a fresh council last September. However, the department continues to receive a large number of complaints about the council, particularly in the areas of planning and tendering. Therefore, the Director-General of the Department of Local Government has written to Byron Shire Council asking it to formally outline how it will address these difficulties. The substance of the response from the council will determine whether any further action is necessary. Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes) [2.24 p.m.]: The Opposition looks forward to being fully briefed by the Minister and kept abreast of matters pertaining to Byron Shire Council. 5126 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Routine of Business

[During notices of motions]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind honourable members that any reference to members of Parliament in motions of which notice is being given should be restricted to the member's title or electorate, rather than the member's name.

PETITIONS

McDonald's Moore Park Restaurant

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

Firearms Legislation

Petition praying that a committee be established to review the Firearms Act, received from Ms Hodgkinson.

Surry Hills Policing

Petition praying for increased police presence in the Surry Hills area, received from Ms Moore.

Bondi Pavilion Olympic Stadium Proposal

Petition praying for opposition to the construction of a stadium at Bondi Pavilion for the volleyball event during the 2000 Olympic Games, received from Ms Moore.

Coffs Harbour Health Services Funding

Petition praying for increased funding for health services in the Coffs Harbour area and a reduction in surgery waiting lists, received from Mr Fraser.

Disorderly Houses Act

Petition praying that the Disorderly Houses Act be amended to confer on councils and shires the right to ban the establishment of brothels in towns of less than 20,000 people, received from Ms Hodgkinson.

TAFE Funding

Petition praying for opposition to any funding cuts to TAFE, received from Ms Moore.

Cardiff Railway Station Disabled Access

Petitions expressing concern at the difficulties experienced by disabled and elderly patrons in accessing Cardiff railway station platform, and praying that Cardiff railway station be included on the Easy Access program and a lift or ramp installed, received from Mr Hunter and Mr Mills.

Oxford Street Pedestrian Crossing

Petition praying that an additional signalised pedestrian crossing be installed on Oxford Street, Paddington, received from Ms Moore.

Moore Park Passive Recreation

Petition praying that Moore Park be used for passive recreation after construction of the Eastern Distributor and that car parking not be permitted in Moore Park, received from Ms Moore. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5127

Moore Park Light Rail

Petition praying that consideration be given to the construction of a light rail transport system for Moore Park, received from Ms Moore.

Eastern Distributor Tunnel Ventilation

Petition praying that air purification systems be installed on the Eastern Distributor and cross-city tunnel, received from Ms Moore.

Windsor Road Upgrading

Petitions praying that Windsor Road be upgraded and widened within the next two financial years, received from Mr Merton, Mr Richardson and Mr Rozzoli.

Ku-ring-gai Municipality Transport Study

Petition praying that a comprehensive transport study be undertaken to investigate and recommend short- and long-term solutions to problems caused by increased traffic movements in Ku-ring-gai municipality, received from Mr O'Farrell.

Northside Storage Tunnel Gas Emissions

Petition praying for the installation of an acceptable system to address health risks associated with the discharge of sewage gases from the northside storage tunnel, received from Mr Collins.

Animal Experimentation

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

Animal Vivisection

Petition praying that the House will totally and unconditionally abolish animal vivisection on scientific, medical and ethical grounds, and that a new system be introduced whereby veterinary students are apprenticed to practising veterinary surgeons, received from Ms Moore.

Willoughby Paddocks Rezoning

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

Oyster Creek Management

Petition praying for the implementation of a plan covering all aspects of the management of Oyster Creek and the lifting of restrictions on properties currently affected by section 149 certificates, received from Mr Collier.

Compulsory Competitive Tendering

Petition praying that the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering for roadworks in regional and rural areas be opposed, received from Mr Hodgkinson.

White City Site Rezoning Proposal

Petition praying that any rezoning of the White City site be opposed, received from Ms Moore. 5128 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

STAR CITY CASINO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ALLEGATIONS

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: My question is directed to the Minister for Gaming and Racing. Given the Minister's admission on radio this morning that money laundering is going on at the Sydney casino, why has he, as the responsible Minister, failed to issue formal ministerial directives in the past year to the Casino Control Authority to investigate serious allegations that convicted drug dealers and other criminals are using the casino to launder money?

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

Mr FACE: Let us not forget that it was a Coalition Government under Premier Greiner, that one-time opponent of casinos who in government underwent a miraculous road-to-Damascus conversion about the evils of casinos—

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

Mr FACE: He saw the need for not just one but two casinos in Sydney. He initiated the casino legislation and oversaw the selection of a casino operator. Let us not forget that it was Labor in opposition that made sure New South Wales would be allowed to have one casino. The Director of Casino Surveillance is required to sift through perhaps thousands of files and incident reports going back to 1996 in order that I may answer the question asked of me by the honourable member for Port Macquarie in this place yesterday. That work is being done as a priority. However, it will take as long as two weeks to complete because of the mountain of documentation that has to be worked through.

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

Mr FACE: The Opposition could do much more to assist in this process. Yesterday I gave such an invitation to the honourable member for Port Macquarie. The honourable member could, and should, hand over the list that he waved around in this place yesterday. I call on him to do so. I have sent him a letter asking him to do so. If he does not, he will be forever condemned.

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

Mr FACE: It is worth making the point that the Director of Casino Surveillance has assured me that he is not aware of any reports made by either he or his staff to the Casino Control Authority regarding criminal activity which has not been acted upon when required. It is a worthwhile pointing out that the Director of the Casino Surveillance Division has assured me that he is not aware of any reports made either by him or by members of his staff to the Casino Control Authority regarding criminal activity that have not been acted upon when required. It is important to note that the Casino Surveillance Division reports on various types of activity that might be of concern. Depending on the nature of that activity, the division refers reports to the appropriate body. For example, general criminal activity which might be observed in and around the casino complex such as pickpocketing is referred to the local command of the Police Service.

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

Mr FACE: Information in relation to people who are involved in suspicious or undesirable activity, including money lending which might be suspected of constituting loan sharking, is referred to the Crime Agencies Command of the Police Service.

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

Mr FACE: The Casino Surveillance Division also co-operates with various law enforcement agencies and joint task forces that routinely request assistance in relation to information on certain individuals frequenting, and associating in, the casino. The division also reports directly to the Casino Control Authority on a wide range of operational matters relating to the casino operator and its employees. Let me restate that the director is not aware of any reports he made to be authority on issues involving criminal activity in the casino 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5129 that have not been acted upon. I turn now to address the questions posed by the honourable member for Port Macquarie in a media release that was issued yesterday. As I said earlier, I will answer all the questions as soon as the Director of the Casino Surveillance Division in the Department of Gaming and Racing, Ron Harrex, apprises me of the information required to give the answers.

Mr Harrex reports that one of his staff has been assisting the honourable member for Port Macquarie. That is obvious from the information to which the honourable member has referred. I already have some of the information that is necessary to answer the questions he asked. That information is as follows. In question three in the press release the honourable member for Port Macquarie wanted to know how many persons who frequented the high rollers Endeavour Room at Star City were excluded, apart from the now notorious Van Duong. The answer is that 45 persons have been excluded from Star City Casino by the Director of the Casino Surveillance Division and by the Commissioner of Police, including Van Duong. These people were excluded as a result of 46 orders, but two of those orders were made in respect of the same person. I understand also that Star City, as the casino operator, has excluded a further 60 persons who were members of the Endeavour Room.

The next question posed by the honourable member for Port Macquarie asked exactly how many reports were done by the Casino Surveillance Division on Van Duong before action was taken to exclude him from attendance at the Star City Casino. I am advised by the Director of the Casino Surveillance Division that 15 reports were made in relation to Van Duong by the Casino Surveillance Division between June 1996 and August 1997. Those 15 reports include internal memorandums and incident reports as a result of observations made by casino inspectors. No reports were made after August 1997 and it was on 9 September 1997 that the Commissioner of Police directed Star City to exclude Van Duong.

The honourable member for Port Macquarie also asked what has happened to the revenue from Van Duong's gambling activities. The revenue from Van Duong's gambling activities were treated no differently from the revenue derived from any other gambler. Winnings are paid out and takings are recorded as casino revenue. That is what the Coalition insisted upon when the casino legislation was passed in 1992 and the casino taxation regime became operational in 1994. I will provide the House with further information as it becomes available, and I will do so in accordance with legislation implemented by the former Coalition Government.

FINGER SCANNING

Mr GREENE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. What is the Government doing to improve bail reporting procedures in New South Wales?

Mr WHELAN: I have already indicated to the House some of the technology changes that have been embraced by the Police Service. Today I am pleased to announce revolutionary new computer technology which has changed forever the way in which bailees report in New South Wales. Finger scanning is smart policing at its best. It is a system which saves valuable police time, cuts out cumbersome paperwork and cuts down the average time for bail reporting from seven minutes to just 15 seconds. The finger scanning system could not be simpler or more efficient. Information relating to each bailee is entered onto a database which communicates with the finger scanning devices. Once registered, bailees simply go straight to the finger scanning device on the police station counter where they report. They simply enter the pin number and place a finger on the scanner. Within a few seconds, a green light confirms that their details have been recorded. The process takes less than 15 seconds and eliminates forever the antiquated and often late-night system of queuing at police station counters to report for bail.

Perhaps more importantly, this technology means that no longer will a designated police officer have to sit down for hours after midnight to manually check bail cards one by one to identify anyone who has failed to report. In the event of a computer breakdown, the finger scanner has a memory to record information. It also has an alarm to alert police officers if bailees have outstanding warrants. Each night, the computer generates a list of bailees who have failed to report. The finger scanner was recently trialled, and has since been adopted, in three busy western Sydney local area commands, namely, Mount Druitt, Cabramatta and Campbelltown. The results so far are terrific. In the first week of use at Mount Druitt, 218 people reported for bail on 951 occasions. During that week, running time tests were conducted and Mount Druitt police officers calculated that the finger scanners saved them 38 hours of valuable police time per week. Mr Hartcher: What did they do with the time? What did they do with the 38 hours? 5130 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

Mr WHELAN: This is not good news only for police and those who are facing long queues when reporting for bail. It is also great news for all the community. In response to the interjection by honourable member for Gosford, the finger scanner frees police from paperwork so that they can spend more time on the streets, fighting crime to make local communities safer.

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

Mr WHELAN: I am pleased to inform the House that New South Wales police officers are investigating the future potential of finger scanning technology. With enhancement, this technology is capable of storing photographic images against bailee records, which will greatly assist proactive policing. Police officers at Mount Druitt tell me that this system has made a real difference to their daily duties. Finger scanning is another example of the Government's commitment to the better use of police and police resources.

STAR CITY CASINO PATRON QUOC THAI LY

Mr OAKESHOTT: My question is directed to the Minister for Gaming and Racing. In the light of his reference this morning on the radio to the Australian Taxation Office [ATO], can he inform the House whether Mr Quoc Thai Ly, who placed bets worth more than $16 million in just six months at the Sydney casino despite an earlier conviction for illegal betting, is now the subject of investigation, including an investigation into taxation fraud?

Mr FACE: The Government, through the Department of Gaming and Racing, maintains an inspectorial investigative capability in relation to the activities of patrons of the Star City Casino. This capability is similar to the inspection and investigative roles carried out by the department in premises used for other gaming, liquor, charity and racing activities. All departmental inspectors and investigators have been granted special powers under legislation to carry out important functions that Parliament has bestowed upon them.

Those powers include the capacity to investigate licence holders and applicants for licences, to enter licensed premises and registered clubs, to examine and inquire into whether the provisions of relevant legislation have been complied with, to carry out inspections to ensure that the premises are conducted for the purpose for which the licence was granted and are otherwise being conducted in the public interest, to require the production of registers, books, records and relevant documents, to seize documents for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to the commission of an offence, and to require any person to answer questions in relation to those documents or other relevant matters. It has always been my practice not to comment on specific matters that may be under investigation.

Mr Oakeshott: We know that.

Mr FACE: The honourable member for Port Macquarie is moving down a dangerous path. The register contains details of individuals or organisations that may be involved in an investigation. However, as I indicated through the media this morning, the Opposition's remarks about a possible ATO investigation of a casino patron makes this situation no different. It is interesting that information on a supposedly covert and ongoing investigation by the ATO has found its way into the public domain. It is even more interesting that the Opposition has chosen to raise in the public forum a matter which is currently still under investigation.

The Government will not be drawn into disclosing the details of an important investigation in response to an Opposition whim. I have been briefed on the details of this particular investigation and I assure honourable members that it is my firm belief that it is in the public interest for the investigation to run its natural course. In the meantime, as I told the honourable member for Port Macquarie yesterday, and I will repeat it today, if he or any other member of this Parliament has material or evidence concerning breaches of any law for which my portfolio is responsible, that material or evidence should be provided to the appropriate authorities, including my ministry, for investigation. I reiterate my assurance that such matters will be investigated.

Mr OAKESHOTT: I ask a supplementary question. In the light of the Minister's answer, how does he explain reports from a whistleblower at the casino that Mr Quoc Thai Ly has been enjoying the casino as recently as during the last fortnight?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Pittwater to order for the second time. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5131

Mr FACE: I have already answered the question. The honourable member should take the information which is being fed to him from two areas to the investigation, which includes the section 31 inquiry.

INSULIN-DEPENDENT DIABETICS FREE NEEDLES AND SYRINGES

Mr E. T. PAGE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. What is the Government doing to assist insulin-dependent diabetics?

Mr KNOWLES: I commend the honourable member for Coogee for his interest in diabetes, a relatively common illness which affects about 700,000 Australians, 200,000 of whom live in New South Wales. That number has doubled in the past 15 years. It is estimated that during the next 20 years more than one million people in Australia will suffer from diabetes. Diabetes can be a debilitating illness leading to blindness, strokes and heart and kidney disease. In New South Wales about 30,000 of the 200,000 diabetics have the most severe form of diabetes as a result of an almost complete deficiency of insulin. For those who are required to regularly inject insulin as often as six times a day it is a time-consuming and costly exercise and despite an historic subsidy, the typical insulin-dependent diabetic can spend several hundreds of dollars a year on syringes and needles.

Currently diabetics have to pay for their needles under a co-payment system between the Commonwealth Government and Diabetes Australia. The good news for those 30,000 individuals in New South Wales who, up until now, have had to make a co-payment under a Commonwealth system for their needles and syringes is that the Government has renegotiated the contract and, as a result from 1 June, only four weeks away, diabetics in New South Wales will be able to receive free needles. From 1 June the Government will pick up the co-payment in New South Wales. The 30,000 diabetics relying on needles and syringes will be able to receive free needles as a consequence of New South Wales meeting its component of the co-payment. No wonder there is so much jubilation from members of the Opposition about this terrific initiative!

Mrs Skinner: That is our policy.

Mr KNOWLES: Oh, "It's our policy"! I thought the Labor Party was elected to government. The level of the support for the Opposition is languishing somewhere between about 4 per cent and 20 per cent, but, of course, this is its policy! Success has many fathers and some of those fathers are very odd-looking people. That is terrific news for insulin-dependant diabetics. It will clearly give those who are totally dependent on the use of needles and syringes for their health care needs a fair go. The free needle and syringe program for diabetics is a first for Australia and, naturally, has the support of the peak national organisation, Diabetes Australia, and Diabetes New South Wales.

The initiative will cost an estimated $4.5 million during the next four years. Naturally I have written to the other States and Territories, to all jurisdictions, and encouraged them to adopt a similar response to ensure a free national program for needles and syringes for diabetics. This measure is not only about giving diabetics a fair go. It will also address the criticisms levelled at the needle and syringe program which targets intravenous drug users as part of the national strategy to combat blood-borne infectious diseases such as HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C. Whilst these important public health programs are vital to the wellbeing of the community and the management of those diseases, the historic criticism has been that injecting diabetics were being financially disadvantaged in comparison.

That disadvantage will be removed forever in New South Wales from 1 June this year. The inequity, dislocation and disparity will be removed as a consequence of the New South Wales Government picking up the co-payment on behalf of insulin-dependant diabetics. That is clearly good news for people who are insulin- dependent. It is a fundamental shift in attitude from the Commonwealth approach, which is that clients should make some contribution towards the cost of management of the condition. Our plan, which will make syringes available at no cost, will be administratively simpler, less costly and will create less complexity for patients as we will continue to use the existing delivery mechanism and Diabetes Australia will administer the scheme.

Despite the somewhat protracted negotiations and the braying of members opposite, today's announcement demonstrates that a great deal of good can come from the Commonwealth and State jurisdictions working together. I place on record my thanks and appreciation to Michael Wooldridge for his co-operation and support for the Government's proposal. I do not mind if everyone wants to claim the kudos for the success of this policy initiative, but the fact is that the Government has delivered on a promise it made at the last election, 5132 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 that is, to implement a $4.5 million program to pick up the co-payment for diabetics in New South Wales. That provides an opportunity for other jurisdictions to do the same thing nationally. Rather than Opposition members claiming that the Government adopted their policy, they should send letters to some of their counterparts in other States and suggest that they follow what New South Wales has done and what the Coalition allegedly might have done if it ever got into government.

REGIONAL AIRLINES SYDNEY AIRPORT ACCESS

Mr TORBAY: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier indicate what the Government is doing to protect country access to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport?

Mr CARR: Any plan to forcibly transfer access for those from regional areas away from Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport would be unfair to country people and would disadvantage rural and regional businesses. That is the position of the Government.

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

Mr CARR: In a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services on 28 March I clearly stated the position of the New South Wales Government in opposing any such plan. I know that Country Labor members and the Independents agree with me and, to be fair, I believe there would be members of the National Party who would hold the same view. I wish they would get on board and support us in our campaign on this issue. Lest there be any doubt, I record the strong support I have had from the honourable member for Tamworth, the honourable member for Dubbo and the honourable member for the Northern Tablelands. They are members of Parliament who represent country electorates and they are standing up for their communities. However, the position of the National Party, whatever some of its members might think privately, is not clear. It is with real sadness that I have to report to the House what I read in one of my favourite papers, the Northern Daily Leader.

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

Mr CARR: The article states:

The Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, said yesterday he was not in a position to promise that regional airlines would continue to have guaranteed access to Kingsford Smith Airport.

It appears that when the National Party changed its name and dropped the word "Country", it also dropped any concern for country communities. We speak as a party and as a Government which is not embarrassed to have "Country" in the title of Country Labor and which is not embarrassed to defend, and fight for, the great regional communities that make up country New South Wales.

I do not want to embarrass the honourable member for Tamworth with this reference, but no wonder the people of inland New South Wales are talking about encouraging the honourable member to stand against the Deputy Prime Minister at the next Federal election. In the same paper a Mr Clint Kelly from Tamworth wrote in the letters page:

Independent Tamworth MP Tony Windsor may go Federal. The National Party's real boss, John Howard, will be pleased as he is on record as desperately wanting a Windsor on the Federal scene.

That is the sort of witty commentary that we get in print on the National Party. No wonder people are laughing at the National Party. A party that records only 4 per cent support, according to the latest opinion poll, is truly a laughing-stock.

BLUE MOUNTAINS SUPER HIGHWAY

Mr BLACK: My question is addressed to the Premier. What is the Government's response to recent statements by the National Party on a Blue Mountains super highway and other matters?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murray-Darling, having asked the question, will remain silent. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5133

Mr CARR: The House will recall my speech on 6 April, when I revealed the Leader of the National Party's cyberspace chat line on the Internet. I reported to the House that he had received a message from someone we will call "Dad and David" from Deniliquin.

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

Mr CARR: They asked the Leader of the National Party whether he still supported an autobahn under the Blue Mountains. I, of course, was under the impression that he had said "Yes" to this question, and I reported to the House that it would cost $2.3 billion.

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

Mr CARR: I did not report this to the House, but I have since found out that the toll to make this a viable project would be $780 each way. With the GST, that would rise to $1,716 for the round trip—nearly as expensive as a trip for a family to Disneyland. The House will remember the pained expostulations and protestations of the Leader of the National Party in the House.

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

Mr CARR: I have a copy of his personal explanation here. He said the Premier had made it all up— mumble, mumble, mumble; there were no such persons, no such references as those quoted by the Premier; "Desperate" of Dubbo did not exist—mumble, mumble, mumble; "Querulous" of Queanbeyan did not exist. He went on to say that "Sleepless" of Singleton had been a fiction; he said "Gobsmacked" of Gundagai was a creation of the Premier's imagination; and said he had never made these promises. He added further details, while clutching references. He said it was a terrible attack on democracy, and the National Party was united in the Dunkirk spirit. It was the longest personal explanation ever delivered in the House. I thought I had done him an injustice when I heard that, and I have re-read it a few times since. On Saturday 8 April, over a steaming cup of coffee, I was reading my favourite weekend newspaper the Central Western Daily. Honourable members will remember those Renaissance paintings of The Enunciation, of a beam of light. It was as if a beam of light had settled on this column in the Central Western Daily by the State member for Orange.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Southern Highlands that she is on two calls to order. The standing orders require that she leave the Chamber if she wishes to have a discussion with another member, in this instance the honourable member for Hornsby. I call the honourable member for Southern Highlands to order for the third time.

Mr CARR: Imagine my surprise when I saw that the honourable member for Orange confirmed that the superhighway is very much on the agenda as National Party policy. Not only that, but he says: Sydney's got lots of tunnels—the East-West tunnel under the city being planned, the M5 extension, the Chatswood to Parramatta rail link will have tunnels in it, and the Lane Cove link. He went on to say that as a matter of equity if the city has got tunnels so should the bush. This is the honourable member for Orange: tunnelling does not seem to be a problem in Sydney; the Premier had disregarded the country and its need for tunnelling. The prospect we now face is a tunnel from Wilcannia to Broken Hill, a tunnel from Moree to Mudgee of another 360 kilometres. It is the Swiss cheese scenario for country New South Wales! No wonder the National Party support is down to 4 per cent in the latest poll.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation on the Opposition benches.

Mr CARR: The Leader of the National Party has a great explanation for this. In the Coffs Harbour Advocate of 26 April, another of my favourite country newspapers, he is quoted as saying:

Voters are often indifferent in answering Liberal or National during the polling telephone call. Many voters say "Liberal" when they mean "National".

That's George! On this logic, when many voters in Tweed or Clarence actually voted Labor—scientifically and objectively recorded a vote for Labor in Clarence or Tweed—by George's logic, they were actually, if the truth be known, expressing a preference for the Liberal or National parties. His view is that, in their heart of hearts, they are actually Nationals, but only express their voting preference in this eccentric and mysterious manner. Then, on the same day, he was interviewed on Tamworth Radio, 2TM, providing another explanation of the National Party's 4 per cent voter support. Fasten your seat belts! This is a beauty! 5134 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

Mr O'Doherty: Point of order: Standing orders clearly provide that members shall not read their speeches.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the point of order?

Mr O'Doherty: My point of order is that members are not permitted to read their speeches so that we can be satisfied that they are expressing their own opinions, not those of a hired writer. The Premier clearly is flicking through the pages of the speech written for him by Bob Ellis, who is not an elected member of this Chamber. The Premier should put his notes down.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Hornsby will resume his seat. I call him to order for the second time.

Mr CARR: What did the Leader of the National Party say on Tamworth Radio to explain the National Party's level of support? He said:

We have become an exclusive party.

That's George's view. Not for them any sort of bulk popularity! They are not one of those old-fashioned viable political parties like the Liberal Party or the Labor Party; they are an exclusive party. They rank themselves with the Three Day Weekend Party, or the Natural Law Party. Not for them the vulgarity of popularity that there might have been under previous leaders like the Hon. Ian Armstrong, when the National Party was a party that could be taken seriously. Under the honourable member for Upper Hunter, it is now an exclusive party. It is a nice, little boutique party. That is what it has become.

The National Party has 4 per cent political support in the polls—almost more people will vote informal than will vote for the National Party! The one advantage of this level of support is that members of the National Party do not have to have policies. That was confirmed by the honourable member for Port Macquarie on Ron Casey's program on Saturday 22 April.

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

Mr CARR: The honourable member for Port Macquarie said:

Mr Casey … you can't expect us to have a policy … An election is three years away.

That is a luxury that the rest of us never had in opposition. In the past it has been assumed that oppositions would have alternative policies. The honourable member for Port Macquarie was reported in the Sunday Telegraph last weekend as saying:

Quite honestly, we don't have a policy as far as pubs are concerned.

He happened to be talking about hotels, but he said, "We cannot be expected to have policies." No policy Oakeshott, and a no policy Opposition under Souris. The Leader of the National Party announced on the ABC on 1 May that he would move for "a State-based package in the first year above Federal assistance" for dairy farmers. My colleague the Minister for Agriculture will recall reading that statement with amazement. However, there is one slight problem: the Leader of the National Party forgot to get the dairy farmers on side. Their association made it very clear. Paul Moxley, speaking for the Dairy Farmers Association, said that that is not what they want. He said on ABC radio on 1 May:

Our association is quite firm that the number one priority is the restructure package and we would not do anything to jeopardise that.

Mr Hartcher: Point of order: The question that was asked by the honourable member for Murray- Darling was about the Blue Mountains super highway. For eight minutes—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Government members will remain silent.

Mr Hartcher: —the Premier has been talking about everything other than that. Mr Speaker, while you do allow a certain degree of leeway, answers must be relevant to the question. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5135

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is answering the question posed by the honourable member for Murray-Darling.

Mr CARR: The honourable member for Murray-Darling carefully crafted his question. He referred to "the Blue Mountains super highway and other matters". He obviously anticipated in some way the ground that I might want to canvas—what might be said to be a wide-ranging reply. What position has the National Party reached when it cannot even get the support of dairy farmers? This is the new boutique National Party crafted by George Souris. This is the new-look National Party. It is not a vulgar, inclusive political party but, as the Leader of the National Party put it, it is an exclusive boutique party.

Under the leadership of the Leader of the National Party this once great party is going out backwards. Four per cent is the lowest level of support ever recorded by the National Party or the Country Party since the 1920s. We know that that is right because the day after the polls came out, the figures for National Party voting support were put on its infamous chat line. The figures went onto the Internet, which made it perfectly clear that the National Party never got close to 4 per cent under any previous National Party leader. The Leader of the National Party is taking his party where neither it nor its predecessor have gone before—4 per cent and going down.

The ultimate confirmation of the National Party's irrelevance is not the attacks made by farmers on its policy position, not the fact that shadow Ministers cannot come up with alternative policies, or not because members of the National Party are reduced to arguing about tunnelling rural New South Wales. The ultimate confirmation is an objective measurement—the Rehame report on how many mentions the Leader of the National Party gets in the media. The last Rehame report shows that the spokesperson for Country Labor in this Parliament got precisely the same number of mentions as the Leader of the National Party. No wonder every one of his backbenchers, given the chance over a Diet Coke with my colleague the honourable member for Murray- Darling when Parliament has completed its work for the day or in any other forum, will say to anyone who will listen, "Under Souris this once great party is going out backwards."

PECUNIARY INTERESTS DISCLOSURE

Mr STONER: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Will the Premier require the resignation of any member of his Government who is found to be in breach of the pecuniary interests register requirements?

Mr CARR: The Constitution Disclosures by Members Regulation 1993 requires members to lodge returns disclosing their pecuniary interests for each financial year with the Parliament. In other words, it is a matter between members and the Parliament, with the Parliament being able to determine what should happen when members are in breach of the regulation. Clause 6 of the regulation provides that those returns must be lodged with the Clerk of the relevant House by 1 October each year. I was asked yesterday whether I knew of any members who were in breach of the Parliament's pecuniary interests requirements. As I said yesterday, and the same answer applies today, the answer is no.

MICE PLAGUE

Mr NEWELL: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. What is the latest information on fire proofing homes in mice plague areas?

Mr DEBUS: As is always the case, Country Labor is ensuring that important matters affecting country people are brought to my attention and to the attention of the Parliament. The House would be well aware that mice plagues are a serious problem.

Mr Fraser: Point of order: This is an important question. Opposition members would like to hear the Minister's answer, but there is so much conversation on the opposite side of the House that we are not able to do so.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat.

Mr DEBUS: The House would be well aware that mice plagues are a serious problem confronting country communities in the wheat and grain belts of the central west and north-west of this State. My colleague the Minister for Agriculture has kept the House well informed of developments in managing this troublesome 5136 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 pest. Once again, he has been well supported by the efforts of Country Labor. Mice plagues and large mouse populations affect a number of country communities. At the moment I understand that landowners in Condobolin, Coonabarabran, Dubbo, Forbes, Moree, Narrandera, Walgett and Young, amongst other areas, are particularly affected.

The threat to crops from mice plagues is clearly a serious issue. However, today I inform the House of yet another threat posed by mice plagues—the increased risk of house and property fire. Fire brigades in the central west of New South Wales are warning families and landowners to take special precautions against property fire that can be started by mice chewing on electrical wires. We are at the end of the breeding season, so mouse numbers are high. With winter upon us and with the onset of colder conditions mice are prone to invade homes, sheds and silos. Mice in search of food often chew through power cables and telephone and communication lines in homes and other buildings, increasing the risk of fire. Some concerning incidents have already occurred. The Rural Fire Service in Dubbo, one of the regions most affected by the plague, has reported that several recent fires are suspected to have been caused by mice chewing on electrical wiring.

Volunteers from the local brigade recently responded when a large shed was alight. They suspected that the cause of the fire was mouse-related. An electrical fire spread quickly through the building. Tens of thousands of dollars worth of valuable equipment was destroyed in the ensuing fire. The Dubbo Rural Fire Service's fire control centre lost all power when its cables were attacked by mice. Fortunately, proper wiring and precautions meant that a major fire was averted and, more importantly, the safety of our volunteers was assured.

The New South Wales Rural Fire Service will be running local campaigns to inform home owners and landholders of the precautions they can take to reduce the risk of electrical fire and damage caused by mice. Those measures include ensuring that an earth linkage switch is professionally installed in home power boxes to cut off power before a fire starts; that householders should plug holes in walls and eaves that allow mice easy access; and that landholders follow advice from the Department of Agriculture in the use of rodent baits and traps to help reduce the number of mice. People should also keep a fire extinguisher handy. I strongly urge families in areas affected by mice plagues to take these important fire safety precautions to protect themselves and their property.

ASIAN EXPORT MARKETS

Mr MARTIN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Regional Development. What is the Government doing to assist western New South Wales businesses to gain new Asian export markets?

Mr WOODS: In September last year, as part of the State Government's regional business investment program, I travelled with Sydney investors to country areas, in particular, to Bathurst. Today I am pleased to announce that we are taking western New South Wales to the world. A trade mission with representatives of 11 western New South Wales companies will leave on 28 May bound for Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore. The purpose of this seven-day visit is to secure new export contracts in the lucrative Asian market. The tour is also supported by the Inland Marketing Corporation [IMC], an organisation the State Government is pleased to support. The trade mission aims to enhance export opportunities for agricultural produce from the Lachlan and Macquarie river catchments and the towns of Young and Bourke.

The State Government has provided assistance of $100,000 towards the commissioning of a report and for the trade mission itself. That detailed report—undertaken by Barraclough and Company and supported by the Department of State and Regional Development—has proved a valuable resource for the trade mission. The report assesses market potential in several Asian countries, examines reproductive capacity of the IMC catchment and identifies what it calls the hot prospects for export trade. The products for which export deals will be sought include citrus, pears, apples, cherries, grapes, cabbage, cauliflower, capsicum, wheat flour, wine and honey.

Companies that will be represented on the trip include Back O' Bourke Fruits, Parkview Orchards, Tatyoon, Equitas Group, the Lachlan Valley horticultural network, Windowrie Estate and the Australian Queen Bee Exporters. This trade mission forms a crucial plank of our Government's regional development philosophy—that is, we are filling the gaps where the markets have let down regional and rural New South Wales. The trade mission report found:

Currently inland regions are missing the critical information required to compete in the international economy. Current market information is imperative to ensure that production meets demand. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5137

The report also found that although Australia exports 50 per cent of all food produce to Asia, it has a small market share in most sectors. It concludes:

If Australia improves its competitive advantage and it only supplies produce of consistent quality and quantities, its market share would improve and trade activity increase.

The trade mission intends to do just that. It is a unique opportunity for these exporters to sell their wares first- hand to the Asian market. I hope all participants enjoy their trip and come back with good news for western New South Wales.

Questions without notice concluded.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bill: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the resumption of the second reading debate on the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Bill forthwith and to enable the Premier to make a further contribution to the debate.

COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PRINCIPLES OF MULTICULTURALISM BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [3.24 p.m.]: This legislation goes to the heart of where we are as a society in the year 2000. New South Wales is a successful multicultural society. It is one of the many things that makes this State a great place to live. Australia is a good example of a working multiracial, multicultural society. It is one of the boasts we can make to the world when we invite people here to see our Olympic Games. If the Prime Minister did not keep talking Australia down through his refusal to apologise to Aboriginal Australians, his refusal to embrace reconciliation and his argument about whether there was a stolen generation, it would be one of the main things the world would come here to see. All the more reason for us to talk about the Australian success story of multiculturalism when we get such a depressing message on race-related issues out of Canberra.

This is an Australian success story: how we build a happy, harmonious, interesting multicultural society, respecting the rights of the various communities that make up New South Wales. The terms "ethnic affairs" and "ethnic" are outdated. Over the past 20 years our community has changed. In the past week I have had meetings with people from the Italian community, people from the Lebanese community and people from the Chinese community. They were united in saying that they were not happy with the word "ethnic". The Chinese were particularly emphatic that when they get called "ethnic" or an "ethnic community" they feel marginalised. They are emphatically in favour of multiculturalism and a legislative recognition of multiculturalism, but they are not that keen on continuing, as they have been in the past, to be baptised as ethnics.

It is worth while recognising that on both sides of Parliament people carry the surnames of modern Australia: Tsang, Obeid, Aquilina, Iemma, Hatzistergos, Nori, Burgmann, Della Bosca, Tripodi and Orkopoulos. These people are not ethnics, and they work side by side with the McBrides, the Johnsons, the Nagles, the Woods, the Blacks and the Andersons. Young people of non-English-speaking background do not identify with the term "ethnic". They are Australians, they are proud of their heritage, they are proud of the fact we are a multicultural society. In some cases the term "ethnic" does positive harm because it alienates young people at a time in their lives when they want to be part of the community. Let us remove this label from the institutions, let us send a message to the broader community that that term is out of date.

Last week at a meeting of State and Commonwealth government Ministers concerned with these questions there was a high level of support and interest from the other States, the other jurisdictions, in our approach. One State is releasing a discussion paper that reflects what we have done in New South Wales: a Minister for Citizenship, a Community Relations Commission, endorsing and writing in the principles of 5138 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 multiculturalism, and moving beyond the old term "ethnic". There is a strong legislative recognition here about the freedom of our people to practise, profess and maintain their cultural, religious and linguistic heritage.

We are setting up an inclusive and proactive Community Relations Commission to put an end to the marginalisation of migrant communities. This is a mandate to monitor the quality and delivery of services to migrant communities. We established regional advisory councils to give communities a greater say at a local level. The power to report on racial vilification follows a move made by the Greiner Government—that is, the outlawing of racial vilification. As the then Leader of the Opposition, I was happy to endorse and support that move on behalf of my Labor colleagues. It was carried on a bipartisan basis.

I urge honourable members to support this approach, to support this legislation. When we released the draft legislation last year there were some knee-jerk attempts to produce opposition to it. I noticed that the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai quoted nine people who were rolled out as being outraged by the Government's decision to change the name of the Ethnic Affairs Commission to the Community Relations Commission.

I looked at the list. One of the people on the list is a failed Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Kogarah. It is terrible to be a failed Liberal Party pre-selection candidate. Imagine going through life with that burden! He is a sad sack going through life with that burden—a destroyed, devastated, wrecked Liberal Party candidate for Kogarah. He spent a king's ransom on his campaign but the pre-selection simply said, "No thanks." So a failed Liberal Party candidate for Kogarah was trotted out. Another person on the list—wait for it—is the secretary of the Penrith branch of the Liberal Party.

Mrs Lo Po': Who is that?

Mr CARR: Even the local member does not know who he is, but he was trotted out. Our research capacity is terrific, and includes all the radio stations and newspapers I quoted today. We have a breakdown of all the people on the list. The third person is a former member of the Liberal Party who made secret preference deals with One Nation-friendly extremists. He will do a deal with members of another organisation to get a seat in another place. Two people on the list have written to me personally strongly supporting the bill. So that wraps it up. The Coalition trotted out these people. The Opposition thought it would fight on the barricades against getting rid of the term "ethnic", but this is how it has all panned out. The only respectable people on the list have sent me letters. They are Neville Roach and Peter Wertheim, for whom I have immense admiration. They have sent many letters saying that they have considered the matter, followed our arguments, consulted with the Minister who assists me on citizenship—

[Interruption]

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition laughs.

Mr Anderson: It's an embarrassed laugh.

Mr CARR: "Embarrassed laugh" is an accurate description. Neville Roach, OA, Chair of the Council for Multicultural Australia, wrote to me in January stating:

I am sure that your intention to discontinue the use of the term "Ethnic" is motivated by the same desire to make multiculturalism inclusive of the whole community rather than a narrowly defined "ethnic" sub-set.

[Interruption]

No, this is Neville Roach, OA, who is Chair of the Council for Multicultural Australia. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is calling him an East German secret police officer. I will let him reply to that. Neville Roach further said:

The enshrinement of the principles of multiculturalism in legislation, and the expanded functions of the Commission are outstanding initiatives, setting ground-breaking world's best practice standards.

Mr Peter Werthein, President of the Jewish Board of Deputies—I suppose his reputation will be traduced by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in a moment—sent me a letter dated 13 April this year stating: 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5139

I take this opportunity to commend you and the Government for consulting with ethnic communities in detail about specific provisions of the Bill in order to arrive at a consensus. The passing of the Bill into law will, I am sure, be seen by the whole community as a milestone achievement.

The ninth person stuck on the coalition's list of supporters is an outstanding and tireless worker for the Australian Greek community. By the way, this research capacity gets better all the time. Neville Roach, who is of Indian background, was appointed to the body I quoted by Philip Ruddock. Crazy! Vivi Germanos Koutsonidis is an outstanding worker for the Greek community. I have known Vivi for about 20 years. I hope that the Coalition checked with her before using her name for that stunt. So the Coalition's case has collapsed. But we believe in redemption. There is a great possibility for human relations, and I hope that the Opposition, after reflection and after considering the views of people in the community, will move to support us. I was impressed by the 40 leaders of the Australian Chinese community who came to see me on 7 April to express their support for the legislation and the name. They said:

The Bill reflects the Government's commitment to multiculturalism in New South Wales …

The name change of Ethnic Affairs Commission to Community Relations Commission is intended to project a vision of inclusiveness in a multicultural NSW.

The largest Italian community organisation, Co.As.It, stated in its letter:

We believe that the Government is taking a positive step. [We are] keen to not have [the name] derail the reform process or be used to halt the progress of the Bill.

Please consider that in another place. A letter from 14 Australian Lebanese community organisations and individuals stated:

We applaud the intent of the Government's proposed Bill in seeking to broaden and strengthen the participation of people from all backgrounds in the life and work of this State …

The Government has undertaken enormous consultation on this matter. It is continuing the proud record of Labor governments in setting the way for other States and jurisdictions in this respect. We are very proud of our record. Queensland has released a community relations plan, Western Australia has released a discussion document on citizenship, and New Zealand is studying our legislation as a model. Last week the Federal Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Philip Ruddock, who is a Liberal, praised New South Wales for moving towards a more inclusive approach to multiculturalism. For more than 20 years this Parliament has adopted a bipartisan approach to multicultural affairs, and I challenge the Coalition to continue that tradition on this legislation. I sincerely hope the Coalition does continue that tradition, and we look forward to that. The editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 September last year stated:

The main area where Mrs Chikarovski takes specific issue with the Government is on multiculturalism. More Liberals, however, are likely to agree with Mr Carr rather than their leader.

That is not uncommon on other issues. The Coalition should heed that advice. I commend the bill to the House.

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

CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS

Subscriber Trunk Dialling Call Zones

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.37 p.m.]: This matter is urgent because Telstra is undertaking a review of its call zones, and submissions close at the end of this month. It is important that honourable members in this House place on record their views on this important matter. Many regional areas of New South Wales and, indeed, country New South Wales are being disadvantaged because of anachronistic call zones which were established in 1960. All levels of government, particularly State governments, have a role to play in encouraging business growth in regional and rural New South Wales. This matter is urgent because any decision on call zones will affect business growth in regional and rural New South Wales. 5140 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

Central Railway Station Refurbishment Project

Mr O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.38 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because in 135 days more than 1.5 million people will be using the train service to access Homebush Bay. My motion is urgent because the refurbishment of Central Station must be completed for those people to have a proper transition at that station. My motion is urgent because for the past 18 months the more than 100,000 commuters who use Central Station every day have suffered inconvenience, delays and more inconvenience as the Government has failed to refurbish that station in a timely way. If we want a proper transport system for Sydney during the Games, when there will be millions of visitors in this city, we need to ensure that the Central Station project has been properly completed.

It is not satisfactory for the Minister to announce, as he did today, that he will ensure the project is complete and that contingency plans will be in place if it is not completed. One can imagine the spectacle of 1.2 million to 1.5 million people trying to use the train system and trying to cope with the existing shambles at Central Station during the Olympics in September.

My motion is urgent because unless this matter is remedied and remedied now, we stand to become the laughing stock of the world if we are not able to provide adequate transport to our Games. We believe that this motion is urgent because after Atlanta the Minister for the Olympics, the Premier and the Minister for Transport promised the citizens of this State that our transportation systems for the Games would be far better than those that were in place during the Atlanta Olympic Games.

Ms Seaton: He said it was pretty darned good.

Mr O'FARRELL: As the honourable member for Southern Highlands reminds me, the Minister for Transport recently said that we had a pretty darned good train service. The reality is that because of the failure by the Carr Government in 1996 to invest in new Olympian trains, we will not have new trains in time for the Olympics. It is a pressing fact that over the 16 days of the Olympics 32.1 million passenger trips—as opposed to the 12 million passenger trips normally undertaken over a 16-day period—will occur on existing overcrowded, dirty, tired rolling stock.

Mr Anderson: Point of order: On many occasions in this House it has been brought to the attention of members opposite that they should speak to the issue of urgency and should not refer to the substance of the debate. The shadow Minister for Transport has spent the last minute and a half talking about the very things he will talk about when he subsequently debates the issue. I ask you to call him to order.

Ms Moore: To the point of order: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition needs to provide members with enough information to allow them to make an informed vote and to decide which motion is the more urgent and more important.

Mr McManus: To the point of order: As the honourable member for Londonderry said, there are rules in this Parliament and the honourable member must give an indication why his motion should have priority.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. Mr O'FARRELL: This matter is urgent because, as the honourable member for Wyong has said, the end of the month is the deadline for the making of submissions about the issue referred to in his motion. My motion should have priority because unless this matter is sorted out now the refurbishment of Central Station will not be completed in time for 1 September, there will be a continuing shambles for existing commuters across the system, and there will be a disgrace in place for Olympic visitors to this city in September. If members opposite do not understand the urgency of this matter, if they are happy to join the Minister for Transport in seeking to engage in a public relations diversion by blaming Abigroup for this problem instead of the management of the project by State Rail, that is all well and good. However, they should not expect the people of New South Wales, the commuters of Sydney and visitors from across the world to appreciate the position they take. Every day that this House sits honourable members move urgent motions concerning Federal issues. This matter concerns this Parliament and the State Government. It relates to one of the most fundamental services our level of government offers to people, and members opposite are not prepared to consider it being debated. This is an urgent matter, and it needs to be fixed. The Minister for Transport ought to give the people of New South Wales a commitment that it will be fixed before the Games. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5141

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 53

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

Noes, 34

Mr Armstrong Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Mr Barr Mr Maguire Mr Slack-Smith Mr Brogden Mr McGrane Mr Souris Mrs Chikarovski Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Collins Ms Moore Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr O'Doherty Mr J. H. Turner Mr George Mr O'Farrell Mr Webb Mr Glachan Mr Oakeshott Mr Windsor Mr Hartcher Mr D. L. Page Ms Hodgkinson Mr Piccoli Tellers, Mr Humpherson Mr Richardson Mr Fraser Dr Kernohan Ms Seaton Mr R. H. L. Smith Pair Miss Burton Mr R. W. Turner Question resolved in the affirmative. SUBSCRIBER TRUNK DIALLING CALL ZONES Urgent Motion Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.50 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that Australia's outdated and illogical STD call zones are a major disincentive for business to move to regional areas, and cost local jobs;

(2) further notes that the current STD call zones were determined in 1960, when areas like the Central Coast, south-west Sydney and the North Coast had much smaller populations;

(3) observes that Telstra has announced a review of STD call zones; and

(4) calls on Telstra to bring in fairer STD call zones for residents of the Central Coast, Illawarra, North Coast and inland New South Wales. 5142 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

Most people in Australia would be aware of the phrase "tyranny of distance" as it is applied to transport and communications in this vast continent we inhabit. The sheer breadth of this continent, geographical differences and climate variances pose problems for distance communications. Some of those issues remain to be resolved, and that is the topic of this debate. Ann Moyal's book Clear Across Australia. A History of Telecommunications contains the central hypothesis that communications have been evolving over time in this country, especially during the second half of the twentieth century. It was not until 1975 when the Whitlam Government established a separate Department of Communications, which, if my memory serves me correctly, was headed by James Spigelman who more recently became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, that this issue was dealt with in a holistic manner.

Debate on this topic relates specifically to the fact that in the 1960s, subscriber trunk dialling [STD] zones were established. Unfortunately, no account has been taken of Australian population and demographics changes that have obviously occurred since that time. In human terms, 20 years denotes a generation; however, the debate taking place in this House reflects the fact that after 40 years, a period which denotes two generations, people are yet to see a full overhaul of the anachronistic call zone system. The call zones were established when the new subscriber trunk call system was introduced, accompanied by multimetering to monitor and work out call charges. Rather than people having to go through several operators to reach their ultimate destination, STD callers were able to dial directly by using area codes.

In the 1960s, STD zoning was based on demographic studies of population as well as technical standards and predictions of new developments. The standard set in the 1960s has remained constant to the present. According to Ann Moyal, the community telephone plan, which was produced by planners and announced to the Federal Parliament by the Postmaster-General on 1 September 1959, made history in forming the foundation of an integrated and automatic telephone service which is still in operation. Therein lies the problem. Telstra has announced a zoning review project. The closing date for submissions is 31 May. It is important that the people of regional and rural New South Wales be given a voice and that the problems they experience be considered in the consultation process being undertaken by Telstra.

On the Central Coast, where my electorate is located, many business cannot be established in the area or relocate there because of STD call charges. When I phone from my electorate office at Toukley to access a government department in Sydney, as is very often the case, I incur STD call rates, and that is a financial impost upon the State Parliament. Charges affect businesses similarly. When I need to dial into the Parliament House server from my home at Noraville, the charges are calculated at STD rates because I have to dial a number that has a Sydney prefix. The present system is anachronistic and simply does not make sense.

Submissions to the Telstra review will be accepted until the end of May. I believe it is important for as many members of this Parliament as is possible to place their views before the review committee. I hope that a copy of this debate will be forwarded to the review panel to ensure that a fair representation of the views of the members of this Parliament is before the review committee. Even Telstra admits that the cost of maintaining country telephone infrastructure is less than 0.1¢ per call. The area codes are outdated and illogical, and should be completely abolished. Failing that, the zones should be redrawn to reflect the reality of population growth and the need to encourage regional business development. In 1960, Australia's population was 10 million people and Liverpool and Blacktown were outer suburbs of Sydney. Campbelltown and Penrith were semirural areas, and Gosford was a full three hours from Sydney by car. Since the 1960s, the world has moved on. Penrith is now as much a part of greater Sydney as is Drummoyne or indeed Double Bay. Gosford and Wyong are in categories similar to Penrith and Campbelltown, yet families in Wyong, Penrith and Campbelltown still pay inflated time-charge calls that were set four decades ago to pay for phone lines that were built shortly after I was born. The only change to STD rates was in 1988 with the introduction of community calls which offered a lower time rate for neighbouring area codes. A call from Sydney to Penrith is a timed community call. A call from Sydney to Cowra remains a full STD call. I am sure that the honourable member for Lachlan, who is present in the Chamber, would not consider that to be very fair. Even in the 1960s the area codes were unfair. At that time, the then Federal Government simply drew lines on maps to set the zones. The celebrated example at that time was the Campbelltown timber yard which was situated on the border of two zones. When the timber yard extended its premises, the security gate at one end of the yard was connected to the Campbelltown exchange whereas the administration block remained in the Sydney zone. A call across a distance of 100 metres became an STD call. Understandably, most workers chose to open a window and simply shout what they had to say to the other end of the yard. If the boundaries were illogical in the 1960s, they are far worse presently. Currently, the zones are costing people jobs. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5143

Over the past five years the State Government has worked hard to encourage firms to move to the Central Coast. Time and again the same complaint is made, namely, why would a firm relocate to the Central Coast and force its customers to make STD calls to place orders? Moreover, why would a firm relocate to the Central Coast when that will have the effect of the firm's name being automatically deleted from the Sydney telephone book? I understand that if a firm wishes to place an entry in every Yellow Pages telephone book throughout Australia, it would cost approximately $200,000. That is certainly a tremendous impost upon firms. There are certainly alternatives available, such as technologically advanced web sites that can be established for approximately $1000, but the cost of Yellow Pages listings highlights the need for Governments to ensure that businesses in rural and regional areas of New South Wales are not disadvantaged.

Some people might argue that a firm could establish a 1300 number for its customers. Obviously firms on the Central Coast that establish 1300 numbers for their customers would have to bear the additional costs for that service and the STD charges. Again that is not a solution to this problem. Why would a firm move to country or regional New South Wales when its customers in neighbouring towns 50 kilometres away have to pay STD rates to ring them? It is ridiculous that a family in Liverpool has a phone book that lists tradesmen as far away as Bondi but omits those in Campbelltown. Call zones are bad for business and they are bad for regional Australia. The time has come for a massive simplification to either abolish the codes or, at the very least, redraw them to reflect 40 years of population growth and changed community interests.

Some honourable members take an interest in electoral redistribution and I confess I am one of them. Honourable members are aware that redistribution usually occurs every eight years and that community interest arguments are always placed before the commissioners. There have been a number of redistributions since 1960. It seems fair that a telephony redistribution that takes account of real community interest in 2000 should be conducted now specifically to address job growth in regional and rural New South Wales.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [4.00 p.m.]: I have listened with some interest to what the honourable member for Wyong said about Telstra's STD area zones. The principle is obvious but the most important element in the cost of doing business in rural areas is transport. Communications are a cost but the majority of small businesses in country areas, and those that might be contemplating going there, find transport costs most difficult. This afternoon the honourable member talked only about communication costs, and STD zones in particular, but did not refer to the fact that the current Government has severely curtailed road funding and funding of the general transport infrastructure in New South Wales. That is one major reason there is not more relocation or expansion of existing country businesses.

Today many successful country businesses are doing good work. For instance, National Engineering Pty Ltd at Young built the entire steelworks—some 6,000 tonnes of it—for the roof of the Olympic Stadium. National Engineering does a lot of its work internationally. Today it has engineers and consultants working from Singapore and it is competing quite adequately against all other competition. A jeweller at Condobolin, only 70 kilometres from the geographic centre of New South Wales, does all the guarantee work for Olympus watches Australiawide. He also does repair work for another 22 major jewellers from Melbourne in the south to Townsville in the north. Watches arrive in a bag by a courier every day, the work is done and then they are returned the following night. Most of the top-class purses made in Australia are manufactured at Tenterfield. Companies in the country are coping quite okay with the cost of communications but their common complaint is about transport, that is, the quality and safety of roads and the deterioration of road funding, particularly 3x3 funding, that has occurred in recent times.

The honourable member for Wyong talked about the STD zones that were first introduced in the 1960s. Forty years ago there was an interesting telegraphic system. In those days most country people talked on party lines. We were on a party line with four people and it was always a matter of who could get on first. The party line rings were two shorts and a long or two longs and a short. Many stories were told by those who liked to eavesdrop and it was certain that if one had a problem everybody else knew about it very quickly. By the same token, if one was in trouble help would arrive quickly. In those days we maintained about nine miles of private line. We had a switch girl who was a great help from time to time. We have come a long way in forty years. We have a very sophisticated system.

The point of the honourable member for Wyong in relation to STD zones is well taken. There is no doubt that there are many anomalies. For example, in order for people within a few kilometres of a main business centre to access that centre they have to make a trunk-line call. That is an unnecessary cost and makes them less competitive than their neighbour who does not have to bear that cost. In the Lachlan electorate I cannot ring any other town without making a trunk-line call. I welcome Telstra's commitment to review the STD 5144 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 zones. The Government has to acknowledge its responsibility to govern New South Wales. Frequently the time of this House is used on federal issues. The people of this State have plenty of worries of their own and there should be far more debates about matters of public importance and matters of urgency on matters that concern New South Wales. The Government has a right to raise issues but that can be done in other forums. The time of this Parliament, which does not sit for many days of the year, is better used in debate of matters such as road funding and rail services across New South Wales.

Whilst in recent weeks we have heard a lot about rail services from the Minister for Transport and the Premier there is very little visible improvement of rail services. The rail service booking system is more reminiscent of the 1950s than 2000. In recent weeks a number of travel link agencies in the Riverina in particular closed because of lack of commission through the difficulty of using the new computer system and the 1300 and 1800 numbers. Recently an agent in Ardlethan told me that he had to wait up to 50 minutes in order to make a $2 booking for concession-card holders, of which his commission was 5 per cent. That is not good economics if one runs a mixed business in a town such as Ardlethan. They are the sorts of issues that should be debated in this Parliament. The Government should tell us how it will improve its services rather than trying to play politics day in, day out on Federal matters in this Parliament.

Government strategists in backrooms or wherever they might should remember during the 3½ years before the next election that the people of New South Wales are not dumb. They know when the Government is trying to avoid its responsibilities by continually raising red herrings about Federal issues. The Opposition will not oppose the motion and calls upon the Government to honour its own responsibilities. A review of those zones is necessary. If the Government is genuine about decentralisation, about expansion of country businesses, and about increasing the rural population, it will begin to honour its own obligations. The Government has been in office for a little over five years yet its success in decentralising Government departments is invisible. It is impossible to point to departments that have been genuinely decentralised. The largest decentralisation that has ever occurred in this nation or in the history of any government department took place under the previous Conservative government when the Department of Agriculture moved from Central Railway to Orange.

I can assure the House that the costs of communications did not escalate after the department was moved to Orange. There were general efficiencies introduced into the management process, and new technologies were put into the buildings when the department moved to Orange. So the model has been proved to have worked from every point of view—productivity, culturally, client services, training, and giving country- based executives the opportunity for promotion within the department. So far, this Labor Government has failed to emulate that decentralisation program in any manner at all. We get from the Government rhetoric about positions being created, but we do not see people being appointed to those positions. When questions are asked in this House, time and again the answer is fuzzy. This motion is respected, but the State Government, under Premier Carr, is neglecting country people in the important areas of fundamental infrastructure, particularly when it comes to road funding and general transportation of goods and services.

Ms BEAMER (Mulgoa) [4.10 p.m.]: The issue of STD call zones has plagued my area for a long time and is a matter on which we have had a continual gripe with the previous Federal Labor Government and the present Federal Government. We have spent a lot of time talking to Federal governments about the cost of telephone calls from Penrith, which is outside the Sydney zone, to the centre of Sydney. The area has welcomed the review of STD call zones, which have been a major impediment to business in the Penrith area. In the 1960s Penrith certainly was considered, as was Campbelltown, a country town. It was considered to be outside the metropolitan area. But St Marys, just a few kilometres away, was on the outer limit of the first zone that was drawn up for 02.

Beyond Blacktown, Liverpool and Dural, the distant centres of Campbelltown and Penrith were considered rural. Obviously, that zoning is now totally out of date. Today more than one million people who consider themselves Sydney residents live outside the 02 zone. Penrith, Richmond, Macquarie Fields and Campbelltown are as much a part of Sydney as Bankstown or Strathfield. But, when it comes to running a business in Penrith, the business is not in the Sydney 02 zone. The zones decreed the Central Coast as one region, Lake Macquarie as another, that Nowra and Kiama were too far apart, and that Lithgow and Katoomba had nothing in common. By any measure, those assumptions are out of date.

In fact, the community of interest argument is now reversed. Telephone area codes routinely divide towns, not just in Sydney but, as the honourable member for Lachlan said, in country New South Wales. The electorate of Mulgoa is divided by that invisible line drawn by the late C. Davidson long before most of my constituents were even born. As a result, my own phone bill and those of most of my constituents outside the 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5145

Sydney 02 zone are more than 20 pages long, listing every STD phone call made, whether my call is to my electorate office or to the city. Another consideration must be equity. The area codes were drawn to make sure families could stay in contact with businesses in neighbouring towns, even though those towns might be some distance away. The result was area codes where vast swathes of countryside included at least one major town, to allow farmers and others to ring local firms and order goods.

Transport links and modern communication systems have destroyed this argument also. Where once it took two hours to travel from St Marys to the city, the journey now takes 45 minutes or less. A plumber in my electorate can easily service customers at Strathfield, Ryde or Double Bay. Small businesses must seek customers everywhere they can so that they can stay afloat. Yet businesses outside the arbitrary 02 zone cannot compete with Sydney firms. Their customers refuse to pay STD rates. Those companies are automatically excluded from Sydney telephone books. A Campbelltown firm has less chance of getting business from Liverpool than a North Ryde firm does. So that equity, so clear and simple in the 1960s, is another long-dead argument for Telstra's STD zones.

STD zones were designed to return money to Canberra. In 1960, most non-Sydney telephone exchanges were manually operated, with a receptionist switching every call. Many country properties had no overland telephone connections at all. Appearing before the 1986 inquiry into Telecom services, the Telecom representative conceded that the cost of maintaining telephone equipment across Australia equated to 0.1 of a cent per call regardless of the distance it covered. This puts the lie to the argument that removal of STD zones will force a lower quality of telephone service on regional and rural Australia. I commend the motion to the House. I hope that Telstra sees fit, in the review of its STD call zones, to examine these anomalies.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.15 p.m.]: I can see merit in the argument that the STD zoning system needs to be revised. I speak especially from the point of view of my own area of the Central Coast. For a long time the Central Coast suffered the disadvantage of being close to Sydney yet not having the advantages of being part of the Sydney metropolitan area. In fact, I have campaigned from time to time on this issue, though it is a Federal issue. I have urged a review of it, as have my predecessors in the seat of Gosford. It is the policy of the Gosford District Chamber of Commerce that the STD zone should be the same as that of Sydney.

I indicate to the House my support for a review by Telstra and the other telephone service operators of the zoning system. It is important that the Central Coast not be at a disadvantage and that its businesses not have a disincentive to development. a higher rate of unemployment, especially youth unemployment. The Economic Development Board and the Regional Development Corporation have strong policies designed to attract industry to the Central Coast, and we need to offer those businesses not only the advantages of a great location, reasonably priced land and convenient access to Sydney and Newcastle, but also a competitive advantage compared with Sydney. Of course, that includes facilities such as telephones.

It is significant that there are other disincentives to business investment on the Central Coast. It is significant that the honourable member for Wyong, who delights in grandstanding as the defender of the Central Coast, never raises these matters. The honourable member for Wyong has moved two motions, both to do with Federal issues: one related to the impact of the GST on caravan parks, and the other related to telephones. He carefully avoids raising any State issues, such as roads, railway services, police services, schools, health or any matter that actually falls within his responsibility as the State member. Instead, he focuses on Federal issues.

The honourable member for Wyong might believe that Michael Lee is a poor member and is not doing a satisfactory job—though it would be interesting to know what Mr Lee thinks of the focus of the honourable member for Wyong on Federal issues. Or, more likely, he is frightened to face up to his responsibilities as a State member to raise State issues on behalf of the people of the Central Coast, and especially those in the electorate of Wyong. I look forward to him raising a State issue in this Parliament. I have not heard him speak on a State matter for a long time. Notwithstanding that, he claims to be the resident expert on every Federal issue that comes before the Parliament.

What is the honourable member for Wyong doing about police matters on the Central Coast? A serial rapist on the coast is causing grave concern to many people, but we have no word from the honourable member. The Central Coast has an ongoing road problem, especially in respect of road funding, but we have no word from the honourable member. We have problems associated with the delay, again and again, of the F3. Work in his electorate was delayed again only last week, as big trucks crashed at Ourimbah, and we had massive traffic buildups. But there was no word about those matters from the honourable member for Wyong. 5146 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

Train delays are causing thousands of people who are heading from the Central Coast to Sydney and Newcastle to be late every morning, but nothing is ever said about it by the honourable member for Wyong. Businesses on the Central Coast have problems with spiralling workers compensation rates. That is causing a great deal of concern, especially to small businesses, as they battle to meet workers compensation premiums; it is causing them to seek to shed labour. But we never hear a word about that from the honourable member for Wyong. We used to hear a great deal from the honourable member for Wyong about the ambulance station but that is no longer the case. He was interested in ambulance services when he was in Opposition but that interest has waned in recent times.

The honourable member for Wyong has been caught out yet again as someone who relies on rhetoric but who never delivers on substance. He has nothing to say to the people of his electorate about the important issues that are facing them—unemployment, roads, law and order—or about their concerns that schoolteachers are not being properly remunerated by the Government. Nothing is said about those matters by the honourable member for Wyong, but he wants to do the job of the Federal member for Dobell. I affirm my support and the support of all Central Coast Liberals for a review of telephone zoning. We want competitive rates between Sydney and the Central Coast and jobs for our electorates. At the same time I draw attention to the total neglect by the honourable member for Wyong of every State issue that he was elected to pursue.

Mr McMANUS (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.20 p.m.]: This debate gives us an opportunity to discuss an important issue. I commend the honourable member for Wyong for moving a motion which calls for Telstra to submit to a review which will result in the resolution of inequities which have been obvious in our community for 40 years. The resolution of those inequities will be a great benefit to the people of New South Wales. Although members of the Opposition are prepared to support the motion, they want to talk about other issues; they imply that the honourable member for Wyong does not deal with State issues. What issue is more important than saving money for the people of New South Wales?

Like many other honourable members, for many years I have been faced with difficulties relating to telephone charges. When I represented the electorate of Bulli my electorate was split into two areas. My electorate office was located in Thirroul, which meant that people living in Engadine were in the ridiculous position of having to pay STD charges for the calls that they made to me. That position has now been reversed. My office is now located in Engadine and people living in the northern Illawarra are experiencing the problems that were experienced some years ago by those living in Engadine. They have to spend unnecessary money to contact their local member of Parliament.

Telstra call zones were set in 1960. At that time the town of Bulli was a good two-hour trip from Sydney. A trip to Sydney for Bulli families was a rarity. All business was done with Wollongong firms. Times have changed. Regrettably, Telstra area codes have not, and they must be updated. In 1980 a grudging concession was given which enabled people in neighbouring areas to ring each other for lower fees, although the calls were still timed. That concession was nowhere near enough. We now have an opportunity to do something about it. In the past six months Telstra revealed that it made a clear profit of $2.1 billion.. After an investigation into telephone services, Telstra admitted that its maintenance costs amounted to 0.1¢ per call, regardless of whether people lived in Sydney or in Perth.

Subscriber trunk dialling [STD] calls were introduced in the old days of PABX systems—a matter of which I am aware because in those days I was a night switch operator. Staffing of exchanges was necessary and the system was cumbersome, expensive and archaic. Today's modern systems mean that Telstra no longer needs to impose STD charges. No extra expense is incurred by Telstra if a family anywhere in New South Wales rings Sydney or Perth.. There is no obvious reason why Telstra has to charge a family in New South Wales $10 to ring Perth and 20¢ to ring Hurstville.

I will highlight the harm that these codes do to thousands of pensioners, veterans and low-income families for whom every dollar counts. Areas outside the main STD zones are generally home for the battlers of New South Wales, and that situation applies to my electorate. In those areas we witness the unfairness of STD zones in the simplest way. A battling family in Penrith or Coledale pays STD charges to ring Sydney. A wealthy family in Double Bay or Lane Cove does not. Area codes affect those who are least able to afford to make STD calls. The people of Penrith, Campbelltown and Stanwell Park have to ring STD to reach Sydney, but the people of Double Bay do not. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5147

Another group that is hard hit by area codes are pensioners and veterans, most of whom have retired to regional New South Wales. There are more aged pensioners on the Central Coast than there are in any other region. The largest communities of veterans are outside Sydney and regional towns, which are the areas that are the hardest hit and the areas that Parliament has to try to protect. These codes can be changed only if Telstra is subjected to a review while it remains in government hands. We will not have an opportunity to do so once the Federal Government privatises Telstra. I support the motion.

[Debate interrupted.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Routine of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow:

(1) debate on the motion for urgent consideration to be adjourned to a later hour of the day; and

(2) eight more members to speak to the motion for urgent consideration.

ANZAC DAY

Matter of Public Importance

Mr GIBSON (Blacktown) [4.28 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the growing importance of Anzac Day. I thank the Parliament for giving me an opportunity to speak about this important date on the Australian calendar. All honourable members know that Anzac Day, which is observed on 25 April, has survived the test of time. For the second year in a row I attended the Anzac Day dawn service at the Blacktown Returned Services Leagues Club. Last year large numbers of people attended that service, but this year the numbers were even greater. Only two original Anzacs are left, yet the crowds turn up every year. People want to know the reason why. Anzac Day is growing in importance as young people look for a heritage. At present we do not seem to have a heritage that is of any importance.

Americans have their heritage. They will talk people deaf about the Mayflower, the pilgrims, Davy Crockett and Audie Murphy. The English talk about their thousands of years of rule, the wars and the castles. Some castles in England are thousands of years old. In Germany people talk about Martin Luther and so on. The young people today are hungry for a heritage. The more they learn about Anzac Day the more they can look upon it as their heritage. For years the young people of this nation have looked to America or England for their heritage, but they have found their real heritage in Anzac Day. That is the main reason the importance of Anzac Day has grown to the extent that it has. On Anzac Day I was talking to some young people at Blacktown. They told me a story about which I have done a bit of research. I did not know, and I am certain the average Australian does not know, some of the heritage connected with Anzac Day. When Liliard wrote the words to the poem The Answer in reply to Colonel McCrae, he said:

Fear not that you have died for nought, The torch you threw to us we caught, And our hands will hold it high, Its glorious light shall never die, Will not break faith with you who lie, On many a field.

That was part of the Anzac tradition. The Anzacs set an example to all by their comradeship and their concern for their fellow man. Their example of courage and fortitude has been handed down to future generations, and we must instil in generations to come the attitude of the Anzacs of loyalty, dedication and service to others. The Anzacs demonstrated the futility, the agony and the hopelessness of war. Theirs was an impossible task undertaken against impregnable odds. Australia was called on to be among the forces to fight in World War 1. Australia was the youngest nation called; it was only 14 years old. During the long months at Gallipoli, soldiers lived with death and danger under dreadful conditions which are almost beyond comprehension and description. The heritage of young people heritage starts when they read the statistics of what happened at Gallipoli. The Australian and New Zealand forces landed on Anzac Beach at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915. At the same time a large combined British and French force landed in the Cape Helles area. The Allied casualties of this heroic 5148 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 but disastrous campaign were 33,532 killed, a massive 78,518 wounded and 7,689 missing. Of that number 2,721 New Zealanders were killed and 4,752 wounded. From there the Anzac tradition was moulded, and it has gone through every battle to the present day. The young people I was talking to at Blacktown told me a story about the Light Horse Brigade. We must remember that every person who went to war in those early days was a volunteer. Many of the Australians were young kids who were aged 15 or 16 years. They told fibs about their ages to get into the Army, defend their country and fight for the democracy we enjoy today.

The story the people at Blacktown told me about the Light Horse Brigade is worth repeating. In 638 the Muslims took control of Jerusalem and held it for 1,600 years. The young Aussie troops were first thrown into battle at Gallipoli and they ended up with bloody noses. Their next task was to see if they could liberate Jerusalem. The history of Jerusalem shows that was virtually an impossible task. The Muslims had taken over in 638 and eventually Christians and Jews were not welcomed. Over the years 11 or 12 crusades tried to liberate Jerusalem. All attempts failed; they could not get through the Turks and into Jerusalem. In 1795 Napoleon tried. Napoleon is regarded as one of the greatest military brains of all time. He could not do it. Perhaps the sinking of his fleet by Nelson had something to do with his failure. The English had 28,000 troops, cannons and tanks and they could not do it, and in desperation they turned to the Aussies and said to the Light Horse Brigade, "Will you have a crack at it? We have tried and we cannot do it."

It should be borne in mind that there were 4,500 Turks in the trenches. Behind them was wave after wave of barbed wire. Behind that were wave after wave of machine-guns, and cannons were behind them. They extended from Gaza to the wells at Beersheba. They were totally manned and nothing could get through. So the authorities said to the Aussies with their slouch hats and emu feathers, "Can you have a crack at it?" The Aussies, as Aussies do, said, "Give us a crack at it." They charged. The Turks could not believe that anybody would be foolish enough to take them on head-on. Today it is history that not only did they get through Gaza and the wells of Beersheba, but they were the first into Jerusalem and liberated Jerusalem. They changed history forever. That is our heritage. That is why Anzac Day has taken on the importance it carries today, because the young people are starting to learn about our history.

There have been many debates in this Chamber about whether we should learn about Australian history. I did not learn at school the things I have mentioned today. I doubt whether any member of this House would have learnt the story of the Light Horse Brigade at school. That is the sort of history that should be taught in our schools. The young people of today are learning that history and they have picked it up because it is their heritage. As I said before, America has the Mayflower, Audie Murphy and Davy Crockett but our heritage is even better. Our heritage is such that if Spielberg was an Australian it would be the number one movie in the world today; it is a story of the greatest battle and victory in the history of war as man has known it.

As I said, 800 Aussies jumped on their horses and charged into Beersheba and Jerusalem, with the cannons, crossfire, machine guns, barbed wire and the 4,500 Turks in the trenches. Only 34 Aussies were killed in the charge and that has to go down as the greatest victory of all time or the greatest gift that God has given Australia for a long time. We were responsible for liberating Jerusalem, and that is our heritage. That is why I believe Anzac Day has taken on the importance it has, and that is why the young people have looked at Anzac Day and beyond. On Anzac Day we do not celebrate the glorification of war; we remember and pay respect to the people who laid the foundation for our democracy and for the greatest nation in the world.

Mr WEBB (Monaro) [4.37 p.m.]: I also speak on the matter of public importance: the growing importance of Anzac Day. The honourable member for Blacktown has encapsulated the spirit of Gallipoli and the essence of what the Anzac heritage is all about. His description of the last major cavalry charge at Beersheba has been recorded in Hansard. It is a wonderful story and it typifies the Aussie spirit we all know so well. His comments about education and where the Anzac story is told are important. Our children do not know some of that history and it is important that they are taught about it both in our schools and in our communities. The Australian heritage goes back before World War I. It goes back to the Boer War and then to the Great War, the war to end all wars. I have spoken before in this House about my great-uncle, who went off to the Great War in France and never came home. We have a suitcase full of letters that he sent to his sister, my grandmother. My mother's father, Cedric Blake, was gassed in France in the First World War and took a long while to die. In fact, he did not die until 1956.

The commitment went on. The spirit of Anzac is what fired our young people to enlist for World War I. My father, John Webb, and his brother-in-law, Rockly Buckmaster, both joined up to represent Australia in World War II. My great-uncle, Charlie Walker, who is still alive today and who recently moved from Sydney to the North Coast, was a rat at Tobruk. He told me some wonderful stories about North Africa during the Second 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5149

World War. The spirit went on during the Korean War. Interestingly, the national Korean War memorial on Anzac Parade in our nation's capital was dedicated two or three days before Anzac Day, a week and a half ago. Sir William Keys, who unfortunately is ill at this time, attended the dedication of that memorial. He is an esteemed past president of the RSL in Australia. He worked tirelessly to ensure that that memorial was created.

The commitment went on. Some years after the Korean war Australians made a commitment to the theatre of war in Vietnam. Perhaps the stories about Vietnam do not equal those of the light horse charge at Beersheba or even Gallipoli, but the whole spirit of Anzac continued in Vietnam. Following that, about a decade ago Australians made a commitment in the Gulf War. Recently I heard an address by the then captain of the HMAS Melbourne about the involvement of Australians in that conflict. Recently the spirit went on when Australians, including people from my electorate, represented this nation in Timor. It is interesting to note the role of the leader of those forces, Peter Cosgrove, and where he has gone with that today.

Australia has committed to many other peacekeeping roles without knowing what the outcome would be. That is part of continuing the process of educating people across the world about our Anzac spirit and where we go with that. I attended the Anzac Day services and march in Queanbeyan this year. We had record crowds, and people were blocking the streets during the dedication of the commemorative wall, on which the 802 names of people who signed up to serve in World War II and after were dedicated. The wall was opened by the member for the Federal electorate of Eden-Monaro, Gary Nairn. One of his duties was to honour the commitment by the Chairman of the Honour Roll Committee in Queanbeyan, Laurie Davis, who is also a World War II veteran. The secretary of the Honour Roll Committee is Robyn Holden. The major commitment of those people and the Honour Roll Committee to work towards a commemorative honour roll in Queanbeyan, which was opened on Anzac Day last, is of major importance. On the eighty-fifth anniversary of Anzac Day the President of the Queanbeyan Eden Monaro Legacy Group, Rod Studholme, spoke of the dawning of a new era as we enter this new millennium. The spirit of Anzac certainly goes on. The President of the Queanbeyan RSL, Mr Matt Helm, also spoke of that commitment. The most interesting words spoken on the day were uttered by John Oddy, a Queanbeyan resident and captain of St Edmund's College in Canberra. He said that when he was first asked to speak, apart from being honoured, he thought he did not know a lot about Australia's history, particularly back to Gallipoli, World War II and other wars. Mr Oddy first asked his father, and his father said of his grandfather, "He didn't talk about it much." When I was a small boy I asked my father the same questions, and he said the same sort of thing: "We were involved. It wasn't too good". And he left it at that. But the Anzac spirit has gone on from there. John Oddy asked his peers and friends at school what they knew about Anzac Day and Australia's commitment to world peace. Some of the stories he was told showed that people have knowledge here and there, that they understood what Gallipoli was about, that a great sacrifice was made by Australians, and that people made a commitment to put their name down to head off across the world in either a peacekeeping role or in a greater role, with the possibility of not returning. Recently I was honoured to be asked to become a patron of the Canberra-Queanbeyan branch of the National Service and Combined Forces Association of Australia. That association comprises a great group of friends from the Vietnam War and other conflicts who come together to share their stories. The memories will go on. The Anzac spirit forms the basis of our society. It underpins and is the foundation of Australian culture today. It is important that the memories do not die because they tell a story about the result of war. They tell a story about conflict and the commitment of those who become involved. In conclusion, heritage is probably the most important thing. Australia's spirit, the Anzac spirit and the combination of Australian and New Zealand forces going back to the Boer War and Beersheba are renowned. They are wonderful stories that must never be forgotten. It is vital that we tell our children about those commitments and those stories. It is vital that we tell people that members of our communities and our families laid down their lives for Australia and for world peace. Lest we forget. We must remember them. Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [4.47 p.m.]: First I congratulate the honourable member for Blacktown and the honourable member for Monaro on their contributions to this debate. Anzac is a tradition born at Gallipoli. By the late 1970s and early 1980s the importance of the tradition was waning in this country. There are many reasons for the slow diminution of the flame. Clearly, the light from the flame was failing. I am typical of post World War II Australians who are linked by birth to the history of World War I and World War II by my family's service in the great wars. However, I found that somehow the spirit had been lost. The tradition of Anzac was reawakened by Australia Remembers: 1944-1995, which was an initiative of the then Federal Labor Government. The flame was rekindled and is burning brighter every year. 5150 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

That is witnessed by the tens of thousands of people who now attend the dawn service on the Gallipoli Peninsula in Turkey on Anzac Day. These scenes are beamed into our homes, and the telling statement is the representation of Australian youth at the service. The flame is again burning brightly in the hearts and minds of our nation. An interesting breakout story at Gallipoli this year, which was reported in the media, was about a couple of young Australians who camped overnight and who were lightly dressed and trying to keep warm during the service. Upon inquiry as to the lack of clothing they said that they had lent their sleeping bags to an old couple from Gosford on the Central Coast. I refer again to Australia Remembers: 1944-1995 and its impact on my local community, particularly our youth.

Tom Picot, the president of the Tuggerah Lakes RSL sub-branch and chair of the Dobell Australia Remembers Committee, organised a school program to re-awaken the spirit. Tom organised a group of veterans to visit our local schools to relate their first-hand experiences to our youth. This was complemented by other programs throughout the Central Coast. Nowadays thousands of people attend the dawn service on the Central Coast. More importantly, hundreds of young people, including babies, now attend the dawn service. I can remember back to the 1970s and 1980s, when hardly anyone attended these dawn services, particularly our youth. A massive change has occurred, which I attribute to the Australia Remembers commemoration program.

I believe that the program gave the veterans and those who served in World War I and World War II and other theatres of war the respect and opportunity, in their twilight years, to reflect on their experiences with the young people coming through our community. They were allowed to do that with pride, reverence and celebration. For the first time in about 20 years we are seeing a rekindling and strengthening of the permanency of the flame that was established at Anzac. One of the most eloquently demonstrated experiences for me was the interment ceremony for the unknown soldier in Canberra. I do not know whether honourable members remember that. For me, it was the most moving experience I had ever had. As members would be aware, we have a memorial to the unknown soldier in Hyde Park.

To have the remains of an Australian returned from France and interred in Australia strikes at the heart. Those pictures struck at the heart of the young people in our nation. They broke through the barrier of cynicism and all those other barriers that have been put up, and they pierced the heart of the people following those programs. For that I congratulate the Government. What is most important for the heart and soul of Australia is the continuation of the programs. As previous speakers have said, we have the greatest democracy in the world, we have the freest country in the world, and through the Anzac tradition we are passing that on to the youth of Australia. That will cement Australia's position for the future.

Mr GIBSON (Blacktown) [4.52 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Monaro and the honourable member for The Entrance for their contributions to this matter of public importance. I should like to pay my respects to those who died in war and all those who returned to help defend our nation. I refer not only to Gallipoli, but also to Vietnam and Timor in the present day. As I have said, one of the greatest forces ever to leave this nation was the Australian Light Horse, and their history is definitely our heritage. Australians being the way they are, their attitude is, "She'll be right, mate; don't worry about it." I was reading a report this morning about one of the young people who took part in the charge of the Light Horse Brigade.

His mother wrote to him and said that they were regarded as heroes. He wrote back to her and said, "Heroes nothing. We had a job to do. As a matter of fact, our horses hadn't had water for three days and we hadn't had water for three days as well. When we got through Gaza the horses smelt the water. Actually, it wasn't us charging into the wells at Beersheba and Jerusalem, it was the horses. They smelt the water, and they took off. All we were doing was sitting on the back of the horses and the horses did the rest." I suppose that is the Australian way of reluctantly saying they were not really the heroes that they were.

Beersheba was not the last success of the Light Horse Brigade. They were the first into Gaza, they were the first into Jerusalem, they were the first into Beersheba, and they were the first into Jericho. The young people of today acknowledge Anzac Day not only to remember what happened—the victories, the defeats, the deaths and terrible infliction of wounds that took place during those battles—but because they honestly believe that this is our heritage. As I said at the commencement of my contribution, for many years Australians, young Australians in particular, have been looking for their heritage. Now they have found it. As I have said before, if Spielberg were in Australia this heritage would become one of the leading movies of our time, because it is probably the greatest story ever told.

The Bible said that Jesus wept over Jerusalem. I can assure honourable members that Jesus would have wept a second time when he saw the result of what took place at Gaza, Beersheba and Jerusalem, when 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5151

Jerusalem was liberated by 800 Aussies. The young people have come back to celebrate Anzac Day proudly. They are very proud of their heritage, they are very proud of their country, and they are very proud that today, at last, they have a heritage. I am certain that the heritage will grow as the years continue, and I am certain that Anzac Day will be remembered as the number one heritage day as far as Australians are concerned. Lest we forget.

Discussion concluded.

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported:

Olympic Arrangements Bill Access to Neighbouring Land Bill Conveyancers Licensing Amendment (Professional Indemnity Insurance) Bill Conveyancing Amendment (Central Register of Restrictions) Bill Fair Trading Amendment (Substantiation of Claims) Bill Local Government Amendment (Filming) Bill Zoological Parks Board Amendment Bill

CONVEYANCING AMENDMENT (LAW OF SUPPORT) BILL

In Committee

Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments.

Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 13 April

No. 1 Page 3, Schedule 1 [1], lines 8 and 9. Omit “, or not to omit to do anything,”.

No. 2 Page 4, Schedule 1 [1], lines 24 to 28. Omit all words on those lines.

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to on motion by Mr Whelan.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.

SUBSCRIBER TRUNK DIALLING CALL ZONES

Urgent Motion

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [4.59 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Wyong for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Other honourable members have expressed concerns about this matter being a Federal issue and that the time of this House should be given to State issues, such as road funding. While I remain ready and willing to support infrastructure upgrades in regional New South Wales in respect of roads and other matters, it is also important to focus on technological infrastructure, particularly subscriber trunk dialling [STD] call rates in regional New South Wales. The differences between call rates in rural areas and those applying in metropolitan areas make it very difficult for regional areas to attract appropriate industry development.

I wish to share with the House an issue that occurred in the city of Armidale in my electorate. A substantial commercial organisation was considering relocating to country New South Wales. When I was the Mayor of Armidale, I participated in some of the feasibility projections that were being undertaken in respect of that organisation. Despite Armidale and regional New South Wales stacking up enormously well in the key indicators—namely, low rates of sick leave in the workforce, low rates of capital one-off expenditure for land, dwellings and buildings, and availability of a casual workforce because of the high student population—the area still missed out on selection. 5152 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

An analysis of the reasons why the area was not selected makes the key factor very clear. The cost of telephone calls from Armidale to Sydney is substantially greater than the cost associated with another area that was eventually selected for this significantly large organisation. Despite all the other advantages that my electorate had to offer, including quality of life advantages, the communications costs made it impossible for that organisation to establish itself in my electorate. It is appropriate for this House to debate some issues that impinge upon the Federal sphere of government. One hundred years ago people were discussing the importance of railways to development. I contend that technology infrastructure that enables regions to conduct business competitively is as significant for the future of regional development as have been the railways.

In spite of the different political colours of the New South Wales State Government and the Federal Government, the commentary and rhetoric of regional development produces a similar theme from both tiers— namely, it is very important for technology upgrades to occur. If an organisation such as a call centre is to be attracted into regional areas of New South Wales and the necessary technological capability exists to realise that objective, it is very important to enable organisations to relocate to country areas, to create employment and to provide flow-on benefits to rural communities. Many organisations want to relocate to regional areas but are restricted by cost constraints.

The honourable member for Oxley provided to the House some very important population statistics that were published recently in major metropolitan newspapers. Those figures show what has been said for some time by members of the Independent country alliance—namely, the honourable member for Dubbo, the honourable member for Tamworth and me. Population drift is creating major problems in regional areas. Sydney is fast becoming the only centre of significance in New South Wales, and that is not the type of State that people, including me, want to see eventuate. It is not the type of State that people who live in metropolitan areas want to see developing. People want balanced development in New South Wales.

To provide proper development, the Government must create appropriate opportunities for regional areas of New South Wales. That will not occur by the Government saying to major organisations, "Look, we know you want to locate in country New South Wales, but the costs of undertaking the same number of transactions will be 30 per cent more." That is not my idea of regional development. The honourable member for Wyong is quite right to bring this matter before the House. I believe that resolving the problem he has described will have a very significant role in the improvement of regional development. I support the motion and urge honourable members to put aside their political differences to vote for prosperity in country communities. I believe that this motion will go some way towards achieving that aim.

Ms HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [5.04 p.m.]: I support the motion. Honourable members who preceded me in this debate have demonstrated that there are extremely illogical subscriber trunk dialing [STD] zones in many electorates, and my electorate of Burrinjuck certainly has some very outdated and illogical STD call zones. For example, a telephone call from Murrumbateman to Boorowa is charged at STD rates. A telephone call to the farther side of Yass from Murrumbateman is charged at STD rates whereas a call from Murrumbateman to Canberra is a local call. A telephone call from Yass to Canberra is also charged at STD rates. It takes approximately 10 minutes to drive between Murrumbateman and Yass.

I encouraged the review that is being undertaken of STD call zones. It is certainly true that STD rates calls in regional areas are a disincentive for businesses to locate in country areas of New South Wales. Solely because of the basic cost of telephone calls that confront businesses on a daily basis, businesses will seek ways to cut costs as much as possible. As an honourable member who preceded me in this debate stated, when businesses receive a 20-page phone bill showing STD calls which could be greatly reduced by the business being located in a different area, naturally businesses will establish their enterprises in areas that give them access to local calls as a means of contacting customers rather than having to do so by making STD calls.

Virtually every phone call I make from my electorate office in Yass is an STD call, which is a great impediment to constituents being able to contact me. To overcome this problem I established a 1800 telephone number which is paid for from my electorate allowance. The provision of that service appears to have been of great benefit to the constituents of my electorate in providing greater access to their local State member of Parliament. Constituents complained that they need easy and cheap telephone and communications access to their local parliamentary representative and they did not appreciate having to pay STD call rates from just about anywhere in the electorate. It is a long way from Tuena to Tumut, which often results in a very expensive telephone calls. Although Yass, which is where my electorate office is located, is in the centre of the Burrinjuck electorate, STD charges nevertheless seem to be inescapable when contacting any area of my electorate. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5153

The Government might note that the Tim Besley inquiry into telecommunications is currently under way and submissions are actively being sought. People who wish to make a submission should send their material to the inquiry before 31 May. Because of the number of concerns that reach my electorate office concerning the lack of telecommunications in the Burrinjuck electorate, I have been vociferously encouraging people to make submissions to the review. I acknowledge that telecommunications is a Federal issue and I forward complaints to the Federal parliamentary representative in my area. However, it is still a matter of concern to me that many complaints relating to telecommunications are made.

I encourage the current inquiry into telecommunications, chaired by Tim Besley who I am sure will conduct an independent inquiry, to carry out a thorough investigation into telecommunication services. I also encourage anyone with an interest in telecommunications to forward their submissions to [email protected]. Inquiries related to the Internet, illogical STD call zones, installation of landlines or mobile telephone network access should be conveyed to the review committee because it is important that as many problems as possible are dealt with. Recently a constituent who owns a business in Goulburn experienced difficulty in having a business facsimile line installed. People should get their submissions to the inquiry in the 3½ weeks remaining until 31 May. The inquiry is a great opportunity for people to have their concerns heard and for a real difference to be made in telecommunications in New South Wales. I support the motion even though it is way out of date. The current illogical STD call zones cost local jobs and act as a disincentive for businesses to move to regional areas. I support the motion.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Face.

NEW SOUTH WALES LOTTERIES CORPORATISATION AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.10 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government has established a comprehensive financial policy framework for Government Trading Enterprises and State Owned Corporations over recent years, with the aim of providing management of these organisations with sufficient autonomy to operate commercially, while ensuring accountability to Government for their performance. A vital part of this framework relates to corporate governance, which deals with the interaction between shareholders, boards of directors and management, as well as relationships with regulators, auditors and other stakeholders.

It is essential that governing boards of commercial entities are given clear commercial objectives and the authority and autonomy to achieve them. Clear delineation of powers and responsibilities between the portfolio Minister, shareholders and the board is needed to ensure that the board has full and effective control over the organisation that it is "governing" and that public and organisational accountability is maintained. At present the board of the New South Wales Lotteries Corporation is responsible to its shareholders for operational matters but there is no clear line of accountability from the chief executive officer to the board for the organisation’s performance.

There is also ambiguity in the role of the portfolio Minister in regard to the exercise of discretionary power over the board and the corporation. This ambiguity may diminish the board’s authority or diffuse its commercial focus and accountability. The New South Wales Lotteries Corporatisation Amendment Bill will modify the standard governance arrangements of the New South Wales Lotteries Corporation as adopted under the State Owned Corporations Act 1989 and the New South Wales Lotteries Corporatisation Act 1996, such that: the appointment of the chairperson and directors of the board are made by the voting shareholders, rather than the Governor on the recommendation of the shareholders; the arrangements for the appointment, remuneration and removal of the chief executive officer are made by the board, after consultation with the voting shareholders, rather than the Governor on the recommendation of the portfolio Minister; and the chief executive officer is confirmed as a member of the board rather than being an optional appointee. These revised procedures will streamline the appointment process and make more transparent the need for directors of the board to represent the commercial interests of the shareholders. The New South Wales 5154 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

Lotteries Corporation is ultimately responsible to the portfolio Minister for matters related to industry policy, regulation and probity in the conduct of lotteries. Oversighting the operations of the corporation is the board. The board is responsible to the shareholders for the commercial performance and efficiency of the organisation.

Best practice corporate governance requires the board to have the power to appoint and remove the chief executive officer. This recognises that boards of directors cannot be held fully accountable for an organisation’s performance and operational matters unless they have the authority to appoint the chief executive officer. The chief executive officer should in the same way have clear lines of accountability to the board. This will not affect the regulatory obligations of the organisation established under the State Owned Corporations Act 1989 and the Public Lotteries Act 1996 to the portfolio Minister, who ensures the integrity, minimisation of harm and maintenance of the public interest in the conduct of lotteries in New South Wales.

Transitional arrangements will provide that the persons currently holding office as directors of the New South Wales Lotteries Corporation will continue to hold office for the remainder of their terms under their existing conditions, and will be taken to have been appointed under this new Act. The proposed framework for corporate governance for the New South Wales Lotteries Corporation is consistent with that adopted by a number of commercial entities operating in a competitive environment, including the energy and rail sectors, and more recently by the Superannuation Administration Corporation. By adopting this model, the New South Wales Lotteries Corporation will operate under a more effective and transparent governance structure. The New South Wales Lotteries Corporatisation Amendment Bill will ensure that the governance roles of the Ministers and the board are more clearly defined, and that the ability of the board of New South Wales Lotteries Corporation to add value is maximised. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Fraser.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

______

CASTLE HILL HERITAGE PARK

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [5.15 p.m.]: Honourable members would be aware of the Castle Hill uprising of 4 March 1804, the only organised rebellion by convicts in Australian history. Most of the convicts in prison at Castle Hill—site of the third government farm in the infant colony of New South Wales—were Irish, many of them political prisoners. Their intention on breaking out was nothing less than to link up with other Irish convicts in Parramatta and then to march on Sydney. Governor King declared a state of rebellion and dispatched four officers and 52 privates of the New South Wales Corps under the command of Major Johnston to deal with it.

Major Johnston and one half of his detachments met up with the rebels, whose numbers by now had grown to 266, 16 kilometres west of Castle Hill at a place which has become known as Vinegar Hill. Rebel leaders Philip Cunningham and William Johnston stepped forward. Cunningham uttered his rallying cry, "Death or liberty!" Major Johnston clapped a pistol to his head, another trooper did the same to William Johnston and the two men were captured. The troopers then opened fire. It was all over within minutes. Cunningham was hung summarily in Parramatta. Ten others were tried and eight hung, and the bodies of three—including William Johnston—were left at Castle Hill to hang in chains. The Irish never rose in Australia again.

The barracks from which the convicts made their bid for freedom subsequently became the colony's first lunatic asylum—appropriate enough given the mental state to which the convicts system reduced many of those transported. Honourable members may not be aware that due to a fortunate set of circumstances much of the site is still undeveloped. The land for many years was owned by the Commonwealth Government and was acquired by the New South Wales Department of Housing in March 1991. In October 1997, 18 hectares of the site was handed over to Baulkham Hills Shire Council to administer what has now become known as Heritage Park. The National Trust President, the Hon. Barry O'Keefe, himself of Irish extraction, described the site as being of national significance.

I pay tribute to the work done by members of the Hills District Historical Society and of the Rotary Club of Castle Hill, particularly David Sommerlad, in bringing the park to its current state of development. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5155

Members of those organisations are concerned that a very important section of the original farm—the two hectare lot known as Lot 5 Banks Road, Castle Hill—is not incorporated in Heritage Park. Historical Society President Mac McCullough and Mr Sommerlad believe this parcel, currently owned by Billyard Homes, is crucial to the integrity of the overall site. It contains the archaeological remains of the old school building that once stood on the site. It also provides a proper entrance to the park at the most appropriate place—after all, that was the place where people came in to and out of the government farm. Otherwise access is restricted to an extraordinarily narrow tongue of land adjoining Banks Road, or at the top end of the park, from the Gilbert Road extension.

Baulkham Hills Shire Council wrote to me earlier this year and advised that it had negotiated purchase of the property on the following terms and conditions: contracts to be exchanged before 21 January 2000 at a sale price of $2.2 million; a 10 per cent or $220,00 deposit; completion within 12 months or forfeiture of deposit; interest at 8 per cent on the balance of the purchase price payable to the owner for any delays beyond six months; and council to be liable for any goods and services tax payable on interest earned after 1 July 2000. A measure of the importance which the Mayor, Councillor John Griffiths, and other councillors place on preserving that parcel of land for posterity is that council was prepared to sign that contract.

I might add that both the former Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Craig Knowles, and the Premier have taken an interest in the park. When I spoke about it in debate in 1998 the Minister showed a considerable knowledge of the history of the site, while the Premier visited it at Mr Sommerlad's invitation in August last year. Subsequently I wrote to the Premier and sought State Government assistance for the acquisition of Lot 5 Banks Road. He responded in generous terms, and referred the matter to the current Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning wrote to me last month and stated that he had asked the Heritage Office to write to Baulkham Hills Shire Council to seek detailed information about the council's purchase arrangements for the site.

However, I understand from the Mayor, Councillor Griffiths, that so far there has only been a preliminary inquiry from the Heritage Office. This issue is too important to let it slide. This is not a local council park, nor is it a site merely of State significance. It is a site of national significance; the site of the only organised convict uprising in our history, and a site which people will visit in centuries to come to see the interpretation displays. They will feel the anger that coursed through the veins of those Irish prisoners and they will share the emotions that led them to break out with a view to capturing Sydney town. This is not a once in a lifetime opportunity: it is the opportunity of a lifetime. I ask the Government, particularly the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, to expedite the Heritage Office's inquires into the Baulkham Hills Shire Council's proposed purchase of the site and to do whatever it can financially to assist Australia. Australia will be in its debt.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville—Deputy Premier, Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for Housing) [5.19 p.m.]: I very strongly support the proposal as put by the honourable member. I am disappointed that the response of the government agency has not been as speedy as would have been expected. I will insist that it take clear note of the concerns raised today and that we get fast action.

PARKLEA MARKETS

Mr GIBSON (Blacktown) [5.20 p.m.]: I wish to speak about Parklea Markets, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Blacktown City Council. Parklea Markets have been trading for about 13 or 14 years in virtually the same way as Paddy's Markets and Flemington Markets. Parklea Markets made an application to Blacktown City Council for an extension of trading hours so that the markets could trade on Friday, as does Paddy's Markets and Flemington Markets. Blacktown City Council deliberated on the issue for some six years but did not make a decision on it. The council then put the matter in the hands of Commissioner Mark Carleton of the Commissioners of Inquiry for Environment and Planning. Mr Carleton inquired into the matter and reported back to Blacktown City Council on 3 November 1999.

The commissioner recommended to the council that there be no weekly extension of trading hours. Bear in mind that shops, whether they are QIC, Westfield or whatever, are allowed to trade at Parklea and in any other part of the State virtually seven days and seven nights a week. The council, after taking six years considering the Parklea Markets application, flicked it off to the department thinking that that was the easy way out. Mr Con Constantine is the owner of Parklea Markets. He is not a Labor member but an Independent member on the council. However, he has been fairly harshly done by. 5156 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

Recently, Blacktown City Council rejected Mr Constantine's six-year-old application for an extension of the trading hours of Parklea Markets. Among those to oppose Friday trading for Parklea Markets was the Stanhope Gardens Residents Association, formed by one Dushan Djukie, a property acquisitions manager for Liquorland, a Coles Myer subsidiary, one of the objects to the application. Mr Dushan Djukie has admitted, according to Mr Constantine, to metropolitan newspapers that the residents action group that he led was partly funded by Westfield Blacktown, the owners of QIC. QIC also ran its own campaign, organised by political lobbyist and former adviser to former Premier Nick Greiner and one Mr Ken Hooper, who also ran a campaign against Parklea Markets.

The Federal Court was told recently that QIC and Westfield shared the cost of a campaign against extended trading for Parklea Markets from 1993 to 1995. The Court was also told of Mr Ken Hooper's involvement in that matter. There is no doubt that collusion has taken place in this event. The Sydney Morning Herald of 24 January noted that Mr Frank Lowry, Westfield group controller, apologised in the court, saying that he did not know that the company was paying for action groups to raise objections against one of its competitors for extended trading hours. The matter has now gone back to Blacktown City Council. Do not get me wrong: Blacktown council is a very good council. But I have no doubt that the decision of the council will be not to extend the trading hours of Parklea Markets.

Parklea Markets not only service the local community with its markets; they provide an opportunity for people who cannot afford to go into business in mainstream shopping centres to start off in the markets in a very small way and expand as their businesses grow. I instance some of those businesses. Fantastic Furniture started with two stalls at Parklea Markets, and today has 20 outlets across Australia. Decor Rugs started in 1990 with two stalls, and now has more than seven shops statewide. NADS Hair Removal started with one stall in 1991 and has developed into a multi-million dollar retail marketing company, supplying products right across Australia. Ellerman Clothiers started with one store in 1990, and is now a large company in the city, but is still trading at the Parklea Markets. The list includes Spot On Fashions, Steves Fishing, and many other businesses that have had the opportunity at Parklea Markets to establish businesses and expand to become much bigger entities. There is a significant tourism industry, with up to 60 buses attending the Parklea Markets of a weekend. It is one of the major tourist attractions in western Sydney. I hope the Government will examine this issue and consider whether it can extend the trading hours of Parklea Markets.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville—Deputy Premier, Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for Housing) [5.25 p.m.]: Blacktown City Council exhibited a draft plan in respect of the proposed extension of trading hours for Parklea Markets, I think, at the end of 1998 in order to gauge the views of both the general community and retailers. To facilitate public input and debate, agreement was given on the understanding that if council proceeded with exhibition of the draft plan a public hearing into the proposal would be conducted. An independent commissioner was appointed to conduct the hearing, which was held in October 1999. Amongst others, Mr Constantine submitted his case to the hearing, as obviously did others as well. After considering all issues, the commissioner did not find in favour of extended hours of operation. The inquiry was public and independent. It would not be appropriate for me to intervene in that. Obviously, an independent commissioner was looking at this issue and reporting back to Blacktown City Council. Blacktown City Council has the decision-making responsibility regarding the trading hours of Parklea Markets.

MACLEAY RIVER HISTORICAL SOCIETY MUSEUM

Mr STONER (Oxley) [5.26 p.m.]: I take this opportunity this evening to commend the Macleay River Historical Society Museum in Kempsey, which is run by the Macleay River Historical Society, whose president is Mr Jack Randell, a well-known and vigorous community worker. The secretary is Margaret Jopling.. Recently I visited the museum, and I was amazed at the quality and depth of the display, which is based on the pioneering side of the peoples of the Macleay Valley district. The museum is located at South Kempsey. Many honourable members may have driven past this museum, near a beautiful park and rest stop entering Kempsey. Set in the parkland is the Macleay River Historical Society Museum. I hope that some honourable members and staff of this place have taken the time to visit the museum, because it really is well worth a visit. It is a great stop on that strenuous drive north.

The Macleay River Historical Society Museum is a real plus for tourism in the Macleay Valley. People should stop in and have a look at this exhibition of a unique Australian history right there on the Mid North Coast. The museum building is superbly designed. I rank it with the Outback Museum at Longreach for Australian architecture and ambience. The museum has been there since 1983. Prior to that, the historical 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5157 society had been homeless for many years. It was through the unstinting efforts of the likes of Gwen Kemp, whose family goes back many years in the district, that this excellent new location was found for the museum. The museum comprises a static display of history on the Macleay, but it provides also a research centre for students, particularly in respect of the genealogy of families of the district.

The museum has many documents relating to land and titles, going well back in history. The museum has on microfiche a full collection of the local newspaper, the Macleay Argus. It really is a fantastic resource centre for any history student, particularly on the district. When I visited the museum I was given a magnificent afternoon tea by the many volunteers of the Macleay River Historical Society. I was also shown displays of things such as Akubra hats; Slim Dusty memorabilia; Shorty Ranger memorabilia—Shorty Ranger is another famous country musician from Kempsey—a working model of a timber mill, which is a must see for anybody; a pioneer cottage which is located on the site; a display of the 1949 flood which devastated Kempsey and surrounds; and many artefacts of pioneer life in the beautiful Macleay Valley.

I commend the dedicated people who run the museum. There are 20 or so volunteers, including Vice- President Alan Robinson; Gwen Kemp, to whom I referred earlier, who is the other Vice-President; and Treasurer Mary Yabsley. Other volunteers include Noel Woodward and Billie Crawford. The museum is totally run by volunteers. Those volunteers, who are present at the museum every day of the year, except on Good Friday and Christmas Day, provide a great service not only to the Macleay district community but also to travellers going through Kempsey along the Pacific Highway. I publicly acknowledge the great job that the Macleay River Historical Society is doing. I commend to honourable members and others the Macleay River Historical Society Museum at South Kempsey.

CANTERBURY ELECTORATE DRUG TASK FORCE

Mr MOSS (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.32 p.m.]: On 10 April I attended the inaugural meeting of the drug task force steering committee—a committee established in response to the recommendations of the Drug Summit which, amongst other recommendations regarding community involvement, resolved in section 8.1(B):

The community as a whole needs to better understand, discuss and take ownership of the issue and the solutions to be empowered, to address its causes and impacts.

Another important point raised at the Summit is that the nature of drug abuse varies from region to region. In this regard the Summit recommended in section 8.1(E):

Community action can take various forms depending on the particular needs of different communities, both cultural and locational.

The Summit then recommended in section 8.1(F):

Ongoing leadership and the collaboration of community interests is required to sustain effective community action.

Those recommendations motivated my colleague the honourable member for Lakemba, the Minister for Public Works, to establish this local task force. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on this initiative. Local drug task forces have been established in a few areas. It is hoped that these task force committees will eventually cover the entire State. If our efforts to combat drug abuse are to be effective, a number of strategies must be addressed at the local level. Most agencies involved in the drug issue rely on local communities for co- operation and information. If more task forces are established across the State, like the one in the Canterbury municipality, we will be better off at a State level.

The meeting of the inaugural task force, which was facilitated by Canterbury council, was attended by welfare and ethnic organisations, school representatives, the police and health workers with expertise in drug use and abuse. The meeting was addressed by, amongst other people, a magistrate from a Local Court at Bankstown. Although the meeting covered numerous issues relating to drug abuse it became clear that all that was discussed really could be condensed into three main areas of drug abuse, namely, prevention, law enforcement and rehabilitation. It is amazing how those issues cross over and interrelate.

Magistrate Thompson from Bankstown Local Court pointed out that at least 90 per cent of the break and enter cases that are brought before him are drug related. He is concerned about the huge amount of reoffending that occurs in this area. He is convinced that the only way to solve this problem is to make it a 5158 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 condition of bail that those who are brought before him for such offences undergo counselling and treatment. So there we have a crossing over of both law enforcement and rehabilitation issues. At that meeting I also offered my views on prevention. It is my firm belief that, if we are to achieve anything in relation to young people, we must foster a greater peer group system among schoolchildren. In other words, kids must argue the negatives of drug taking. It is no good for teachers to be telling kids that it is not cool to take drugs because kids do not consider teachers to be cool. If schoolchildren are telling each other that it is not cool, I believe we will get somewhere.

I suppose that, because of my comments, I am now convening a subcommittee of this task force on drug prevention. The three subcommittees which are dealing with those issues will report back to the task force. I have no doubt that the local task force in Canterbury will be successful, just as the Summit was successful. Most of the recommendations made at the Summit are already being implemented. All those honourable members who have not already established a task force should establish, or motivate others to establish, a task force in their areas.

Mr MARKHAM (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.37 p.m.]: The honourable member for Canterbury raised an important issue—one which can only be resolved by the community. We all wish that there were a sufficient number of police to resolve these problems. But drug taking and drug abuse are community problems. The community must take charge of these issues. I congratulate the honourable member for Canterbury, Canterbury council and everyone involved in the task force that is looking into this serious issue. I agree with the honourable member for Canterbury. All honourable members should take up this initiative and try to do something about the drug problem in their local areas.

The only way to resolve these issues is to encourage young people to foster peer groups. However, older people must be made aware of these problems. They must understand the issues and assist young people wherever possible. Drug abuse is not an easy matter to come to terms with. We will not find solutions to these problems overnight. We must encourage the establishment of these sorts of task forces that look into all aspects of drug abuse, social justice and health and moral issues. I congratulate the honourable member for Canterbury on bringing this matter to the attention of the Parliament. I hope that all honourable members took note of what he had to say tonight.

OFFICE OF THE PROTECTIVE COMMISSIONER PENSION DEDUCTIONS

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [5.39 p.m.]: Tonight I bring to the attention of the House an issue which concerns many disabled people in my electorate—the practice of the Office of the Protective Commissioner to deduct payments or authorise the deduction of payments from the pensions of handicapped persons and boarding house residents. At present approximately 87 per cent of the invalid or age pension received by these people is paid to boarding house proprietors. A number of residents are subject to the jurisdiction of the Office of the Protective Commissioner, who therefore receives the balance of their pension. The practice of that office, as stated to me, is to pay out of that small amount of the 13 per cent balance further payments to the proprietors of boarding houses for what is termed extra comforts.

There is no investigation by the Office of the Protective Commissioner as to whether the extra benefits are received by the residents of the boarding houses, and the statement given to me by the Central Coast Disability Network in respect of one such boarding house claims that even though payments are made no extra benefits are received by the residents. The Central Coast Disability Network forwarded to me a copy of a letter dated 26 April to the Attorney General. That letter states:

Dear Mr Shaw,

I am writing to bring to your attention the concerns of the Central Coast Disability Network regarding the financial management of funds belonging to boarding house residents managed by the Office of the Protective Commissioner.

As you may be aware the majority of people residing in boarding houses pay at least 87% of their pension to the boarding house proprietors. However it has come to our attention that in addition to taking the majority of the pension, a substantial amount, taken from funds managed by the OPC, is also being given to boarding house owners for the provision of "extra comforts".

At this stage our concerns relate to—

The letter names a boarding house at Green Point in my electorate. It then states: 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5159

although we fear that residents of other boarding houses may be also subject to similar practices.

Based on [our] involvement with … and other boarding houses we see no evidence of additional comforts being provided. In fact based on previous investigations and reports into boarding houses people barely have access to the basic necessities of life such as health and community services let alone any extra comforts.

Boarding house residents represent an isolated and vulnerable group. The fact that they are placed in boarding houses and forgotten further heightens their vulnerability and places them at risk of abuse, exploitation and being manipulated or controlled.

These are serious matters. They have been raised previously with the Attorney General and the Office of the Protective Commissioner. I am aware that a parliamentary inquiry is now examining the practices of the Office of the Protective Commissioner and that legislation has recently been passed by this House to require that investments of the Protective Commissioner be made under the Trustee Act. It remains to be established whether the Office of the Protective Commissioner is acting properly to protect vulnerable residents such as the elderly and the infirm who reside in boarding houses. It may well be argued that the office does not have the resources to do that. However, it is not appropriate for the office to take people's money, in this case their entire pensions. Pensions do no involve a lot of money, but the office should not pay 87 per cent of a pension to the proprietor of the boarding house and then make further payments not authorised by the residents out of the balance of 13 per cent to the proprietor of the boarding house for additional comforts without checking whether those additional comforts are being provided.

If the additional comforts are being provided it may be appropriate to make a payment because, after all, at their stage of life these people are entitled to whatever extra comforts they can get. But if the additional comforts are not being provided and an established organisation such as the Central Coast Disability Network, which represents these people, argues that they are not being provided, surely the Office of the Protective Commissioner has a responsibility to investigate the matter and find out whether the money that belongs to the residents is being properly applied. I ask the Attorney General, through the Parliamentary Secretary, to request the Office of the Protective Commissioner to investigate these serious allegations. I have not named the place because I do not have independent proof of the practice, but I accept the word of the Central Coast Disability Network. It is a long-established organisation which acts as advocate for people in the most difficult circumstances. I hope that anyone with any sense of human compassion would be conscious of our responsibility to make sure that the elderly and infirm receive whatever benefits are available to them without being exploited or ripped off and that their pensions are appropriately looked after.

Mr MARKHAM (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.43 p.m.]: I give the honourable member for Gosford an undertaking to bring this matter to the attention of the Attorney General. People who live in boarding houses are probably the most exploited in our society. Most of them are elderly, single, infirm men who do not understand their rights. Government regulations control the running of boarding houses but there must be a humane response to the needs of these elderly and infirm residents of boarding houses. I have not come across the particular matter raised by the honourable member for Gosford, but I have come across other matters concerning the mistreatment of residents by the owners of boarding houses and the failure to pass on correct information. Perhaps that relates to the matter raised by the honourable member. If the money to which he referred is being collected but is not being used for the correct purpose the culprits should be brought into line.

PINE PARK CARAVAN PARK DISPUTE

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [5.44 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House problems experienced by constituents of mine, Mr and Mrs Hargraves, with what some may call the caravan park from hell and the possible need for legislative reform to address the situation. In December 1998 my constituents commenced to rent a space at the Pine Park Tourist Grounds and Marina in West Street, Greenwell Point, which is often known as the Pine Park Caravan Park. The current annual rental is $1,800, or $450 per quarter. My constituents purchased on the site a 23-foot Viscount caravan with an aluminium annex. It is currently fully furnished. From the time they purchased the caravan and commenced renting the space they went down to the park with their family each school holiday and, on average, three weekends out of four. This was a significant financial and emotional investment by my constituents and a very conscious decision by them as to how they would spend their leisure time. It was, effectively, a second home.

In January this year they fell foul of the owner-manager of the park, whose name is Steve Devett. Following an issue that arose in the park, Mr Devett is alleged to have shouted at Mr Hargraves, "I own this park, I'm the boss here." He threatened to remove Mr Hargraves from the park and said, "I'll fix you up." The matter escalated to the stage where Mr Devett swore at Mr Hargraves and had his fists ready. Mr Devett is 5160 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 described to me as a difficult and bombastic man. Although a physical altercation did not develop, the threat of it on Mr Devett's part was certainly present. However, Mr Devett adopted another and, frankly, more harmful tactic. He told my constituents that they would be barred from the park. In the words of my constituents, they were kicked out of the caravan park, although none of that was in writing. Worse than this, they were also told that although they were barred from using the caravan they would have to keep paying the rental fees of $1,800 per annum until the van was sold to someone else.

Essentially this puts them completely over a barrel. The caravan, while theoretically movable, is a permanent fixture. It is probable that it could not be removed from the site either legally or economically. The other problem is that something like 26 vans are for sale at the moment at the park out of a total of 180. The likelihood of a sale is obviously remote, given those sorts of figures, which may well confirm precisely what my constituents have told me about Mr Devett. My constituents cannot remove the van and it does not look like they can sell it. Yet, they have to keep paying the rental fees for the space although they are not allowed in the park. Obviously, this is a very convenient arrangement for Mr Devett.

My constituents do not wish to keep paying rental fees for a site they cannot use. However, they are frightened to stop because they believe Mr Devett will then seize the caravan and take over the site. This is obviously a profoundly unsatisfactory situation. Even if the blame for this development cannot be laid completely at the feet of Mr Devett, it is obviously inappropriate that there is not a tenancy tribunal of some sort to regulate matters such as this and to resolve similar situations. My constituents have been zealous in pursuing various avenues to obtain redress. They pursued the issue through the Department of Fair Trading, but were told they were not permanent residents; they fell into the category of holidaymakers and thus could not obtain any relief from the department. That may well be the correct legal analysis, but it flies in the face of common sense. To my mind someone who is at the park three weekends out of every four plus during every school holiday clearly has a degree of permanence on the site. As they own the caravan, it seems to me that they are far more than just holidaymakers.

My constituents also approached the tenants service of the Illawarra Legal Centre. The advice from this service confirmed, in essence, the lack of any effective legal remedy. The service advises that both the Residential Parks Act and the Residential Tenancies Act contain provisions that exclude from their legislative operation any premises ordinarily used for holiday purposes. That means people in the position of my constituents have no real avenue of redress before the Residential Tribunal. The alternative is the convoluted, uncertain and expensive course of common law. In a letter to me, John McKenzie of the Illawarra Legal Centre said:

I would like to add that our service regularly receives inquiries from long-term casual residents; often they involve situations where, without just cause, a park owner has advised a resident that they must either sell or remove their premises from the park. It can be extremely difficult to sell such premises and they are expensive to move, especially if the resident had installed bathroom facilities in their rigid annex. Residents, in this situation can face significant financial loss and suffer a great deal of emotional stress, especially when they find that any legal redress is a thorny and risky proposition.

Our service would submit that this is an area of law that needs legislative reform and that both the Residential Parks Act 1998 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 should be amended to protect the rights of long-term casuals who have invested significant money in their premises.

With respect, I believe the analysis of the legal centre is correct. I request the Minister to look at this matter with a view to introducing legislative changes to regulate the situation so that people such as my constituents are not caught in a caravan park from hell.

Mr MARKHAM (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.49 p.m.]: No doubt many honourable members have had similar experiences to that of the honourable member for Liverpool because they have caravan parks in their electorates or people in their electorates often stay in caravan parks. That is especially so on the South Coast, the Central Coast and the North Coast. I have had similar complaints about the way managers and owners of caravan parks ride roughshod over people. As far as the managers are concerned, these people have few rights. The Government should look closely at introducing legislation to protect these people. This issue is similar to the boarding house issue which was raised in an earlier private member's statement. The most vulnerable people in our society cop the most abuse. Surely the honourable member for Liverpool will raise this matter with the Minister for Fair Trading. I can assure him that he has my total support, and that I will raise the matter with the Minister as well. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5161

EDEN-MONARO CANCER SUPPORT GROUP

Mr WEBB (Monaro) [5.50 p.m.]: I draw the attention of honourable members to a recent article in the Queanbeyan Age headed "Residents give over $400,000". The article states that the generous streak of the residents of Queanbeyan and Canberra is alive and kicking, and that as a result five-year-old Millie Hagan of Rivett will get the bone marrow transplant she needs. The ACT Eden-Monaro Cancer Support Group was founded in 1986 by Yvonne Cuschieri in response to the needs of the community in general and children with cancer in particular. The story is regrettable but at the end of the day it is a wonderful success. Over the years that the group has existed it has helped more than 300 families and, more recently, a growing number of adults. The support group is comprised solely of volunteers. As there are no paediatric oncology facilities in the area, young patients must travel to Sydney. Often a family will go to Sydney for one week, only to stay for three or four months or longer. The problems of being away from home soon add up and become a burden on the families of these children.

The cancer support group was set up specifically to help such families with expenses related to travelling to and staying in Sydney, as well as the electricity, gas and other bills that add up and become a burden when people are away from home for extended periods. The group also works closely with doctors, palliative care workers and social workers. It provides outings for people in need. Such outings, that respite from looking after a child with cancer, help a family to overcome its problems. The cancer support group has purchased items such as videos, televisions, recliner chairs, computers, flotation chairs, electrical appliances and more for the Canberra hospital. It has also provided medical and schoolroom items for the Sydney Children's Hospital at Randwick. A flotation chair will also be made available for patients in the Eden Monaro area.

Late last year the cancer support group became aware of the case of five-year-old Millie Hagan from Rivett who enjoys life to the fullest. Unfortunately Millie suffers from a rare immune deficiency called leukocyte adhesion deficiency. It is a debilitating disease—it causes all sorts of problems which I will not detail—and the only cure is a bone marrow transplant. A new technique has been developed in the United States of America and has been trialled in Europe and in America. The campaign to raise $104,000 for Millie's transplant was so successful that the necessary machine and the software to run it will be donated to Sydney Children's Hospital at Randwick for the treatment of other children in New South Wales and, indeed, in Australia. The machine will also be used to carry out this important miltenyi cell separation procedure on adults.

Sydney Children's Hospital at Randwick is a major centre in Australia for this kind of treatment, and it will have a role to play Australiawide. The fundraising campaign raised four times the amount needed for the operation; it raised more than $400,000, although only $104,000 was needed for Millie's transplant. No doubt the cancer support group will use the extra funds to assist many more people. The patrons of the cancer support group are Marty Haynes, a radio announcer on FM 104.7; Mr Paul Osborne, a member of the Legislative Assembly in the Australian Capital Territory; and David Furner, a player for the Canberra Raiders. I am sure honourable members know those people. The support group's office is located in Rutledge Plaza in Queanbeyan. Obviously, the group needs more support and donations in the future. However, this has been a major success story for Millie Hagan.

SYDNEY WATER PENSIONER REBATES

Ms SALIBA (Illawarra) [5.55 p.m.]: I draw the attention of honourable members to a problem that has been affecting vulnerable people in my electorate for some time. The vulnerable people I am talking about are widowed pensioners. Generally, when the man in the family opened a utility account—in this case, with Sydney Water—he gave his pension number. When he passed away Centrelink notified Sydney Water that the person was no longer living, and Sydney Water automatically removed any rebate from that person's account. Unfortunately, these people often leave behind widowed pensioners who, at a most vulnerable time, must fight to retain the rebate on their water bills. This matter was brought to my attention in 1998, when I worked for the former member for Illawarra, by the pension officer for the Dapto-Corrimal sub-branch of the Returned Services League, Doug Rymer. In 1998 a couple of pensioners in the Illawarra received refunds of about $10,000 for rebates removed from water bills to which they were clearly entitled. I can understand Mr Rymer's frustration, because he has been fighting Sydney Water on this issue for some time.

Sydney Water has given a commitment to follow up with phone calls and letters to remaining partners to establish whether they are pensioners who are entitled to the rebate. I understand that this has been happening. However, there seems to be a breakdown in the processing of information. Centrelink, which pays the pensions, does not realise that two people living in the same home may not be partners but when one of them 5162 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 dies the other person automatically receives a pension number. That information should be passed on to Sydney Water. Unfortunately, accounts are often established in one name, and Sydney Water does not know from the information available that a person's partner is entitled to that rebate. I have raised this matter in the House because I hope something can be done to rectify the situation.

As I said, the people involved are mostly elderly women who are not even aware that they are entitled to a rebate. Mr Rymer, who is a longstanding battler on this issue, has spoken to me about the matter on a number of occasions. He asked me to bring it to the attention of honourable members. I have also asked the Minister for Information Technology, Minister for Energy, Minister for Forestry, and Minister for Western Sydney, who is the Minister responsible for Sydney Water, to have investigations carried out to ensure that this practice is not occurring in other regions in which Sydney Water is the major supplier. I thank the House for allowing me the opportunity to raise the matter. I hope that the problem is rectified so that these vulnerable people do not have to continue to fight for their rights and entitlements.

Mr MARKHAM (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.00 p.m.]: I agree with the honourable member for Illawarra that it would not be too difficult for Sydney Water to include in its rate notice to residents information of the type suggested by the honourable member. If a person with a registered pension number dies and that person is survived by a partner Sydney Water would automatically be aware of that because that information could easily be gathered. I can well imagine how a widow would feel if she had to tell Sydney Water that her husband had died and some months after his death she found out that she was up for additional water rates because the rebate that was given to him has been taken away. There must be a better way of informing clients of Sydney Water that if this unfortunate event occurs, such a convoluted process to ensure that Sydney Water is aware of the situation is unnecessary.

REGIONAL PETROL PRICES

Mr McGRANE (Dubbo) [6.02 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the status of petrol pricing in regional New South Wales, especially in the electorate of Dubbo. Earlier this week I attended a meeting with the mayors of Dubbo, Narromine, Parkes and Wellington at which we discussed petrol pricing in the four council areas. We agreed to set up a committee to monitor fuel pricing in our respective council areas. It is a low-key operation. We intend to monitor fuel prices in the respective council areas over a six-month period on a set day each month, collate the figures and present them to the Minister for Fair Trading. At the first meeting of the committee on Monday this week the figures for the first monitoring day were presented. Whilst the price of fuel in regional New South Wales has dropped by 10¢ from its highest point some 2½ months ago, fuel pricing in the different council areas still varies by 6¢ per litre. Given the fact that the freight component to the four council areas in the electorate of Dubbo is similar, a variation of 6¢ per litre is rather high. The fuel cost for freight is approximately 1.5¢ per litre.

In the past there have been many inquiries into fuel pricing throughout Australia. Indeed, some 44 pricing inquiries have been held over a period of years. Whilst we do not wish to reinvent the wheel, we feel that it is necessary to monitor, on an area-by-area basis, fuel pricing that affects us vitally in regional New South Wales. It has often been said that fuel prices are governed by the volume of fuel sold in a given outlet. The figures for the first month of monitoring showed that the lowest fuel consumption occurred in an area that had the lowest fuel price. The figures also showed that distance from Sydney meant nothing because the lowest fuel prices were in the council area that is furthest from Sydney. In a sense our first lot of figures dismissed those two myths; many other factors are involved in the pricing of fuel.

We do not aim to affect the retail outlet of fuel, because we feel that the margin is slim for retail outlet operators. We simply aim to bring together figures that we can present to the Minister in the hope that it will be a positive step towards the implementation of a much fairer fuel pricing system in regional New South Wales. We all know that fuel plays a big part in the domestic budget of everyone who lives in regional Australia. That is especially so in regional New South Wales, where we do not have access to the public transport that our cousins in the city have. Fuel is a large component of every domestic budget. Lower fuel prices are best for all in the community. Today we have heard many positive statements with regard to the cost of telecommunications. Fuel pricing plays a major role in enticing new business development to regional New South Wales. Whilst it is a small effort on the part of the four councils that are monitoring fuel pricing in their areas, we will have provide the figures to the Minister so that he can continue in his endeavours to implement a fairer fuel pricing regime in regional New South Wales. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5163

MERV McFARLANE TRIBUTE

Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [6.05 p.m.]: Merv McFarlane passed away in late February this year. I had known Merv from the time I joined the Revesby Workers Club in the mid-1970s. Merv McFarlane was a comrade, a friend, a devoted husband, a father, a grandfather, and a loyal and compassionate man with strong principles. He was born on 22 June 1924 at West Gosford and was the second youngest of 11 children. Merv had a full and productive life. He was a prolific writer. On 11 December 1941, aged 17, he put up his age and joined the Army. He experienced action fighting fascism in the Middle East, New Guinea and Borneo. He was discharged from the Army on 18 June 1946. No doubt Merv's experience of the horrors and devastation of war made a significant contribution to conditioning his resolve to be a committed supporter and fighter for the preservation of world peace. The difficulties he was subjected to during war no doubt made a significant contribution towards undermining his health later in life. On 9 February 1948 Merv joined the Sydney branch of the Waterside Workers Federation and commenced work on the Sydney waterfront where he remained until his retirement in July 1984 due to voluntary redundancy.

In 1960 the members recognised his leadership qualities and elected him to the executive of the Sydney branch as vice-president. Merv was a wharfie for 36 years, and for 20 of those years he was on the branch executive. He was always in the forefront in the struggles with the employers, the Liberal-Country Party Coalition Federal Government, and the stevedoring industry authority, which controlled the registration and recruitment of labour to the various companies. It would be remiss of me if I did not refer to at least one dispute to give an example of Merv's leadership qualities. During the period of the dispute an Anzac Day public holiday was involved. The employers and the stevedoring authority decided to refuse to pay employees for the holiday. Merv led thousands of wharfies through the streets of Sydney on a deputation to the headquarters of the Returned Services League [RSL] to seek the RSL's support. A substantial number of the members were, of course, returned servicemen. The Anzac Day pay dispute was resolved in their favour.

In major disputes Merv was particularly invaluable, because of his special ability in writing, when there was a need for the production of leaflets and the compilation of speakers' notes. He was an aggressive and able debater at branch executive or stop work meetings, and at the Revesby Workers Club. Merv was a respected, dedicated and sincere member of the union. Two years after his discharge from the Army on 12 June 1948, Merv and his wife, Joan, were married at St Clements, Marrickville, and lived most, if not all, of their married life at Panania in the East Hills electorate. Their love and respect for each other remained for all of their lives together. Merv and Joan were devoted to and proud of their family: their daughters, Vicky and Robin; their husbands, Kevin and Peter; and their grandchildren, Timothy, Joshua, Phil, Laura, Susan and Justin. When Merv spoke, wherever he spoke, he spoke from the heart and said the words he really felt. There was no pretence with Merv. He never attempted to live a lie and be a Mr Nice Guy, but he was always polite and softly spoken, which is sometimes rare in politics and the union movement.

As a delegate or an official of the union, Merv implemented only the policies that had been determined by the membership. For his honesty and sincerity, club members and wharfies loved and respected him. I can remember many occasions when I enjoyed conversations with Merv on the history of the labour movement, the wharfies and the history of the Revesby Workers Club. Merv was the honorary editor of the Revesby Workers Club Journal which was produced every month following the commencement of the club in the early 1960s. In that capacity, Merv always sought to raise social, political and industrial issues that affected workers. He was never deluded by buzz terms such as "even playing field", "stakeholders", and "world's best practice", which he regarded as codes for longer hours, less pay and an inflated profit for bosses. It is also interesting to note that since Merv is no longer the editor, the position has fallen to three people—me, the Federal member for Banks, Daryl Melham, and a former member for East Hills, Pat Rogan.

Mr Markham: That's a good troika.

Mr ASHTON: It is a good troika, as the honourable member for Wollongong rightly observed, but Merv would chuckle over the fact that it has taken three of us to take his place. Even today, while looking down on us, Merv McFarlane would still be confident that the uglier side of capitalism has not been defeated. The recent stock exchange collapses would be an event he could readily have predicted. Just prior to his passing, Merv gave me five volumes of The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglas. Frederick Douglas was a black American writer and former slave. The gesture was typical of Merv's sense of history, and of his generosity. On behalf of members of the Revesby Workers Club and Merv's friends in the East Hills electorate, I place on record our thanks for his extraordinary life and commiserate with his friends and family at his passing. I pay tribute to his lifelong friend Wal Jennings who spoke so eloquently at Merv's funeral service and who provided 5164 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 me with much of Merv's biographical details. In many ways, Merv McFarlane was the type of person who was the heart and soul of the Revesby Workers Club. He saw its membership increase from 250 members to nearly 30,000. Our area is poorer for his passing.

WAGGA WAGGA RADIOTHERAPY CENTRE

Mr MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [6.10 p.m.]: At the outset, I express my gratitude for the extension of time that has been granted to enable me to participate in this debate. On 19 October 1999, I spoke in this House about the importance of a project being undertaken by people who live in Wagga Wagga and surrounding areas. The project involves construction of a radiotherapy and cancer treatment centre at a cost of approximately $3 million. The funds needed to be raised by the community and at that time I reported that in just six weeks the community had raised $500,000. To this date, the community of Wagga Wagga and the surrounding region has raised $1.8 million and a target of $2.2 million has been set for the end of June. On the previous occasion when I spoke in this House, I expressed a need for health programs grant [HPG] funds. The program is an administered by the Federal Government. The honourable member for Canterbury, who was the Parliamentary Secretary at the table on that occasion, responded by wishing me and the community the best of luck in those fundraising efforts and in persuading my Federal colleagues to provide HPG funding.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I report to this House that the HPG has been granted and that the radiotherapy clinic in Wagga Wagga will be funded by the provision of that grant. I acknowledge that the provision of radiotherapy services for Wagga Wagga will be cost neutral to the New South Wales Government and express my thanks to the New South Wales Department of Health and all who assisted in negotiating with the Federal Government for HPG funding to provide the radiotherapy services. Raising $1.8 million in less than 12 months is a magnificent effort for a community. Some of the innovative fundraising ideas that have been put into effect include the construction by the Lions Club of Wagga Wagga, under the presidency of Bob Gnesdiloff, of a house on land that was donated by the Wagga Wagga City Council. The land is valued at $51,000 and was donated to the cause. The house and land are valued at $220,000. The Lions Club of south Wagga Wagga built the house for $10,000.

Currently the south Wagga Wagga Lions Club is conducting an art union throughout New South Wales. I anticipate that an amount between $200,000 and $500,000 will be raised for the cause, which is why I am so confident that the target of $2.2 million will be reached by the end of June. The Australian Hotels Association [AHA] purchased a Ford Falcon utility and has guaranteed a donation of $83,000 to assist in reaching the target. Rotary managed to obtain from AMP Olympics tickets packages that are being raffled throughout the Wagga Wagga region. I am amazed at the innovative ways in which the community has raised the funds. Honourable members may also be aware that the district was the centre of a pass-the-hat-around concert which was given by Lee Kernaghan. It was a magnificent occasion and $100,000 was raised. Between 7,000 and 10,000 people attended the concert. The first sod of the radiotherapy centre is scheduled to be turned in late June. The building will be completed by March 2001 and will begin treating cancer sufferers shortly thereafter. The provision of this facility will alleviate the need for local people to travel to Sydney to receive treatment which is what happens now. Instead, they will be treated in Wagga Wagga. As the honourable members who preceded me in this debate mentioned earlier, the incidence of cancer is indiscriminate. As recently as this afternoon I was speaking to the honourable member for Menai. Tragically, one of her family friends had passed away and she was returning from the funeral. I offered my sincere condolences to the honourable member because, as I said, cancer is indiscriminate. It affects one person in three, which is a very high proportion. In conclusion, I offer my congratulations and thanks to all the people who live in the Wagga Wagga region, including people who live in Griffith, Gundegai, Hay, Hillston and West Wyalong, for their commitment to creating a facility to provide these important services. In March 2001, the radiotherapy centre will begin operating and that will be of great benefit to the health, care and welfare of the people of the Wagga Wagga region. Mr MARKHAM (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.16 p.m.]: The speech made by the honourable member for Wagga Wagga is the second occasion during this debate on which an honourable member has informed the House of the generosity of numerous people who have donated their time to provide cancer research funds and cancer treatment facilities. Most communities throughout New South Wales and the rest of Australia undertake similar projects. For a number of years I have been personally involved with the New South Wales Melanoma Foundation. A couple of weeks ago I attended a race day at Kembla Grange when $25,000 was raised for melanoma research and I was made a patron of the Illawarra branch of the Melanoma Foundation. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5165

It is important for members of Parliament to give credit to constituents who give up their time to raise funds for important research. As the honourable member for Wagga Wagga pointed out, cancer is indiscriminate and takes myriad forms. One never knows whether it might be lurking around the corner, so to speak. I believe that this Parliament should recognise people who give up their time to ensure that funds are available for research and for the provision of facilities to make patient's lives as pleasant as possible during cancer treatment. I congratulate the honourable member for Wagga Wagga on his speech, and the honourable member for Monaro who made a speech in similar vein.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.18 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

ADMISSION OF THE TREASURER INTO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Beamer): I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:

Mr SPEAKER

The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that it agrees to the request of the Legislative Assembly in its message dated 3 May 2000 for the Honourable M. R. Egan, MLC, Treasurer, Minister for State Development and Vice-President of the Executive Council, to attend at the table of the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday 23 May 2000 for the purpose only of giving a speech in relation to the New South Wales Budget 2000/2001.

Legislative Council BRIAN PEZZUTTI

3 May 2000 Deputy President

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bill: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by Mr Iemma agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the resumption of the adjourned second reading debate on the Summary Offences Amendment Bill.

SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 May.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [7.34 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on this bill. The Opposition supports legislation designed to protect memorials to our fallen soldiers and defence personnel. The Opposition agrees with all measures to honour their memory. The sad incidents that have taken place during a number of years, including the defacement of war memorials, are an insult to the memory of those who gave their lives for their country and they reflect poorly on the intelligence of those who perpetrate these outrages. During the past few years there have been a number of incidents, including attacks on the Hyde Park Anzac War Memorial, which was sprayed with graffiti on a number of occasions; an attack on the eve of Remembrance Day on the 80-year- old War Memorial at Waverley Park, where vandals smashed the soldier's hat and rifle on the monument; and a number of attacks on the Kokoda memorial situated on the walkway around the Parramatta River at Concord.

These unfortunate incidents show only a contempt for the memory of those who fell in the service of their country, or who have since died. These are not trivial matters. The Anzac memory is at the heart of Australia's national consciousness. It is an essential part of our history as a people and it is incumbent on all of us to protect that memory and the memorials that later generations have erected to commemorate that memory. All political parties have honoured the Anzac memory and achievements. In recent times the importance of Anzac Day has continued to grow. The eighty-fifth anniversary at Gallipoli was well attended—in fact, more people attended it than attended the seventy-fifth anniversary. It is generally agreed that the number of young people who associate themselves with the Anzac story is increasing, which reflects well on the role of Anzac in our society. The Anzac tradition is intrinsic to our society for a number of reasons. First, it was the baptism of blood of the Australian nation which had been formed in 1901. For the first time Australians were called upon to make 5166 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 sacrifices for what had been a largely legalistic union. Life had not changed much since the colonies. The Federal Government lay lightly on the lives of ordinary people; few services were provided by the Federal Government—there was no taxation and no social security. There was little national consciousness. A national consciousness was forged when people realised that they did not belong to the six individual colonies but they belonged to one nation, and that one nation in alliance with our colleagues across the Tasman Sea in New Zealand was a nation prepared to sacrifice its own people in the service of national principles. The Anzac legend also stands for mateship; for the willingness to lay down one's life for one's country. That is perpetuated in many memorials, a number of which contain the famous text from the gospel according to St John:

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

In fact that is inscribed on the floor at the Hyde Park Anzac War Memorial and on the shrine of remembrance in Melbourne. Other quotations that acknowledge the role of self-sacrifice and service can be found on memorials all over Australia.

It is rare for a single town, village or hamlet in regional or rural New South Wales not to have a centrepiece memorial to those who have fallen in the service of their country. Virtually every suburb has its own memorial. These are the centrepieces each year for the Anzac Day commemoration. The Central Coast has a number of very fine memorials, at Gosford, Terrigal, Woy Woy and The Entrance. As the member for Gosford since 1988, I have always been honoured, in the discharge of my electorate duties, to attend the dawn service at Terrigal Beach and to watch the sun rise over the Pacific Ocean as the service progresses. It is a magnificent sight: gradually, what began in darkness continues in light. What better way to capture the spirit of Anzac, from darkness to light, than to witness the rising sun. The rising sun was the emblem on the slouch hats worn by the Diggers in 1915 when they stormed the beach at Anzac Cove.

I have been honoured also to attend the various memorial services held at 11 o'clock each year at the main war memorial in Gosford. That is always a moving and well-attended service. It reflects well on the community, which comes together in honour of the memories of those who perished. Many schools and retirement villages also have their own war memorials and Anzac Day services. Terrigal Glenn in the Gosford electorate has a memorial and conducts an annual service, which once again is well attended. About 100 people from the retirement village attended the most recent Anzac Day service. Right throughout our national consciousness the memorials symbolise the spirit of Anzac. It is therefore our collective responsibility to ensure that the memorials are honoured and protected from vandalism and displacement. The stated aim of the Summary Offences Amendment Bill is to increase the penalty for the relevant offences. I wish to draw the attention of the House to section 8D of the 1988 Summary Offences Act:

A person shall not wilfully damage or deface any shrines, monument or statue erected in a public place.

The maximum penalty provided under that Act is four penalty units. The amending bill seeks to increase that penalty. Object (a) of the bill states:

to increase the penalty for the offence of damaging or defacing a shrine, monument or statue located in a public place, including a war memorial.

Object (c) of the bill states:

to provide expressly for the application of those offences to the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park, Sydney...

Two legal points arise. First, only last year Parliament passed special legislation, introduced personally by the Premier, to protect the Anzac War Memorial. One wonders why it is now necessary to pass further legislation in the form of the Summary Offences Amendment Bill to expressly provide for the Act to extend to the Anzac War Memorial¾especially as the penalties under the Act were increased only last year. The Opposition does not quibble with this amendment, however it draws the attention of the House to the matter. There is a more significant matter, in respect of which the Opposition will move an amendment in the Legislative Council. It is that the Act provides in section 8 (2):

A person must not wilfully damage or deface any protected place.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

That, on the face of it, appears to be reasonable. However, section 10A on the Summary Offences Act 1988 provides: 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5167

A person must not without reasonable excuse (proof of which lies on the person) wilfully damage or deface any premises or other property by means of spraypaint.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units or imprisonment for six months.

The provision relating to imprisonment for six months for using spraypaint, set out in the 1988 Act, is not replicated in the Summary Offences Amendment Bill in respect of defacement of a war memorial. I have not had the chance to draw this matter to the personal attention of the Minister, but as a courtesy I will do so. I am not sure what the Government's intention is. Let me give the House a simple example. Taking a sledgehammer and smashing a statue—as was done to the statue at Waverley¾carries only a monetary fine under the amending bill. Taking a can of spraypaint and defacing the Waverley war memorial carries a penalty of a fine or a gaol term. That is a clear inconsistency in the Government's a legislative approach to the protection of war memorials.

The Government may well plead that it is increasing the penalty for the offence. But, in effect, it is saying to offenders: "Smash it, and you are okay, but spraypaint a slogan on it and you will go to gaol." The Opposition does not accept that. The Government may have boo-booed, but it has boo-booed badly. Is it not extraordinary that the Government, with all the resources at its disposal, must rely on members of the Opposition to compare two Acts of Parliament. The Government has all these resources available and should get it right. Either that, or the Government is not serious. I believe the Government is serious. I would not stand in this place and say that the Government does not wish to honour the memory of Anzac. I believe it does. But this is a clear inconsistency.

If the Government is not prepared to move an amendment in the Legislative Council, and acknowledge the fact that it was the Opposition that drew attention to this anomaly, the Coalition will move the amendment. I am quite sure that crossbenchers will support Coalition members and that the bill will return to this House with an amendment that the Government accepts. The Returned Services League and every other organisation that has an interest in protecting war memorials knows that it is not enough to put one's faith in the Government because the Government is not all-wise. This discrepancy illustrates that point. This Government is prepared to introduce legislation that would allow an offender to smash a war memorial with a sledgehammer and face only a monetary penalty, but would provide that those who deface a memorial by spraypainting a single slogan would face gaol. Again I draw the attention of honourable members to the discrepancy between section 8 (2) of the Summary Offences Amendment Bill and section 10A (1) of the Summary Offences Act 1988.

We all want to do the right thing to cherish the memory of those who served. The Opposition therefore, while it supports this legislation in principle, will seek to amend it appropriately in the Legislative Council. The Opposition deplores every person who, through feebleness of mind or a sad approach to life, would be prepared to indulge in the desecration of war memorials. The Leader of the Opposition has a special interest in the Kokoda track, having walked in 1997 along the Kokoda track with me and with the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn. She has expressed special concern about the defacement of war memorials which follow the Parramatta River around Concord. Those memorials, a series of tablets illustrating the history of Kokoda, were defaced as recently as last month, and previously were defaced last year.

There exists, and will continue to exist, in our society individuals who are prepared to resort to this form of self-expression. I conclude by asserting that I, with my own personal interest in the history of my country and my own family's record of service in both the First World War and the Second World War, am proud to support legislation that honours the memory of our defence forces who served in all the wars from the Boer War of 1901 to the incidents in East Timor in 1999-2000. The Opposition is pleased to support legislation that will honour the memory of the Anzacs. Having said that, I indicate that the Opposition will be seeking to make an appropriate amendment in the Legislative Council.

Mr BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [7.50 p.m.] The Summary Offences Amendment Bill will increase the penalty for the offence of damaging or defacing public shrines and monuments. I draw to the attention of the honourable member for Gosford the content of the bill. When a shrine, monument or statue in a public place, including a war memorial, is damaged, a person can be ordered to pay an amount by way of compensation to repair or restore the damage caused. The bill provides not only for a fine; there is provision also for compensation to repair or restore the damage caused. Over the years I have visited many such memorials in the electorate of Port Stephens—at Nelson Bay, Tanilba Bay, Mayfield and Raymond Terrace, to name a few.

Recently a Korean memorial was opened in Canberra and on Anzac Day the Prime Minister opened a new memorial at Anzac Cove. I have visited Anzac Cove and I encourage any Australian who has not already 5168 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 done so to visit that hallowed site. One is left in awe at the bravery of those Australian troops. Only two weeks ago, on 16 April, I attended the official opening and dedication of the Captain Clarence Smith Jeffries, VC, and the Private William Matthew Currey, VC, Memorial Wall. I congratulate Sandgate Cemetery Trust, Newcastle council and the RSL sub-branches on their efforts in bringing this project to fruition. This memorial wall, which is located in Sandgate cemetery, is the first memorial wall to honour the service men and women of this country.

Jeffries and Currey, the two Victoria Cross winners from the Newcastle region in World War I, symbolise for the Newcastle region the sacrifices made by all armed forces in the wars in which Australia participated. Captain Clarence Smith Jeffries, VC, of the 34th Australian Infantry Battalion, received a posthumous award for his bravery on 12 October 1917 at Passchendaele, Belgium. Honourable members will recall that 55,000 Australian troops were either killed or wounded at Passchendaele. Any soldiers who were shot at Passchendaele were likely to fall over and drown in the mud. Part of Captain Jeffries' citation reads as follows:

For most conspicuous bravery in attack, when his company was held up by enemy machine-gun from concrete emplacements. Organising a party, he rushed one emplacement, capturing four machine-guns and thirty-five prisoners.

Private William Matthew Currey, VC, who was with the 53rd Australian Infantry Battalion of the Australian Imperial Force, died on 1 September 1918 at Peronne, France. Part of his citation reads:

For most conspicuous bravery and daring in the attack on Peronne on the morning of the 1st September 1918. When the battalion was suffering heavy casualties from a 77mm gun at close range, Private Currey without hesitation rushed under intense machine- gun fire and succeeded in capturing the gun single-handed after killing the entire crew.

Those are the sorts of memories that people associate with memorial walls. The Summary Offences Amendment Bill will enforce a series of fines and consequences for vandals who desecrate those sorts of memorials. This memorial wall was dedicated and opened by two of our three remaining VC holders, Edward Kenna, VC, and Keith Payne, VC. Keith was the last of 96 Australians to be awarded the Victoria Cross. It was a privilege to have met both those gentlemen. No community in Australia has been untouched by war. From the Sudan and Boer wars to our peacekeeping forces, one and a half million personnel have enlisted; nearly 103,000 Australians have been killed, and 226,000 have been wounded. Those are the sorts of memories that Australians have when they visit these memorial walls and shrines on Anzac Day.

Every one of the people who died and every one of the people who were wounded would have had parents, a wife, a husband, a son or a daughter to remember them. Australian society holds the Anzac ideal and the sacrifice made by our troops in the highest regard. Senseless attacks by ignorant vandals will now come at a cost. This legislation will raise the fines for damages to monuments to $2,200 as well as forcing vandals to pay for the full cost of repairs. What goes through the minds of these vandals when they ruin the memory of people like Jeffries, Currey and all those who served, died and were wounded in these wars? This Summary Offences Amendment Bill will go a long way towards redressing the damage done by these vandals. However, at the end of the day one wonders what makes them go down that sort of path. I commend the Summary Offences Amendment Bill.

Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [7.56 p.m.]: I enthusiastically contribute to debate on the Summary Offences Amendment Bill. The bill will clear up an anomaly that has been highlighted in the past. The honourable member for Gosford, who led for the Opposition, raised a point which the Government might well consider. Six months ago legislation was introduced in this House concerning the Anzac Memorial at Hyde Park. We now need to broaden that legislation to encompass penalties for the vandalism that is taking place on other sites. There have been two recent spray paint attacks on the Anzac Memorial at Hyde Park. Tonight honourable members mentioned two further attacks on the Kokoda dedication at Concord and the smashing of Australia's oldest World War I monument at Waverley Park in Sydney's east.

What is happening in society seems to be tied to the graffiti attacks that seem to be prevalent in my East Hills electorate and in parts of the Bankstown area. As I said last September, these attacks have gone beyond what might once have been called youthful expression. Kids seem to be adopting anti-social attitudes to just about anything. A close look at this bill reveals that it will do more than just increase fines for defacing Anzac war memorials throughout New South Wales. The overview of the bill states:

The object of this bill is to amend the Summary Offences Act 1988 so as:

(a) to increase the penalty for the offence of damaging or defacing a shrine, monument or statue located in a public place, including a war memorial, and 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5169

(b) to make it an offence to commit any nuisance or any offensive or indecent act in or on a war memorial located in a public place, and

(c) to provide expressly for the application of those offences to the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park, Sydney, and to any structure and land prescribed by the regulations as a war memorial, and— this is of particular importance—

(d) to enable the court that convicts a person of the offence of damaging or defacing a shrine, monument or statue located in a public place, including a war memorial, to order the person to pay an amount by way of compensation to repair or restore the damage caused.

It is appropriate that we are debating the bill a week and a half after the Anzac Day ceremonies—and I use the word "ceremonies" advisedly—that took place across Australia on 25 April. I am interested in this proposed amendment to the Summary Offences Act because without doubt we have to protect Anzac memorials across New South Wales.

It is amazing to think there are people who feel they should destroy in any way these monuments. The bill also recognises that shrines, monuments or statues in public places might not be war memorials. They might be monuments to Jewish victims or survivors of the Holocaust, to Aboriginal people who have suffered and died, or to those who have contributed to this country. The Queen Victoria monument, not far from this Parliament, could be defaced. It is appropriate that the fines be increased to meet inflation and, most importantly, to acknowledge the community’s abhorrence of vandalism.

Most members enter Parliament with a range of beliefs. I have always held a strong view, perhaps because of the many years I spent as a schoolteacher, about the absolute wastefulness of vandalism. I have never been able to understand how someone feels good about smashing something to the ground and destroying it, whether it be a monument, a school classroom that is burned down, or a toilet block on the sport fields. In East Hills electorate amenities are constantly being destroyed in Fitzpatrick Park on the Georges River by a fellow whom I will not name. I do not want to give him the publicity. No matter how many times the council fixes those amenities this person comes along and destroys them. I am sure—perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can correct me on this—that this measure will enable us to act. The legislation will show the community that we are upping the weight on penalties for people caught vandalising and causing destruction to our public buildings and facilities.

Recently the Government was looking at introducing a range of new penalties for graffiti offences. Some of those penalties will not be put in place until these new laws are in operation. If they do not work well enough there will be much stricter punishment for graffiti vandalism. I would like to see the offenders caught. That is the difficult part, catching those committing the offences. When they are caught, however, the whole weight of the law will be brought down on them and that will attract publicity. Potential offenders may then realise it is not a joke to smash the Kokoda monument at Concord or other war memorials or destroy gravestones in cemeteries. Anyone caught engaging in such behaviour will face a $2,200 fine and will be asked to make proper restitution.

The damage done by destruction of a shrine, monument or an Anzac memorial cannot be undone by a $2,000 fine. Those monuments are sacrosanct, and if they are smashed their history is destroyed. The edifice can be rebuilt and the names of the soldiers, victims or others who have served this country or died in war or made some other contribution can be chiseled in, but the damage has been done, the original monument has been destroyed. It is appropriate that the bill be brought into line with the Government’s action last year after damage was done to the Hyde Park memorial in the centre of Sydney.

War memorials have pride of place in country towns and are of deep importance to the local communities. I am sure all members got up at 3.30 a.m. or earlier to attend the round of dawn services on Anzac Day. One makes that commitment on that great and proud occasion, Anzac Day. It is beyond me to understand how people think it is fun to vandalise our monuments. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the Vietnam War was raging at its worst and community opposition to it was strong, Anzac Day was starting to suffer. We were in an unpopular war.

These days large numbers of young Australians go to Gallipoli and are welcomed by the Turkish Government and people. They are not seen as invaders but as visitors respecting their ancestors—a very important feature of Turkish culture. In Australia I was able to attend Anzac Day ceremonies at various schools. Those ceremonies ranged from the principal or the head teacher of history saying a few words the day before the 5170 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

Anzac Day holiday to a function at my old school. Each year at that event a different level of quality has been added to the service. This year it involved a coffin, a bier, with an Australian flag on it. The kids run the whole ceremony, and it is great.

This legislation is an appropriate measure. I congratulate the Premier and the Parliamentary Secretary on bringing the bill before Parliament. I thank the Opposition for its support. If the Opposition moves amendments to impose a gaol penalty, that will be discussed and examined in another place. The bill is a message that those who vandalise Anzac memorials, religious shrines, Burke and Wills monuments, or any public place of remembrance will be heavily fined and will also have to make some restitution and pay for the damage caused. I am not one who likes to wave big sticks at people, but I hope that the offenders are caught and brought before the courts where they will have their brief minute of notoriety. When they have to pay thousands of dollars for what they have done the message will finally get through to them that the community abhors destruction of memorials, shrines and public monuments in New South Wales.

Mr COLLIER (Miranda) [8.07 p.m.]: I support the Summary Offences (Amendment) Bill. In September last year the Government responded to community concerns about acts of vandalism perpetrated against the Anzac Memorial by the introduction of the Anzac Memorial Building (Amendment) Act. That Act increased the maximum penalty for damaging that memorial to $2,200. The object of this bill is to bring penalties for offences committed against our shrines, monuments and statues, including war memorials, into line with those provided by the Anzac Memorial Building Act. On 22 April I had the honour of laying a wreath at the Cenotaph on behalf of the New South Wales Government. The annual service commemorated not just the battle of Kapyong in the Korean War but acknowledged all those who served in war and peacekeeping operations from 1945 onwards.

Three days later I was privileged to attend the Anzac dawn service at a much smaller war memorial in Seymour Shaw Park in Miranda, a suburb in my electorate. Both services were deeply moving. Whether the memorials or monuments are large or small, located in the centre of Sydney, in a country town or in one of our suburbs, the monuments that commemorate our fallen and their sacrifice are sacred. It makes good sense that the penalties for acts committed against our shrines, our monuments and war memorials apply right across the board. Our shrines, monuments and war memorials should be protected, and this bill will go a long way towards achieving that. Indeed, the bill classifies shrines, monuments and war memorials as protected places.

I refer again to the Anzac dawn service in Miranda. I take this opportunity to commend Mr Cliff Raatz, President of the Miranda RSL sub-branch, members of the sub-branch and all those who took part in the service this year for making it such a memorable and moving ceremony. The ceremony at Miranda last year was just as moving and memorable. This year more than 1,000 people gathered at the shrine under threatening, dark skies to acknowledge the sacrifices of the Anzacs and those who served in World War I, World War II, Korea, Malaya, Borneo, Vietnam, the Gulf War, East Timor and other United Nations peacekeeping operations.

The service was very spiritual and the ceremony was deeply moving. However, there was something special about the service that gave it almost a religious significance. It is difficult to describe this quality unless one was there. Just before the ceremony began, just as dawn began to break, the dark, overcast sky began to clear and the clouds parted in the formation of a cross. I thought I was seeing things but I certainly was not, because a camera man from the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader snapped a photograph as the clouds parted and as dawn broke through the clouds to form a cross above that memorial to the east. That photograph appeared on the front page of the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader under the words "The cross of Anzac". It was a deeply spiritual, emotional and appropriate thing to occur on that occasion. Those who saw the formation of the cross could not help but be moved. The service was also uniquely Australian, as was the service last year. Last year as the dawn broke we were greeted with a chorus of kookaburras; this year there were no kookaburras but we had a flight of lorikeets over the war memorial. I was reminded of the importance of this gathering place as a monument to our fallen. It reminds us that the spirits of those who served live on. They live on in the young, including the many young people who were gathered around the memorial. This small symbol near Seymour Shaw Park in Miranda is also a symbol of our heritage. Our monuments should be protected. The bill will go some way to achieving that by increasing the penalty for the offence of damaging or defacing a shrine or monument, including a war memorial, to $2,200. The bill makes it an offence to commit any nuisance or any offensive or indecent act in or on a war memorial, and provides for a penalty of $1,100. The bill also enables the court, upon conviction of a person for the offence of damaging or defacing a shrine, monument or statue in a public place, including a war memorial, to order the person to pay an amount by way of compensation to repair or restore the damage caused. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5171

It is always open to the police—this is in response to concerns raised by the honourable member for Gosford—to charge the perpetrator of an act of vandalism on a war memorial or, indeed, any other public structure, with malicious damage under the Crimes Act, which carries a gaol term. Damaging our war memorials is not only criminal; it is unAustralian. Those who damage our war memorials are simply the lowest of the low. The irony is that mongrels who do this perhaps forget that long ago in some far-off distant place one of their ancestors, whether a male or a female, fought and died for something in which he or she believed. Perhaps they can reflect on that when they repair the damage they cause to one of our sacred shrines. I support the bill.

Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.15 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I support this bill, the purpose of which is to amend the Summary Offences Act to make offences under section 8 of that Act more consistent with the existing legislation protecting the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park, Sydney. In September last year the Government responded swiftly and forcefully to community concerns about a number of acts of vandalism perpetrated against the Anzac Memorial, one of Australia's most significant commemorative sites. At that time the Premier introduced the Anzac Memorial (Building) Amendment Bill to give greater protection to the Anzac Memorial from defacement or damage. At that time the Premier said:

The message we send to veterans today and all Australians with an interest in their history is that we will continue to take all reasonable measures to protect this memorial, which commemorates the sacrifice of thousands. It must be protected.

This bill amends the Summary Offences Act 1988 to increase the penalty for the offence of damaging or defacing a shrine, monument or statue in a public place, including a war memorial; to make it an offence to commit any nuisance or any offensive or indecent act in or on a war memorial in a public place; to provide expressly for the application of those offence provisions to the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park, Sydney, and to any structure and land prescribed by the regulations as a war memorial; and to enable the court that convicts a person of the offence of damaging or defacing a shrine, monument or statue in a public place, including a war memorial, to order that person to pay an amount by way of compensation to repair or to restore the damage caused by that person.

The bill also contains a compensation provision. Offenders will be required to pay compensation, in addition to any penalty imposed for the offence, so that the person is directly responsible for his or her destructive action. I welcome that provision because I think it will have a strong deterrent effect on potential offenders. This bill will be well received by the members of the RSL sub-branches in my electorate. Recently I met with Arthur Kiernan of the Canley Heights RSL sub-branch who expressed genuine concern about the condition of the rotunda in Cabravale Park. The rotunda is a monument that acknowledges the names of those from my local community who were struck down in war. It is also the site of Anzac Day services every year for the Cabravale returned servicemen's club.

Mr Kiernan was concerned that the rotunda was being damaged by the misuse and wilful actions of people primarily involved in drug use. He felt that this was grossly disrespectful to the memory of the people whom the memorial was intended to honour. I responded to Mr Kiernan's concerns by speaking directly with the council, in particular the Deputy Mayor of Fairfield City Council, Councillor Bob Watkins, to ensure that council park rangers will take appropriate action to move on immediately people who are causing damage to the rotunda. However, more substantive action is required. I believe the bill will go a long way to achieving that objective because it contains that deterrent provision.

One of the issues that Mr Kiernan raised with me was the fact that he liked the idea that the rotunda was available for public use, that it was community property. He said that he certainly did not want to see the rotunda fenced off for its protection. We must acknowledge that memorials not only are public property; they are a physical reminder of the personal bravery of individuals and their sacrifice. They are also a reminder of the impact that that sacrifice has had on families and local communities. For that reason memorials require much greater protection than is afforded to other public property by council by-laws.

The honourable member for East Hills raised an interesting point that reflects the change in community attitude to the existence of war memorials, and the way they are treated and acknowledged within our local community. It reminded me that when I was in year 11 at high school a history teacher went to great lengths to dissuade the students in my class from attending an Anzac memorial service that was to be held at the school, because he wanted the students to consider that such services were a commemoration of war. My class in fact did not attend the Anzac memorial service. It is something that I now recall as having been a great shame, but I guess that is part of the learning experience. 5172 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

There has been a great shift in community attitude from acknowledging a remembrance service for those who have fallen in battle as a suitable acknowledgement of their sacrifice to the next step—what I regard as a political step—of it being a celebration of war. This bill reflects that change in attitude. It is a fact that young people are attending Anzac memorial services in increasing numbers and taking them very seriously. We are no longer left with the legacy of the 1960s protest movement. We can embrace dates in our calendar and also memorials in our community and acknowledge their impact on individuals, and also the sacrifice of individuals and families.

This bill demonstrates that we are not only in step with community attitude but also with attitudes around the world to the situation with regard to the desecration of war memorials. I noticed in today's Daily Telegraph—that journal of great record—a photograph of Winston Churchill with a piece of turf over his head and blood dripping from his mouth. Apparently, it was intended as a political protest by anarchists, but in fact it has generated outrage in London generally as the desecration of a significant memorial. As we speak there is certainly a call in England to punish the perpetrators of what can only be described as a gross act of disrespect.

This Parliament is certainly in step with community attitudes not only in New South Wales and Australia generally but also worldwide. I congratulate the honourable member for Heathcote, the Parliamentary Secretary who is in the Chamber, on introducing the bill. I believe it is important for future generations to understand the respect that memorials should engender within us and that they represent a record of history. I am also pleased to welcome the announcement made by the Premier earlier this week that the Department of Local Government, together with local councils, will undertake a survey to record the number of memorials that exist so that we have an important historical document that charters not only where the memorials are and what they represent but also their impact on local communities. I am sure that that survey will be welcomed not only by the RSL and the Diggers themselves but also by local communities that have erected monuments and shrines for other purposes.

The bill is an important step forward. I urge all local councils to participate fully in its implementation, because it is an important part of our history. It also provides an opportunity to assess the degree of cultural diversification that is taking place with regard to monuments in the local community. That is particularly true with regard to the electorate of Cabramatta. It is a real pleasure for me to be able to attend the Anzac Day services in my electorate. They give a clear indication of the degree of sensitivity with which the Anzac Day service is received not only by Australians of Anglo- Celtic background but by migrant Australians who now call Australia home. It is quite touching to see the Diggers and the pipe bands assembled on Anzac Day. At the same time that we acknowledge our fallen, there are Chinese migrants in the park practising their Tai Chi. As a mark of respect, they stop while the service is conducted. The rotunda to which I referred provides a sense of social and historical cohesion to the Anglo-Celtic community in which the entire community of Cabramatta is united, and for that reason it is worthy of our respect and protection.

Mr WEBB (Monaro) [8.26 p.m.]: I have pleasure in speaking twice in the one day in this House about matters Anzac and matters that are significantly important to all of us. I congratulate the Government on introducing this bill and following up on the previous legislation to protect these very valuable shrines, memorials and monuments that signify our past. I am well aware of the difficulty that memorial committees have had matching prior commitments in relation to gold lettering, whether to use rock or brass, and the significant costs involved in establishing memorials that commemorate commitment to Australia's past. A lot of work goes into researching and obtaining the names of people who not only signed up and served for Australia but perhaps also laid down their lives for our country. It is a great shame to have this work wasted and ruined by some vandal who comes along and wantonly destroys these valuable memorials, either through graffiti or with a sledgehammer or other implement. Like other members who have spoken before me tonight, I too attended Anzac Day services just a week ago where there were record crowds. I feel that we have come a long way since the moratoriums of the 1960s. I believe that nowadays young people have an increasing awareness of the importance of such monuments. There are now mechanisms in our society whereby communities, including young people, are learning about the heritage and history of those who served for their country and of theatres of war where people lost their lives. Earlier today I spoke about the fact that Australia's society is built upon the Anzac ethos. I suppose a comparison is the Man from Snowy River scenario that many of us would have seen at the Royal Easter Show this year, the Simpson statue at the War Memorial in Canberra, and the valuable community work that was carried out in Gallipoli. We need to value that commitment. We need to educate the younger members of our society to value the input of seniors and war veterans—indeed, all of those who have made sacrifices either at home or abroad for their countrymen—in protecting our democracy. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5173

The sentiments underlying this bill are directed towards preventing the destroying or damaging of our memorials and shrines by desecration and wanton vandalism. The definitions contained in the bill are very important. The objects that this legislation is directed toward protecting are not limited by those definitions. Legislation of this type is of great assistance in promoting the cause of preservation, which is the subject of the bill.

In common with the honourable member for Gosford, I believe it is important for this legislation to be examined at some time in the future to provide an opportunity for honourable members to consider ways in which offenders can make amends other than by the payment of fines. It is all very well to make a person pay for the damage that has been caused. However, the damage may well be beyond the comprehension of many people, whereas the threat of a prison sentence, a severe fine or some other penalty may be a more effective deterrent. Valuable memorials should be protected for the sake of the community because they underpin the traditions and values of our society. It is equally important to provide significant penalties and effective deterrents to deal with people who choose to wantonly and ignorantly destroy symbols of sacrifice and selflessness that are dear to the hearts of the Australian people.

When the honourable member for Blacktown brought his matter of public importance before this House earlier today, he referred to stories that emerge from historical episodes such as Gallipoli. He referred to the heroism of the Australian Light Horse Brigade at Beersheba, Jerusalem, Jericho and during the Boer War. Recently the captain of HMAS Melbourne told me some stories related to Australia's peacekeeping role in the Gulf War which involved the continuous threat posed by military aircraft and the sporadic threat of gunfire. Obviously, as a result of Australia's peacekeeping force in East Timor, where Australia played a significant role, the number of such stories will increase.

I believe that part of the reason for the desecration of memorials is that today's youth find it impossible to look into the past. Perhaps mature-aged people should be somewhat sympathetic towards young people who, because of their youth, have a limited ability to appreciate the past. The vision of young people of their world is the most important thing in their lives. I have found, and I am sure that other honourable members would agree with me, that as young people mature and learn the stories of the past, they eventually gain an appreciation at first hand of the importance of the role played by our forefathers in protecting their families, their countrymen and their nation for the sake of world peace. It is important to educate young people in our society to bear in mind that valued past, and the Anzac tradition is a good way of doing that. It is a significant factor in Australia's history. At every stage, that past should be valued and the young people of Australia should be educated to appreciate the importance of it.

East Timor is an example of what could happen. God forbid that military conflict should ever occur in Australia, but it could be necessary at any time to seek support from young men and women by means of national service. Young people may be asked to volunteer to protect the very symbols and memorials that have become so dear to the hearts of Australian people. The bill goes some way towards providing protection for monuments, shrines and other sites that record the significant value placed upon peace and the wellbeing of fellow countrymen by generations past. It is also important, as other honourable members have observed during this debate, for governments to provide a mechanism for the surveillance and apprehension of vandals. The courts should be given the power they need to impose penalties that will represent an effective deterrent and educate young offenders so that they appreciate the significance of memorials to the community and the values those memorials symbolise. Perhaps more importantly, governments should devise ways of educating young people about the costs to the community of the terrible actions of vandalising and desecrating memorials.

Ms ANDREWS (Peats) [8.34 p.m.]: The Summary Offences Amendment Bill is an important bill. It is fitting that, having recently commemorated Anzac Day 2000, this legislation is now under consideration by the House. I point out to the House that I am the fifth speaker from the Government side of the House to address this important bill whereas only two members of the Opposition have participated in the debate. In the eyes of most Australians, using graffiti on or vandalising any shrine, monument or public statue, including a war memorial, is equivalent to sacrilege. After all, those structures were erected only after a great deal of serious consideration had been given by the appropriate authorities to the commemoration of significant events or the extraordinary feats of a person or persons who may not necessarily have served in Australia's armed forces, as the honourable member for East Hills has already pointed out to the House, but who have nevertheless contributed much to their local communities. Therefore, the vandalising or defacing of memorials is regarded as a low and mean act. 5174 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

When the outstanding and historic Anzac Memorial which is situated in Hyde Park was defaced last year, all decent-minded people were mortally offended, not merely because an important memorial had become a victim of wanton vandalism but because of the thought that the great Anzac tradition had been offended in such a cheap and shoddy way. There was public outrage, and rightly so, because the famous Sydney Anzac Memorial—indeed, all war memorials located in thousands of cities and towns throughout New South Wales— are poignant reminders of the tremendous sacrifices that Australian men and women made during the various campaigns in which our country has participated over the years.

No matter where one travels throughout this State, one will find a war memorial. In my electorate of Peats, there is, of course, a substantial memorial along the waterfront at Woy Woy as well as memorials at Mangrove Mountain and at other locations including the rather small village of Patonga. The presence of so many war memorials throughout this State demonstrates clearly the depth of feeling that people have for all who served during the various campaigns. The Government is to be commended for introducing the Summary Offences (Amendment) Bill and I am sure that it has the support of the vast majority of the citizens of this State, including young citizens who demonstrated once again on Anzac Day that the Anzac spirit is alive and well in the year 2000.

Towards the end of last year, it gave me great pleasure to present to a young year 9 student of Gosford High School, which is located within the Peats electorate, a State flag to be presented to the Turkish Government on behalf of the State of New South Wales. The student, Laura Grumley, displays a maturity far beyond her 15 years. She won the 1999 Simpson Prize for New South Wales for her essay on how the meaning of the spirit of Anzac lives on today. The Simpson Prize annual essay competition honours John Simpson Kirkpatrick, who has come to symbolise the Anzac spirit. Honourable members on both sides of the House are, I am sure, familiar with the famous World War I story of Simpson and his donkey.

Laura, who presented herself so very well on national television during a live broadcast from Anzac Cove on this year's Anzac Day, paid tribute to the camaraderie, generosity of spirit, selflessness and amazing bravery of the Australian and New Zealand forces who sacrificed so much in the name of freedom 85 years ago. It was to Laura's great credit—for I often feel that this is an important part of Australia's war history—that she included in her essay the brave deeds and sacrifices made by the many nurses who left Australia's shores and sailed to far-off foreign lands to attend to the sick and dying from the Gallipoli battlefields. One of those nurses was Sister Alice Kitchen, who featured in Laura's essay, part of which was based on historian C. E. W. Bean's account of the Gallipoli campaign.

The efforts of the first Anzacs were certainly not in vain. This is apparent when one sees the large numbers of Australians of all ages who commemorate Anzac Day by attending dawn services and various other commemorative services in the period prior to Anzac Day and on Anzac Day itself, not to mention the large numbers who turn out to watch Anzac Day marches that are held throughout the State. It is also pleasing to see the increase in the number of young people who participate in the marches, proudly wearing the medals of their grandfathers or fathers who have now passed on. Our concern to protect war memorials must, however, extend to those who are left: I mean, of course, war veterans, their spouses and war widows. Throughout Australia, 4,000 war widows are denied access to war widows pensions because of a loophole in Federal Government legislation.

On 27 April at the Ettalong Beach War Memorial Club I joined my parliamentary colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary for Health, the honourable member for Heathcote, in progressing the Government's fight to bring justice and equity to war widows, ex-service men and women and their spouses. We owe a big debt of gratitude to these remarkable war widows. Many of them were unfortunate enough to lose their husbands in wartime and, in the main, it was left to them to bring up their families single-handedly. Others nursed husbands who were either physically or psychologically damaged, and in a number of cases both physically and psychologically affected by the traumas of war. In addition many raised families, and that task was certainly far from easy. Those brave women deserve to be well looked after by the Federal Government so that they can spend their remaining years in the comfort they deserve after rendering heroic service to their country.

It is interesting to note that the United Kingdom Government pays pensions to all war widows, regardless of their current marital status. Under Commonwealth legislation, war widows who remarried before 1984 lost their eligibility for the war widows pension. The saving to the Government from that ruling was a paltry $18 million per year. That amount is but a small drop in the ocean when compared with the overall yearly expenditure by the Federal Government of billions of dollars. I pledge my continued support to the campaign by 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5175 the honourable member for Heathcote for the rights of war widows, veterans and their families. Further, I congratulate him on fighting for tough penalties for people who attack war memorials and on securing stamp duty concessions for disabled veterans who purchase motor vehicles. The defacing of a large or small war memorial, whether it is located in a large city or in a small regional or country town, is an outrageous insult not only to war veterans, war widows and their families but to all fair-minded Australians.

It is sad that there is a need for legislation of this nature to provide penalties under the Summary Offences Act 1988 for those who damage shrines and public monuments which are consistent with those provided for in the recently amended Anzac Memorial (Building) Act. The maximum penalty will be increased from the current four penalty units to 20 penalty points, that is, from $440 to $2,200. An important aspect of the proposed legislation is that it will enable the court convicting a person of the offence of damaging or defacing a shrine, monument or statue in a public place, including a war memorial, to order that person to pay an amount by way of compensation or to redress the damage caused. I believe that reflects the feeling of the general community: if somebody offends, they will pay accordingly. It is all very well for people to say that offenders should be sentenced to gaol but I believe the general community will be far more satisfied if the offender is made to clean up the damage or pay for it. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs GRUSOVIN (Heffron) [8.43 p.m.]: I support the Summary Offences Amendment Bill. It is a great shame that we have to debate this matter. It is hard to understand why members of our society are prepared to deface monuments that commemorate the brave actions of selfless citizens who in so many cases gave their lives for their country and for the society we enjoy today. The bill provides that penalties for damages to shrines and public monuments in the Summary Offences Act 1988 will be consistent with those set out in the recently amended Anzac Memorial (Building) Act. In September last year the Government responded to community concerns about acts of vandalism perpetrated against the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park by introducing the Anzac Memorial (Building) Amendment Act. The maximum penalties for breaches of various by-laws under the Anzac Memorial (Building) Act and, in particular, the maximum penalty for damaging memorials is increased from four to 20 penalty units—that is, an increase from $440 to $2,200.

Currently part 8 of the Summary Offences Act provides that it is an offence to damage or deface any shrine, monument or public statue. However, at present the maximum penalty under that Act stands at only four penalty points. The bill increases the penalties for the offences of damaging or defacing a shrine, monument or statue in a public place, including a war memorial, and will make it an offence to commit any offensive or indecent act in or on a war memorial. It provides expressly for the application of those offences to the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park, Sydney, and to any structure and land prescribed by the regulations as a war memorial. It will enable a court that convicts a person of the offence of damaging or defacing a shrine, monument or statue located in a public place, including a war memorial, to order that person to pay an amount by way of compensation to repair or restore the damage caused.

As I have already said, it is hard to understand why people in our society desecrate memorials that are of such importance in our community. One would hope that in most cases there is a lack of comprehension of the actions being taken and a failure to understand the importance of history. The increase in the number of desecrations in the past years is a matter of great concern. In November 1988 there was public outrage when the 80-year-old war memorial at Waverley Park was desecrated. It was vandalised by young people only two days before Remembrance Day on 11 November. When council staff arrived at the park they found that parts of the life-size soldier's slouch hat and rifle had been completely smashed off. It is a wonderful statue some three metres tall which stands next to Waverley Council Chambers. It has been there for some 80 years.

Members of the Returned Services League and everyone else within our community were outraged. Council had a difficult task to try to find a stonemason to repair it for the Remembrance Day ceremony. It was one of the first monuments built after the First World War and was unveiled in December 1918, less than one month after the armistice. Unfortunately, it was not the first time it had been attacked. A year earlier it was attacked but the most recent assault was the worst. It is interesting to note that in 1918 an employee of Bondi tramways, Charles Wood, gave the extraordinary amount of £1,400 to have the statue built. That assault came only seven months after the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park was spray painted by vandals. These attacks are very disturbing. In 1999 the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park was badly defiled by graffiti. Police estimated the cost of the damage at some $20,000. On 11 March 1999 spray cans were dumped near Sydney's Anzac Memorial. They were the only clue left after a graffiti attack that monument workers branded as mindless and moronic vandalism. 5176 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

In the Illawarra there were two attacks on the Corrimal war memorial in a period of less than two years. The Government is to be congratulated because, as a result of the pleas of the honourable member for Wollongong made to the Government to repair the desecration, the Premier immediately provided a $1,000 grant to enable the clean-up operation to proceed. In September 1999 vandals attempted to destroy the Sydney war memorial at Concord. A prominent station on the Kokoda track memorial walkway near Concord hospital was almost completely written off, according to the RSL State President, Rusty Priest. It seems that vandals had taken a sledgehammer and a spike to the monument, and the granite tiles on it had also been broken. The repair bill ran into thousands of dollars. In January this year there was a second attack on the Corrimal war memorial.

In conclusion, I congratulate the honourable member for Heathcote on his commitment and on the work that he has successfully undertaken to ensure that our memorials are better protected. Education plays a very important role in our community to make people, particularly young people, better understand the value of these memorials and their sacredness. I know that the honourable member for Heathcote has been untiring and unceasing in speaking out publicly to give the community a better understanding of the price that has been paid by many of our citizens over many years in leaving their country, taking on burdens and in many instances laying down their lives on foreign soil. Those who have returned have not come back without unwelcome baggage; they still carry in their everyday lives the burdens of war. We should be enormously grateful to them. I am very pleased that the Government is taking this action. I know that the RSL and many relatives of our returned servicemen are very pleased that the Government is showing its determination to afford more protection to our memorials.

Ms SEATON (Southern Highlands) [8.52 p.m.]: As honourable members have said in many different ways, it is very hard to imagine a more serious and devastating act of vandalism than the defacement of war memorials in this State and around the country. Anyone who saw the footage from Anzac Cove on Anzac Day would have been extremely optimistic and heartened by the thousands of young people from Australia and New Zealand who made the pilgrimage to Anzac Cove to remember grandparents, parents, families and loved ones. Many of the young people would not have met the family members. As I looked at those pictures I felt a great sense of optimism that the Anzac tradition would continue forever. I watched on as a person whose great uncle landed at Gallipoli along with all the other young men, whose grandfather was in Palestine with the Australian Light Horse, and whose father served in Korea. I, along with everyone in this Chamber, take seriously our duties on Anzac Day to ensure that all of those people are remembered for the sacrifice they made for our freedom.

Honourable members have spoken in the Chamber tonight about examples of local monuments and memorials that have been vandalised. It is with sadness that I report two examples of that in my own local area. The first involves the new Vietnam memorial at Cherry Tree Walk in Bowral. This memorial resulted from a vision of a very special woman in our community called Effie Kerr and a committee that she created. It was a council committee of Vietnam veterans and other community members along with people interested in landscapes and gardens. She brought them all together to create a missing item in our national landscape of monuments. Apart from the Canberra monument, she believed that no other monument encapsulated a fitting tribute to all Australians who died in Vietnam. It was her vision to create that monument in Bowral. She made it happen.

The memorial is absolutely wonderful. It is a combination of built structures and landscaping. It has three black granite monoliths arranged in a particular fashion along the edge of the Mittagong Rivulet, with a pathway of 508 cherry trees, all of which have been donated by sponsors and families and looked after by people from the committee and the community. The 508 cherry trees have not yet all been planted; they are still being planted as sponsors and mature-age trees are found. There have been constant problems for the past two years. Every time the Cherry Tree Walk Committee plants a number of cherry trees and dedicates them, vandals remove the trees. This repair work is something that Effie and the committee have been very careful not to highlight in order to minimise the risk of anyone who might consider copycat behaviour.

Effie Kerr has had enormous difficulty in trying to ensure that all of the trees that are bought, planted and dedicated for each of the Australians who failed to return actually survive to maturity. Worse than that was an incident that occurred just after the dedication of the memorial by Admiral Barrie in a ceremony that involved everyone in the community and a march by the Vietnam Veterans Association attended by people from the Central Coast and Sydney, and many Vietnam veterans in the local and surrounding community. Not long after a ceremony involving Admiral Barry, the honourable member for Macarthur, the Hon. John Fahey, the honourable member for Gilmore, Ms Joanna Gash, and representatives of all the local government areas, the monuments themselves were damaged. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5177

That left the whole of our community in shock. I am glad to say that the damage has been repaired, but the event left a very bitter taste in the mouths of many people. After all of the hard work that had been done, and all of the sentiment involved in honouring those who did not return from Vietnam, we thought, "There has got to be a better way. There must be, first of all, a better way to penalise those who commit these acts, and there must also be a way to send a strong message that this is completely unacceptable behaviour."

A second example I would highlight is the work of the Hilltop Memorial Committee, which recently addressed what was a deficit in Hilltop: a major memorial to be the focus on Anzac Day ceremonies in that village. The committee worked very hard. It built a wall to which are affixed plaques commemorating every single action in which Australians have been involved since the Boer War. In Hilltop itself are many veterans of the Vietnam War as well as World War I and World War II. The Hilltop monument was completed with the help of a small Federal grant, considerable local sponsorship, and donations from families and businesses. The slightly curved wall, about eight feet in height, is magnificent.

I particularly note the work of the Baker family, the Martyn family and Cliff and Sharnie Reeve. Mrs Sharnie Reeve is the patron of the Hilltop memorial. The wall, once built, was dedicated in a service some months ago attended by the Hon. John Fahey, a service that I had the pleasure of attending. Everyone was looking forward to the inaugural Anzac Day service at this wall. Hilltop has held memorial services at other places in the village in the past, but this was the first year that the wall would be available for the Anzac Day service. Sadly, in the lead-up to that service the wall was damaged by vandalism. Through the hard work of the committee that wall was cleaned and spruced up and no-one would have known the difference on Anzac Day. I am glad that that was the case.

We should not have to worry about the security of memorials of this sort anywhere in New South Wales. We must send strong messages to those few people—and I think it is only a few people—who contemplate that sort of activity. Going back to the images that we saw in recent times at Anzac Cove and at Anzac Day memorial services, all those crowds are swelling, particularly with young people. Finally, I mention also how important it is that we recognise and take the opportunity to visit the newly created Korean national war memorial in Canberra, which has been the result of work by a hard-working committee led by Admiral Crawford. On 18 April I was privileged to attend the dedication of that memorial by the Governor-General and the Prime Minister.

Thousands of family members, friends of Australians and people from other United Nations countries who served in Korea attended that dedication. It is a magnificent memorial. Anyone who has not yet had a chance to see it should do so. I commend the Government for at least attempting to address the vandalism that plagues many of our communities and many of our war memorials, whether they be large or small. It is a shame that it has taken so long for this legislation to reach us but I am glad that it is finally being debated. Some concerns about this legislation were expressed by the shadow Attorney General, the honourable member for Gosford, but this legislation is a step in the right direction. I hope that, through this legislation, we see an end to the vandalism of our Anzac Day monuments.

Mr PRICE (Maitland) [9.01 p.m.]: I support the Summary Offences Amendment Bill. I, too, congratulate the honourable member for Heathcote, the Parliamentary Secretary who is in the Chamber, for his input into this legislation. We must recognise the sacredness of our war memorials. As I now represent a country electorate I have taken particular note of the number of memorials in that electorate. Almost every country town and village, every school of arts, every school fence, anything that predates 1916 and which is of public significance in my electorate, seems to have some connection to a war memorial. It does not matter whether it is Maitland Town Hall with its memorial above the main entrance to the hall commemorating people who attended and fought in the Boer War; the Hinton Public School gates with its two long memorial tablets; or the stand- alone Wallalong War Memorial with a village on each side of it. The list goes on.

There are a tremendous number of war memorials in my electorate and I am sure I have not discovered them all at this stage. There are forms of vandalism other than those about which we are concerned tonight. I acknowledge the deep sadness of the community at the vandalisation of our major war memorials. But we have a vandalism of another kind as well: that is, the vandalism of neglect. A number of churches that are no longer being used as worship centres are being sold. Schools of art and old public halls that in many cases are in disrepair are being demolished. Frequently those establishments have significant memorial plaques that I class as war memorials. Whilst they may not be registered in the Commonwealth register they are very much part of this nation's heritage and our memorial structure of those who fought and died or those who fought and came back to take on community duties. 5178 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

It would be a tragedy if we did not look after those memorials. The RSL, which is changing its form because of differing membership profiles in certain areas, is closing some of its sub-branches and opening others. What is happening to its pool of money? Perhaps it would consider collecting a number of these memorials and locating them in local history museums in their towns, in larger regional museums, or in some of its own large premises. The RSL could act not just as a collector of these memorials but as custodians of important pieces of our war history and heritage. We must differentiate between official memorials, which are recognised by the Commonwealth Government which has responsibility for many memorials throughout the country, and private memorials. I came across a war memorial which was located on private property—on a farm in my electorate. The memorial, which was in a terrible state because it had been neglected, had been raised for quite a number of members of one family who had fought and died in the war. The family raised a needle with crossed rifles on it. That memorial was discovered by the local RSL sub-branch which obtained approval from the current owners to take over the monument. With the assistance of Maitland City Council that monument was relocated in a park. That memorial was used for the 11 November celebration, which I thought was a fine gesture as a large memorial is located in Beresfield, whereas this First World War memorial is located in Woodberry. Both memorials are maintained by the RSL. However, members of that RSL sub-branch are ageing, and not too much feedstock is coming in. It is important that that private memorial, which is not officially recognised, and the official memorial which is maintained by the RSL are not allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. There has been some vandalism of a more traditional and unpleasant kind on a number of war memorials throughout my electorate. RSL sub-branches have taken steps to restore those memorials to their original excellent form. The community is outraged and is doing its best to ensure that this vandalism does not occur very often. We have only to look at the magnificent war memorial in Maitland Park, a huge plinth surmounted by a statue of victory with a drawn sword. That memorial has an incalculable heritage value. Recently I was pleased, on behalf of the Government, to provide $5,000 for heritage work on that memorial. The Government does its part in ensuring that these war memorials are maintained. The community has a responsibility to support the police and the RSL movement to ensure that those sacred places remain sacred. I would like to say a few words about unusual memorials. The honourable member for Heathcote, the Parliamentary Secretary who is in the Chamber, would understand why I am raising the issue of sunken ship memorials. I am concerned at the vandalism that is occurring to some of those vessels through divers obtaining souvenirs from ships that are basically sacred sites. During wartime an entire fleet, including aircraft and other vessels, was sunk off the Truk Islands near Micronesia. The American and Micronesian governments enacted legislation to prevent vandalisation of that underground shrine. I refer also to the USS Arizona which was sunk in Pearl Harbour by the first wave of the Japanese attack way back in 1942. That is now a permanent war memorial—a memorial that entombs over 1,100 American sailors. Those sites, which might not be so visible, are being protected. We need to preserve sites of that nature. The community must be aware that maritime support services and the navies of the world played a significant part in ensuring that we have the peace that we have today—whether it be the merchant service, the Navy, or military vessels of any kind. It is vital that those sites be identified and preserved as national shrines, whether or not they are visible. Another site that is close to the heart of honourable members from the Newcastle area is HMAS Centaur, the hospital ship that sank off the Queensland coast with Sister Savage on board. Sister Savage was Matron of the Royal Newcastle Hospital for many years. That site is a sacred site. In fact, a memorial has been built opposite that site on the Queensland coast. We need to preserve these things. They are part of our history and heritage. We should remember that if it was not for those who sacrificed their lives, whether by death or disability, we would not be enjoying the freedom we have today. One has only to look at the walls of this Parliament to see yet another war memorial commemorating the participation, commitment and sacrifice of two former members of this House. The bill has great merit. I would like to see it go further in some areas because I think inadvertent vandalism by neglect is something we have to delete as well. Perhaps that would be better done not by legislation but by organisations such as the RSL or local government taking a greater interest in smaller memorials that from time to time fall into disrepair and sometimes disappear. I commend the bill to the House. Mr GREENE (Georges River) [9.10 p.m.]: I am also in two minds. I have great pride that the Government has chosen to amend the Summary Offences Act with this bill but it is sad that we need to do this. It saddens me to think there are people within our society who would show disrespect for not only the memorials in our community—the memorials to those who have given their lives to protect what we believe in as Australian citizens—but also for the memory of people who have made great sacrifices for our nation and to protect the rights of each and every one of our Australian citizens. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5179

However, it gives me great pride tonight to speak to this bill and to take time to reflect on the Anzac tradition that exists within our great nation. In the short time I have been a member of this House one of the roles I have enjoyed the most is the opportunity to represent my community at Anzac Day memorial services. Only recently all members of this House would have had the privilege of attending those memorial celebrations, celebrations of the contributions that people from our communities have made to our nation.

I was privileged a couple of weeks ago to attend two services on Commemoration Sunday, the week prior to Easter. The first was at Mortdale RSL, with its subbranch president, Bill Mackay. That service was held this year, as it is each year, at the Mortdale Memorial Park, which is kept in magnificent condition by the Mortdale RSL subbranch with the support of Hurstville City Council. The honourable member for Maitland commented on the failure of some communities to look after memorials. I can assure honourable members that Mortdale Memorial Park is a magnificent edifice. It is a beautiful park, well kept, with a magnificent memorial looked after so well by the Mortdale RSL subbranch under the leadership of Bill Mackay and their secretary, Norm Vaughan.

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the Penshurst RSL subbranch ceremony that afternoon because it was on at exactly the same time as the Oatley RSL ceremony, which was held at Oatley Gardens. Again, Oatley RSL subbranch, with its president, Gary George, has done a great job with Kogarah Municipal Council in keeping that memorial so beautifully. We are fortunate in our community that while we have had some vandalism, the efforts of these subbranches have done so much to maintain these memorials. Penshurst RSL, in its refurbishment of the club, has done a fantastic job in providing an updated memorial in the foyer of the club. It is also a beautiful way to remember those who have given so much to our nation.

On Anzac Day I was privileged to attend a combined dawn service, this year hosted by Oatley RSL at Oatley Gardens. I was proud to march with those returned servicemen to the memorial. This year for the first time Oatley RSL combined with Mortdale RSL and Penshurst RSL. I am certain this will become a fine tradition in our local community as these three subbranches come together for the dawn service. Reverend David Warner, who is the police chaplain, said some beautiful words in commemoration. As the sun rose that morning it was appropriate for all of us at that ceremony to reflect on the great contributions those who have represented this country in war have made to our society.

Later that day I moved to the Riverview Bowling Club, which had a ceremony with the Riverwood Legion Club. I thank Keith Pratt for the invitation to attend that function. As with all the Anzac ceremonies I attended this year, it was a pleasure to see at the Riverview Bowling Club the contribution made by young people in our community. That is why it saddens me, and I know it saddens everyone, that we have people who wish to damage these memorials because there is such a great community spirit surrounding the Anzac tradition. This is shown by the youth who also come together to reflect on the contributions of our servicemen. In the afternoon I attended St George Masonic Club at the invitation of its president, Ted Lauder, for another celebration—a memorial service held within the Masonic Club. I congratulate that club on its contribution to Anzac Day.

In reflecting on the role of children and the continuation of the Anzac tradition I also think about the ceremony I attended on the second last day of the first school term at Lugano Public School. I congratulate the school principal, Mrs Jan Walker, and I thank her again for the invitation to attend that service this year. The children presented themselves beautifully. Their prayers, their thoughts, their singing, their writing—presented both in prose and in verse—and their thoughts showed that they valued the tradition of Anzac Day. It is important: that our young people see Anzac Day and Anzac memorials as an important and valuable part of our community. Lugano Public School, and I am sure many other schools in my electorate, celebrate the Anzac tradition. As I say, the writings that were put together in a booklet by the year 6 students were magnificent pieces of work that showed a great depth of thought and also a great understanding of the Anzac tradition. I am certain that applies also to many other primary schools.

Only a couple of days ago my nine-year-old daughter, Michelle, made a comment as she saw something on the news about the Second World War. She said, "Daddy, I know someone who was in the Second World War." She was referring to her grandfather, Brian Fallon, who was a gunner in the Lancaster bombers almost 60 years ago. She told me that she was proud to tell her classmates of her grandfather's participation in the Second World War. You could see the pride in her eyes as she was telling me, her father. That is a very important part of spreading and continuing the Anzac tradition. 5180 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

I turn now to the Anzac dawn ceremony at Anzac Cove this year. On behalf of the Government I was proud to present to the St George regional cadet unit, under the leadership of Captain Fred Garai, a cheque for $5,000 to support that group's attendance at the Anzac Cove dawn ceremony this year, celebrating the eighty- fifth anniversary of the first landing at Anzac Cove and the birth of the Anzac tradition. It was great that so many members of the regional cadet unit from the St George area were in attendance. I was proud to support that trip. I congratulate the local RSL clubs in my area, particularly the Kingsgrove RSL and its Treasurer, Peter Lyall, on their support of this trip, because the attendance by these young people was a great way for them to gain a greater understanding of the Anzac tradition.

It is sad that the Government has had to introduce this amending bill. However, the Government needs to be proactive because, unfortunately, a small minority of people in this country do not appreciate what we have in this great nation and commit destructive acts. This bill increases the number of penalty points from 4 to 20 for damaging war memorials, that is, it increases the fine from $440 to $2,200, and provides for the courts to order people who are destructive to pay the cost of repairing or restoring the damage they cause.

Not only is the Government sending the clear message that we support the Anzac tradition and the memory of those who gave of themselves to our community through representing their country in military service; it is also saying that we do not condone the actions of people who wish to commit acts of vandalism. We encourage people in our community to make a positive contribution. I can think of no more positive a contribution than the role of the Anzacs and, in a sense, the role of RSL club branches and schools as they continue the Anzac tradition in our society.

Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [9.22 p.m.]: No reasonable person could oppose this bill. The idea that people could desecrate, damage or harm our war memorials is abhorrent to most Australians. Indeed, it should be abhorrent to all Australians. Anzac Day ceremonies were held on 25 April. The legacy of Anzac Day started some 85 years ago on a rocky beach facing the Aegean Sea. In retrospect, it was probably not the best military decision , but that is beside the point. Nevertheless, those gallant Australians, in the face of great adversity and almost overwhelming odds, fulfilled their duty on that memorable day. It was a day of sadness, it was a day of grief and, tragically, in a way it was a day of triumph. On that day the world saw Australians and New Zealanders who were truly committed to a cause, people who fought on against almost impossible odds.

The legacy has continued through World War II and the conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and, until recent weeks, East Timor. The legacy of Anzac is not static; it is ongoing. If we are looking for an everlasting monument to the efforts of soldiers who paid the supreme sacrifice and those who fought alongside those gallant warriors, it can only be found in the wish that mankind will eventually find peace. Rather than resorting to violence and military warfare to solve international differences, people must sit down and talk in rational terms. It is difficult to understand the mentality of people who desecrate a war memorial, shrine, monument or statue erected as a war memorial. It is almost unbelievable. Hence, the Opposition supports the bill.

Essentially, the bill amends the Summary Offences Act 1988 to increase the penalty for the offence of damaging or defacing a shrine, monument or statue located in a public place; to make it an offence to commit any nuisance or any offensive or indecent act in or on a war memorial located in a public place; to provide expressly for the application of those offences to the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park, Sydney, and to any structure and land prescribed by the regulations as a war memorial; and to enable the court that convicts a person of the offence of damaging or defacing a shrine, monument or statue located in a public place, including a war memorial, to order that person to pay an amount by way of compensation to repair or restore the damage caused.

Currently, the maximum penalty is four penalty points or $440. Under this bill that increases to 20 penalty units or $2,200. I support the principles behind the bill, as does the Opposition. It is almost unbelievable that penalties are necessary to discourage people from committing acts of vandalism on war memorials. It is almost unbelievable—I may be wrong, and I hope the honourable member for Heathcote will put me right on this aspect—that the offence of desecrating a war memorial or damaging it wilfully by whatever means these vandals, idiots and wrongdoers can imagine does not carry a higher penalty than a fine of $2,200. In 2000, having had the benefit of the sacrifices made by people who served their country, with a Parliament that functions as it does, and when all of us enjoy freedom, liberty and a democratic system that is perhaps the envy of most other countries, it is almost unbelievable that a penalty of imprisonment cannot be imposed on those who deface our sacred war memorials. The Summary Offences Act states: 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5181

10A Damaging and defacing property by means of spray paint

(1) A person must not, without reasonable excuse (proof of which lies on the person), wilfully damage or deface any premises or other property by means of spray paint.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months.

I may be wrong—and I hope that I am—but I understand that under the bill if a person attacks a war memorial with an implement other than spray paint the maximum penalty is a fine of $2,200, but if the person attacks the war memorial with a spray can the penalty is six months imprisonment. That seems absolutely unbelievable, and I find it difficult to accept that that is so. I ask the honourable member for Heathcote, the Parliamentary Secretary, who is in the Chamber, to tell me that I am wrong. If there is a lesson to be learnt—and there are people in this community, albeit the minority, who definitely need to be taught a lesson—surely the legislation must provide for a period of imprisonment for such vandalism.

In this instance I do not ask for mandatory sentencing. I would not even contemplate mandatory sentencing, although I can understand how people would be tempted to accept the concept. If ever one were to accept mandatory sentencing, I suppose desecration of a war memorial would be as close to the proposition that one could ever get. However, I do not suggest that that should be the penalty. I simply suggest that the legislation should provide an imprisonment provision for the worst cases of vandalism. As I understand it, that imprisonment provision exists for the spray pack use, but not for other acts of vandalism.

Mr Windsor: Use of a spray pack attracts imprisonment?

Mr MERTON: As I understand it, a spray pack attracts imprisonment but a sledgehammer does not. The Opposition supports the legislation but suggests it does not go far enough. We are dealing with items that reflect the past of Australians. We are not dealing with items that glorify war but items that glorify the courageous acts of Australians when they paid the supreme sacrifice. A war memorial does not glorify war; it glorifies the acts of Australians in protecting their country and the democracy that we enjoy today. However, the bill will be dealt with in another place. The Opposition supports the bill but believes it does not go far enough. It seems iniquitous that a person with a spray pack can be liable for imprisonment for six months, yet a person with a sledgehammer can walk away with a maximum fine of $2,200. If that is so—I hope it is not—I find it appalling. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary for an assurance that I am wrong. However, I fear that I may be right.

Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [9.32 p.m.]: It is with a degree of displeasure that I speak to this bill. It does not give me—nor, I am sure, many other members of this House—very much satisfaction to acknowledge the need for such legislation. However, as it has been introduced, obviously we must support it. I find it sad to contemplate the incidents that have led to this Parliament legislating specifically to introduce penalties for those who deface shrines and memorials that commemorate bravery in the protection of the liberty of this nation. Our penalty system has not embraced acts of vandalism. It has been necessary to introduce legislation that specifically deals with vandalism of memorials and shrines. That is a sad reflection not only on our society but on a legal system that has had to be bolstered by introduction of a specific pothole-filling measure.

We all recognise the sincere contribution to their community made by those who engage in military service. I congratulate the honourable member for Heathcote, who introduced the bill, on his contribution to this Parliament, and especially his contribution to military service. The honourable member for Baulkham Hills may not have served in the military, but he has served his community sensitively for many years. I congratulate him on his sincere speech and on his sentiments expressed on many previous occasions about community service. In a sense, we are all here to provide a service.

The only criticism I have of the legislation is that it specifically relates to memorials and shrines. No- one would argue against that. That would be like arguing that your mother is not a nice person, when you know full well that she is. However, it is sad that the introduction of specific legislation is necessary to address this issue. Vandalism is occurring in all our communities now. Major memorials in my electorate, including the Sandakan memorial in Tamworth, have been vandalised. One of the great features of Anzac Day this year was the recognition of the contribution of the Korean War veterans. That memorial was recently vandalised. I am sure all honourable members could speak of similar instances of vandalism in their electorates. Vandalism is happening to memorials and elsewhere in our community, and our legal system is not addressing the problem. For many years the honourable member for Wollongong has been involved with a part of the city of Tamworth, the Coledale area, and we appreciate his involvement. Recently the community park in Tamworth 5182 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 was opened. A lot of hard work went into the construction of that park. The community was involved and the children were involved. A BMX track and many community-focused activities were put in place. The park is a centenary park, not a war memorial. However, within the last week much vandalism has occurred in that park. That is an insult to the dedication and hard yards put in by that community.

I agree with the honourable member for Baulkham Hills that the penalties provided in the bill are not severe enough. Desecration of a shrine or memorial is virtually a treasonous act and it conveys a vile message to the community, to those who served, and to the widows and children of those who died. Vandalism of our monuments insults the memory of those who died. I suppose I am a product of that environment. Due to the death of my father at an early age Legacy played a valuable role in my upbringing. I fully recognise that that is not the subject of this debate.

I have a very close affinity with people who have made a contribution by looking after the widows and relatives of people who have served their country. It is terrible for relatives to see memorials defaced and graffiti used in an obscene way to desecrate the memory of their loved ones and the contribution they made to Australian society. As the honourable member for Baulkham Hills stated earlier, Australians are extremely lucky to have received that contribution. Although people sometimes whinge about modern life and score points off each other, Australians enjoyed a system of government that works and that provides freedom within a legal framework. However, a pertinent point to bear in mind in relation to the Summary Offences Amendment Bill is that some people do not have any regard for the Australian system of justice. Severe penalties should apply to people who want to desecrate memorials which have been erected in honour of those who have contributed to the creation of Australia's society which Australians will hopefully be able to enjoy well into the future.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [9.41 p.m.]: I speak in support of the legislation and at the same time draw the attention of the House to the last occasion when this type of legislation was before the Parliament. From memory, that legislation related to desecration of the Anzac War Memorial in Hyde Park. During that debate, I reflected upon the service given by my grandfather, Cyril Morison, during World War I as a gunner in the first Australian Imperial Force. At that time I pointed out that the Anzac War Memorial was not the only war memorial in need of protection.

It is somewhat ironic that my speech is being made so soon after Anzac Day. An Anzac Day service I love to attend is the Anzac service at Sawtell in the Lyons Road RSL Memorial Park which is attended by returned service personnel. It is a beautiful memorial park and the community comes together in what I believe is the finest Anzac service that one could ever go to. To honour the memory of my grandfather and those who served to maintain the freedoms of this country, I have been attending Anzac Day dawn services for the last 40 years, and I am 47 years of age. The irony lies in the fact that Frank Walker came from Sawtell—the very same Frank Walker who got rid of the Summary Offences Act which would have allowed police officers and the community to take appropriate action against vandals and people who want to desecrate memorials to those who have served their country.

I note what was said by the honourable member for Tamworth, namely, that protection of memorials should not be limited to those commemoration people who served in the Boer War, the Great War or World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the conflict in Borneo, the Vietnam War and peacekeeping in the Middle East and East Timor. Some people simply have a desire to desecrate and all too often cemeteries and churches are vandalised. Approximately two years ago in Coramba, which is a suburb in my electorate, a Catholic church was vandalised and all the statues were smashed. I assume that young people were responsible and no doubt they thought it was okay for them to get away with that type of conduct.

I believe that vandalism occurs partly because Frank Walker got rid of the Summary Offences Act introduced by the previous Coalition Government. That legislation permitted police officers to give vandals a lecture or a kick in the backside that mum or dad should have given them in an effort to return them to the straight and narrow path of respect for a democratic system that was defended so valiantly by people such as my grandfather, Cyril Morison. My grandfather died as a result of his war service. He was survived by a widow and four young children. At the time he died, my mother was four years old. My grandmother had to raise four young children on her own. Yet some cretins believe that it is okay for them to desecrate memorials.

I grew up in Newcastle. My grandfather's name appears on the memorial in the park at Hamilton. Recently when I travelled down Redhead Road near Dudley Road, I was reminded of that rather quaint memorial incorporating a small gun—which is probably a five-pounder, although I am not sure of the size— which was placed at its front. I can remember being approximately 15 years old and being struck by how proud 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5183 the community was to establish that memorial for people who had served this country so that Australian citizens could live in a democratic society that provides opportunities for members of Parliament to represent the people of this State. The community was proud to build a memorial out of respect for those who had died, in wars or otherwise, serving their country.

Later, when the Summary Offences Act was in force, it came to my attention that someone had thrown the gun over the side of a nearby cliff and I wondered why someone would do such a thing to a memorial that had been dedicated to people who had protected the way of life we all enjoy. If the local police station sergeant at that time had caught the people responsible, I suggest that he would have given them a size 11—he was a reasonably large man—in the backside. Yet this Government introduces legislation which provides for a $2,200 fine. In my view, a $2,200 fine is nowhere near enough punishment for that type of offence. Moreover, I can virtually guarantee that neither mum nor dad would be able to afford to pay the fine.

Mr Windsor: What if they cannot pay it?

Mr FRASER: As the honourable member for Tamworth says, what happens if people cannot pay the fine? We cannot get blood from a stone. Perhaps what is needed is not blood, but a bruise. Young people need to realise that their freedom to roam the streets was protected by people whose memory is honoured by the memorial they would desecrate. Frank Walker, a left wing Labor member of Parliament, watered down the provisions of the Summary Offences Act to such an extent that it would never be effective law in this State, so perhaps the offenders need a kick in the backside. Perhaps offenders need more than a $2,200 fine that would probably be paid by their parents or whoever is responsible for them anyway. Perhaps these young people need to do some hard service in the community or be given an opportunity to serve the community in a way that is similar to the way in which their relatives and forebears served the community on the battlefield.

My grandparents, grand-uncles and grand-aunts served during the Great War and other uncles and aunts served during World War II. Friends and colleagues of mine served during the Vietnam War and during other conflicts. My secretary's son is about to be posted, if he has not left already, to East Timor to be part of the peacekeeping force that Australia maintains there. To think that cretins exist in our community who would desecrate memorials to those who faced up to conflicts is tragic in a sense. It is not a matter of glorifying war; rather, it is a matter of recognising the contribution that people have made to the Australian way of life. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary at the table acknowledges that I am a great supporter of people who have served their country. I recognise that he served in Vietnam in the Australian navy. On Anzac Day, I was with a group from the navy at Sawtell, and they were a good group.

Johnny Martin and others are real characters. I acknowledge the services of those people to our community. As the honourable member for Tamworth said, a penalty of more than $2,200, which an offender may or may not pay, is deserved. The Summary Offences Act needed to show the community's disrespect for their actions. An example should be set for others who may take it into their minds to desecrate a memorial or spray a footpath, as happened recently outside St Mary's Cathedral. Society has an obligation to say that that behaviour will not be tolerated and that it is not prepared to accept that sort of desecration of monuments and edifices paid for by the community. Society says that because of its respect for religion.

I commend the Government for this legislation, but it should be made tougher. The honourable member for Heathcote should forget about the left wing for a while. He is not a left winger and I know the problems he has with the left wing. He should send a message that a fine is not good enough. Bruises might be better, although I suppose I cannot advocate that these days. The honourable member for Baulkham Hills did not actually advocate corporal punishment. We might need to consider corporal punishment to let the offenders know that the pain was not only suffered by those who died in the war but by relatives such as my grandmother, who was left to raise four young children on her own. She worked two jobs. She started at 5.00 a.m. at Georgetown newsagency and then worked at Wynns all day. She did a good job of raising four children. She is a great-grandmother.

I mentioned her today in the House in a debate on another matter. She is five foot nothing tall, but she is a fiery little redhead. I have great respect for her and for her feelings. She instilled in me the tradition of attending every dawn service, of thanking God and of thanking those who fought for us so that we could enjoy the freedoms we have today. The honourable member for Heathcote should talk to the lefties and to his Caucus, tighten up the legislation and introduce some amendments that the Opposition can support. Mr Acting-Speaker, who is a leftie, should support it as well. 5184 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): I have to exercise some restraint here.

Mr FRASER: The Acting Speaker has to be neutral when he is in the chair. I hope that my contribution may convince him that the left wing of the Labor Party is not the place to be. Come into the right—

Mr O'Farrell: Come into the National Party.

Mr FRASER: Or come to the National Party, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! As fascinating as this excursion is, I must ask the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to return to the leave of the bill.

Mr FRASER: I am within the leave of the bill. The Government should introduce appropriate penalties for juveniles and others who desecrate monuments that have been erected during my lifetime as celebrations of our freedom. Those people should be given a message that says they are not to touch the monuments; they are to leave them as monuments to the people we admire so well. Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: To establish that indeed I am impartial when I am in the chair, at the request of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of members of the Pymble Branch of the Liberal Party and their friends. Mr CAMPBELL (Keira) [9.53 p.m.]: I also acknowledge the presence of a number of my guests in the gallery who represent a number of businesses in the Wollongong-Illawarra area. I am delighted that they are here and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill while they are in the gallery. The Summary Offences Amendment Bill will ensure that the Summary Offences Act is consistent with legislation that was introduced last year to increase penalties for acts of vandalism committed at the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park. The bill also ensures that war memorials in regional centres in other locations will receive the same sort of protection and that similar penalties will be imposed to those who vandalise those war memorials. I remind the House that about 12 months ago graffiti was sprayed on the War Memorial in Corrimal, the suburb in which I grew up. Members of the Corrimal Returned Services League [RSL] sub-branch club were distressed by that graffiti. I acknowledge the support given to that branch and to me as a local member by the Premier in securing funds to assist with that clean-up. More recently, the Cenotaph in the centre of the City of Wollongong was vandalised. Marble pieces were chipped away and the structure was substantially vandalised. Some of the names on the honour roll were attacked with a metal object and obliterated. On Anzac Day I heard that there was about $30,000 worth of damage to that war memorial. On Anzac Day I was also approached by Ken Dobbs. He is the hardworking custodian of the war memorial at the Thirroul RSL sub-branch club. I know that the honourable member for Heathcote knows that gentleman and that club very well. Mr Dobbs indicated that there has been a graffiti attack on parts of the war memorial. I am working with Wollongong City Council to try to ensure that the damage is cleaned up. Those events indicate the need for this bill. Special legislation was enacted in relation to the Hyde Park Anzac Memorial, but this bill will ensure that there are penalties for those who attack these community symbols across the State. It is entirely appropriate that the legislation should provide for stiff penalties. I am not sure that many in our community would go so far as proposing corporal or capital punishment for these sorts of offences. Nevertheless, it is important for the legislative framework to be consistent. For those reasons I support the legislation. The Government is considering the problem of graffiti in a broad context. A couple of weeks ago the Premier announced local government strategies to have people clean up graffiti. The Government will ensure that equipment is allocated to local government and that people subject to community service orders are required to clean up some of the mess they have made. This bill, the legislation enacted last year in relation to the Hyde Park Anzac Memorial, initiatives on graffiti in rail corridors and the use of community service orders are all part of a suite of Government strategies designed to attack the problem. Those strategies are in addition to a range of other initiatives to encourage employment, particularly in regional areas. Yesterday the debate on the urgent motion moved by the honourable member for Kiama highlighted the Government's $10 million Illawarra Advantage Fund. That is an initiative to encourage investment and the creation of jobs in the Illawarra. That debate highlighted the Howard Government's refusal to support the initiative to generate employment and ensure that people have the opportunity to work. If they have the opportunity to work they will not have time on their hands to spray graffiti or to vandalise and damage war memorials and the like. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5185

Again the Government has the policies and strategies across the whole range of its operations to deal with the matter. It does not simply rely on bringing back the lash or the noose for young people. Nevertheless, this bill will provide appropriate and significant penalties for those who commit these acts. It is for those reasons that I wish to take part in the debate and express my support for the legislation. I acknowledge the contribution made by the custodians of a series of memorials in the area that I represent that have been damaged. I acknowledge also the stress and the distress caused to those individuals by these acts of vandalism. I look forward to the support of this House for this bill, and I look forward to the success of these Government strategies to prevent such acts of vandalism in the first place so that it is unnecessary to impose penalties of the nature described in this bill.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [10.00 p.m.]: I strongly support this legislation. This debate serves to indicate that, despite our political differences, there is much more that unites us than divides us when it comes to honouring ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen who served to defend our country. I want to place on record the Coalition's strong support for the bill. This is the first time I have taken the opportunity to speak on a motion of this type involving war service because I have been a little suspicious of some of the comments that honourable members have made on occasions in the past.

It is important that we have memorials and that we recognise the contributions made by those who have gone before us, and especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice so that we may have the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy today. It is becoming increasingly obvious to most Australians that Anzac Day is in fact becoming the real Australia Day. Part of that is attributable to a recognition that we live in one of the best countries in the world. I think it is the best, but some would argue that. To a great extent, that is due to the sacrifices made by people of every political complexion. Those who went to war were not concerned with politics; they were defending Australia, and defending our freedom and all of the things that we hold dear. Those who deface memorials built in memory of our ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen should be treated with disdain and should be penalised. They should be regarded as social outcasts as far as I am concerned. The people who made the ultimate sacrifice did so in good faith and for our benefit.

I should make reference to the fact that this legislation causes people to think about many things. Most honourable members of this House probably have relatives and families that have made a contribution to the war effort. I certainly do not want to indicate that there is anything special in my family, but I would like to put on record that I hold dear the contribution made by Captain Robert Page. He went as captain on the Krait out of Australia, through Indonesia and into Singapore and was involved in the bombing of Japanese shipping vessels in Singapore. They got away with it the first time, and returned to Australia. The decision was then made by high command to repeat the exercise under Captain Lyons, a British officer. Captain Robert Page, a relative of mine, was second in charge of the operation.

They executed the operation successfully but were not able to make the rendezvous with the submarine at the appointed time. Unfortunately, the submarine was late. As a result, most of those involved in the exercise were captured by the Japanese within a week or so and taken to Japan, where they were executed by samurai sword a week or two before the conclusion of World War II. Robert Page was a 23-year-old medical student who had everything to live for, but he died in the service of his country. His contribution, together with that of numerous others, should not be underestimated. He went north from Australia because his father was the Deputy Administrator of Papua and New Guinea at that time. His father went out to talk to the Japanese when they arrived, in an effort to save the mothers and children from the Japanese attack. He was taken by the Japanese and was never heard of again. Young Robert thought maybe he would discover his father somewhere in Asia, which was a large part of his motivation for going.

We all have stories to tell about the contributions made by the families, relatives and friends of honourable members of this House. I acknowledge the consistent contribution of the honourable member for Heathcote. He has consistently applauded and defended men and women who served their country in times of war. I commend him for that, as I commend honourable members on this side of the House for their consistent support of ex-servicemen and women. This is a personal bill for all honourable members, in the sense that we all have a personal interest in the memories of those who have gone before us.

The fact that my third son is Angus Robert Page, named after a person for whom I have probably the greatest respect, Captain Robert Page, is no accident. On a broader note, it is encouraging to reflect that younger people today are so interested in keeping the dream alive in terms of those who have made a contribution. This legislation is reflective of current community attitudes, and I commend the Government for bringing forth legislation that reflects the fact that all young people, except those who deface memorials, want to preserve the 5186 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 memory of those who have made contributions on our behalf. At the end of the day we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. We should, as legislators, make sure that we never forget that they laid down their lives for us. The least we can do is have a memorial for them. Those who choose to deface those memorials should be forever damned.

Mr McMANUS (Heathcote¾Parliamentary Secretary) [10.07 p.m.], in reply: Firstly, it is with great pride that I reply to the debate on this bill, because for the most part the bipartisanship was to the nth degree. Tonight, honourable members from all parties have stood in this place and indicated their support for this very important bill. I say "for the most part" because, sadly, I must indicate that there was some political point scoring. For want of a better approach to doing things, the honourable member for Gosford decided to raise the menial issue of not including in the bill a provision indicating support for gaol terms.

The honourable member for Miranda, who is a solicitor, spoke directly after the honourable member for Gosford and advised the House that under the criminal law police have the power to arrest and charge persons for causing malicious damage. That point-scoring attempt—which died out just a couple of speeches later—put something of a dampener on the whole debate. Nevertheless, I congratulate all honourable members who supported the Government bill and supported the view of the Premier in particular that this bill would go a long way towards protecting the sacred shrines of the RSL.

Those issues have been reported in the media over the past two days. Only today I discussed these issues on radio stations in Nowra, Tamworth, Lismore and Bourke. All members of Parliament believe that this is good legislation. Everybody to whom I spoke today in the media is applauding the fact that the Government is taking this action. We, as a group of legislators in this State, should be congratulated on this initiative. The honourable member for Tamworth, for whom I have the greatest respect, seemed rather saddened about the vandalism of war memorials in his electorate. He referred to acts of vandalism on war memorials as treasonous. That is the best word that I have heard tonight to describe such action.

Why are our young people—and in the main it is young people—perpetrating acts of vandalism on these monuments? There are 3,000 monuments throughout this State, most of which are located in regional and rural New South Wales. I simply cannot understand why the youth of today want to cause this sort of destruction. If these young people sat down for 10 minutes and reflected on their history they might discover that they are the kids of someone who served and died in World War I or World War II. We must instil some values into that small group of young people who are causing these problems. Many members of Parliament referred earlier to the issue of teaching our young. The Premier said in this House on a number of occasions that it is the Government's intention to ensure that a history of the Anzacs is included in the school curriculum.

It must live on because of the death and destruction that went on, but it must live on for reasons other than that. It is more than just the glorification of people who died in the war. Schools must teach our children something that we as parents want to teach them—not just the history of the Anzacs but everything that happened during the war. Children must learn of the commitment, the comradeship and the compassion that were shown on those hills in Turkey. Those things must be instilled in our children. We must keep on doing what we are doing at present. I am sure that we are winning the war, through our schools. Seven hundred people—mainly schoolchildren—attended what used to be a small dedication in Engadine in my electorate, a memorial service held at 3.00 or 4.00 in the morning.

Mr George: During the holidays?

Mr McMANUS: They attended the memorial service during the holidays to acknowledge and recognise what happened in past wars. That is an indication that we are winning the war, but we must continue to win that war. I wish to acknowledge a few people in the Engadine branch of the RSL—Ian Phillips, President of the RSL sub-branch; Gerry Jackson, Secretary of that sub-branch; and Don Morrison, the man who gave the oration at that memorial service, an ageing and ill man who was State councillor for the New South Wales RSL. He did a marvellous job that morning. I also acknowledge Ken Missingham, a person who is no longer with us. Ken, who was Secretary of the RSL until last year, was dedicated to the RSL movement and to the memory of those people who died long before he did. His wife gave him great care in the last few months of his life.

I acknowledge also the support that we have been given by Rusty Priest, President of the New South Wales branch of the RSL, and his colleague and Secretary John Sheehan. They have been nothing short of courageous in their efforts to ensure that the Government understands the problems facing the RSL in this modern day and age. They have an open door to the Premier. They have regular discussions about issues such as 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5187

Anzac Bridge and what has to be done in that regard. I, as a Vietnam veteran, am proud of my involvement insofar as I am the Premier's representative on the Anzac Trust. I have constant dealings with those two men in this field. We must maintain that bond and continue to share ideas so we are aware of what is taking place in and what is needed by the RSL movement.

I have also been involved in issues such as justice for war widows in New South Wales. Most honourable members would be aware that last week I visited Woy Woy and talked to war widows who really need help. We must continue to fight this battle. Recently the Government provided financial concessions for disabled veterans purchasing motor vehicles. A $900 concession is being provided, depending on the market value of the car that a veteran intends to buy. The Premier's personal support and assistance for the Anzac Bridge issue has been nothing short of outstanding. I again thank all those honourable members who participated in debate on this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

REAL PROPERTY AMENDMENT (COMPENSATION) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr YEADON (Granville—Minister for Information Technology, Minister for Energy, Minister for Forestry, and Minister for Western Sydney) [10.17 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Real Property Amendment (Compensation) Bill will modernise and simplify the compensation scheme established under the Real Property Act. The bill will clarify the rights of parties and provide a clear framework for the making and determination of claims by an administrative process. This will assist in the efficient determination of claims on the Torrens Assurance Fund and will benefit genuine claimants by expediting the settlement of claims. The Torrens Assurance Fund underwrites the State guarantee of land titles in New South Wales under the Torrens title system. The Torrens system was introduced in New South Wales in 1863, and at the present time there are titles for 3.4 million parcels of land under the system.

The object of the Torrens system is to provide certainty of title to land. The State guarantees the validity of the title of persons who become registered as proprietors without fraud on their own part. Title to the land is guaranteed even though registration was obtained by an otherwise invalid instrument. The great advantages of the Torrens system over the common law title, also known as the old system, are the relative speed, simplicity and low cost of conveyancing procedures. To a large extent these are made possible by the State guarantee of title and the related compensation provisions accorded by the Real Property Act 1900, the two major elements of the Torrens system of land title. The provision of compensation by the State is an essential component of the State guarantee of land titles.

Unlike the common law situation where a landowner may recover his or her land by legal action against a current owner who acquired the land through a forged or fraudulent instrument, under the Torrens system the registered proprietor's ownership cannot be disturbed unless he or she was a party to the fraud. In the case of Torrens title, where an owner loses land as a result of forgery or other fraud, his or her right to recover the land is converted to right to compensation. The difference is that, under the old system, the owner recovers the land and the innocent purchaser forfeits the purchase price, while under the Torrens system the innocent purchaser retains the land and the former owner is compensated financially. The Torrens Assurance Fund provides monetary compensation not only to a person who is deprived of land by the operation of the Torrens system but also to a person who suffers loss through a mistake in the Land Titles Office or through an error, omission or misdescription in the register of titles.

The benefit of the compensation scheme is that it reinforces public confidence in the State guarantee and in the integrity and accuracy of the Register of Titles. Moreover, the compensation provisions are so deeply ingrained in the Torrens system that without such a scheme there would be significant and detrimental repercussions in conveyancing costs and practices. Despite the benefits of the compensation scheme, it must be 5188 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 acknowledged that the present compensation provisions of the Real Property Act are in need of reform. In a number of leading cases the courts have criticised the provisions for their lack of clarity. This lack of clarity has also caused difficulty for the Registrar-General in determining claims and administering the compensation scheme, resulting in delays and additional costs for claimants, as well as increased legal costs and high interest payments.

The amendments contained in this bill have had a long development period and are based on a great deal of research and consultation conducted by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. In January 1988, the commission received terms of reference to inquire into the operation of the compensation provisions. The commission then published discussion and issues papers in 1989 and released its final report entitled "Torrens Title: Compensation for Loss" in August 1997. The bill is based upon the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission and addresses the practical difficulties that the Registrar-General has encountered in administering the claims scheme.

The bill will not change the underlying principles that have governed the Torrens Assurance Fund since its establishment. At present, the provisions relating to the payment of compensation are contained in part 14 of the Real Property Act, together with provisions relating to the civil rights and remedies that are available to persons who are deprived of land, or who otherwise suffer loss, as a consequence of the operation of that Act. Part 14 also contains provisions relating to the judicial review of the actions of the Registrar-General.

In drafting amendments to the provisions of part 14 relating to the Torrens Assurance Fund, the opportunity has been taken to repeal and re-enact the whole of part 14 and, in the process, to divide its subject matter into two parts: part 13 dealing with civil rights and remedies and judicial review, and part 14 dealing with the Torrens Assurance Fund. In the process, many provisions of the Act that are not the subject of substantive amendments have been restated in a clearer style.

The new part 14 is divided into a number of divisions. Division 1 defines some relevant terms used in the legislation, while division 2 clearly sets out when compensation is to be payable from the Torrens Assurance Fund. All of the causes of action that were contained in the existing sections have been carried forward into the new provision. Accordingly, under proposed section 129 (1) compensation may be claimed for any loss or damage suffered by a person as a result of the operation of the Real Property Act in respect of any land where the loss or damage arises from:

(a) any act or omission of the Registrar General; or

(b) the registration of some other person as proprietor of the land, or

(c) any error or omission in the Register, or

(d) the land having been brought under the provisions of the Real Property Act, or

(e) the person having been deprived of the land, or of any estate or interest in the land, as a consequence of fraud, or

(f) an error or omission in an official search. These matters cover all of the present liabilities of the Torrens Assurance Fund. Also, the exceptions to the liability of the Torrens Assurance Fund are clearly stated. For the most part, these exceptions are the same as presently exist, either in the Real Property Act, or under common law. The exceptions provided in proposed sections 129 (2) (b), (2) (f) and (2) (g) are already made by the existing legislation. However, proposed section 129 (2) (a) is new. It will allow contributory negligence of a claimant to be considered when determining the liability of the Torrens Assurance Fund. Under the new provision, compensation is not payable in relation to any loss or damage suffered by any person to the extent to which the loss or damage is a consequence of any act or omission by that person. This provision acknowledges the fact that claimants can, by their own actions or inactivity, be responsible to some degree for any loss they may suffer. Accordingly, the Torrens Assurance Fund is not liable to pay compensation where the loss is attributable to the conduct or negligence of the claimant. As pointed out by the Law Reform Commission, where a registered proprietor voluntarily signs a transfer under the influence of fraud or otherwise contributes to the loss, there is a strong case for reducing or excluding compensation. In such cases, the victim is assumed to have control over what is occurring. Otherwise, the State might be required to compensate a proprietor who has exercised poor judgment or made an unfavourable bargain. It is noteworthy that contributory negligence is available to the Registrar General as a defence in a claim on the assurance fund in New Zealand, Victoria and Queensland. 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5189

Proposed section 129 (2) (c) is based on the general law rule that a person should, where possible, take action to mitigate, or lessen, any loss. Accordingly, under the new provision a claimant will be required to take all reasonable and prudent steps to mitigate a loss for which compensation is payable from the Torrens Assurance Fund. The Torrens Assurance Fund will not be liable for any damages incurred as result of the claimant’s failure to mitigate. The exclusion contained in proposed section 129 (2) (d) allows any benefit that the claimant may have received that is related to cause of the claim to be taken into account. Such a benefit may result in a number of different ways.

Consider the following example: Mr. Smith owns land and has a mortgage to a bank with an outstanding balance of $75,000. Mr. Smith's cousin forges his signature on a mortgage for an additional $75,000. The bank takes a new mortgage for $150,000 and discharges the first mortgage. Mr Smith cannot recover the $150,000 from his cousin and claims this amount from the Torrens Assurance Fund. However, Mr Smith has benefited from the proceeds of the fraud in that the legitimate mortgage has been repaid. If Mr. Smith is paid the full amount necessary to discharge the forged mortgage he receives a windfall of $75,000, the amount he originally owed the bank.

Accordingly, the exclusion in proposed section 129 (2) (d) makes it clear that compensation paid from the Torrens Assurance Fund may be discounted by the amount of any benefit the claimant has received. Other amounts that would have been payable by the claimant if not for the matter causing the loss, such as rates or land tax, may also be taken into account when determining the amount of compensation payable. The exception provided in proposed section 129 (2) (e) relates to errors or miscalculations in the "measurement" of land. In other words, it relates to errors in the dimensions or areas of parcels of land.

In regard to dimensions, proposed section 129 (2) (e) merely restates the existing common law. There is a line of legal cases which recognises that dimensions shown in title diagrams may not be conclusive and that extrinsic evidence is admissible to identify the land comprised in a certificate of title. In regard to areas of parcels, mention must be made of the case of Voudouris v Registrar General (1993) 30 NSWLR 195. In this case a surveyor overstated the area of a lot in a plan of subdivision. The relevant portion of the plan was reproduced on the certificate of title for the land and the court found that the plaintiffs had relied on the statement of the area on the title when they purchased the land. While the court decided that there was "no responsibility or fault in the Registrar-General", the Torrens Assurance Fund was held liable for the error by the surveyor in calculating the area of the parcel of land. Prior to the Voudouris decision it was not thought, nor was it ever intended, that the State guarantee of title extended to the area of a parcel of land.

[Debate interrupted.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Extension of Sitting

Motion by Mr Yeadon agreed to:

That the sitting be extended beyond 10.30 p.m.

REAL PROPERTY AMENDMENT (COMPENSATION) BILL

Second Reading

[Debate resumed.]

Mr YEADON: Prior to the Voudouris decision it was not thought, nor was it ever intended, that the State guarantee of title extended to the area of a parcel of land. It is a matter of great concern that, as New South Wales has a less than perfect State survey system, the decision in the Voudouris case may expose the Torrens Assurance Fund to a multitude of claims for compensation for errors made in plans of such an age that the surveyor could not be called to account. Furthermore, it was never the role of the Torrens Assurance Fund to underwrite the negligence of private surveyors. Accordingly, the bill excludes liability arising from errors in the measurement of the area of land.

This amendment will not cause any difficulty in the conveyancing of property. For most purchasers of residential land the area of the parcel they wish to buy is unimportant; they purchase the property that they decide meets their needs and identify it by its address and the fencing that indicates the boundaries with 5190 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 neighbouring parcels. The decision to buy is based on what they see when inspecting the property and is a subjective choice. For the most part the actual measurement of the area of the block is only a minor consideration. But for those purchasers of residential or commercial properties who are concerned about areas, a check can be made as part of the identification survey process or they can have a surveyor calculate the area of the property from existing plans, as a check on the accuracy of the stated area. In the case of a rural property, a surveyor may be engaged to calculate the area from the plans relating to the property.

An exclusion similar to that of new section 129 (2) (e) already applies in section 189 (1) (f) of the Queensland Land Title Act 1994 which exempts that State's compensation fund from liability for loss or damage arising "because of an error in the location of a lot's boundaries or in a lot's area". New section 129 (2) (h) states that the Torrens Assurance Fund is not liable for claims in situations where the Real Property Act states that proceedings do not lie against the Registrar-General. This provision does not create any new exclusions but merely makes it clear that the existing provisions apply to the new compensation scheme. Some examples of those provisions are: section 28O which provides that no proceedings may be brought against the Registrar- General for refusing to create a qualified folio of the register or to cancel a caution; and section 12A which provides that no proceedings may be brought in respect of any action by the Registrar-General where a notice pursuant to section 12A was served on the person who failed to take the action required by the notice.

The bill introduces another new concept: paying ex gratia claims from the Torrens Assurance Fund. "Ex gratia" means literally "as of favour" and is used generally to refer to discretionary payments of compensation made where there is no legal obligation to do so. New section 130 enables the Minister to make ex gratia payments of compensation from the Torrens Assurance Fund on the recommendation of the Registrar- General in respect of matters for which compensation is not otherwise payable. Such a payment is to be made only where the Minister is satisfied that, having regard to all of the circumstances of the case, it would be just to do so. This will allow ex gratia type-payments, which would otherwise be payable from the Consolidated Fund, to be made from the Torrens Assurance Fund and, more importantly, provides a mechanism whereby the Minister can overcome any situation where persons, through no fault of their own, are unfairly prevented from being compensated.

Division 3 of the bill introduces a new administrative process for the resolution of claims against the Registrar-General, while division 4 relates to court proceedings where no settlement is achieved between the Registrar-General and a claimant. The scheme of the legislation is that people claiming compensation from the Torrens Assurance Fund cannot initiate proceedings in court unless they have first made an administrative claim to the Registrar-General. To ensure that this requirement does not operate to disadvantage the claimant, especially in circumstances where other parties may be involved, the Registrar-General may consent to a person initiating court proceedings without making or completing an administrative claim, or the court itself may give leave to do so.

Administrative claims are to be made on an approved form. The Registrar-General is already required by the Real Property Act to make approved forms available to the public and will also prepare and make available instructions for completion of the form. The Registrar-General is empowered to deal with all claims on the Torrens Assurance Fund administratively, but will need the consent of the Minister before offering compensation of more than $100,000. New section 131 provides that a person who has suffered compensable loss may lodge a claim for compensation with the Registrar-General within six years after the act or omission giving rise to the loss or, if the loss arose on a later date, within six years after that later date. The reason for the two possible dates is that under the Torrens system the actual loss may not occur at the time of the act or omission that gives rise to it.

I ask honourable members to consider the following example: The owner of a parcel of land enters into an agreement with his neighbour to create a restrictive covenant affecting his land. However, due to a clerical error, the Registrar-General omits to record the covenant. The owner of the land that is intended to be benefited by the covenant can still enforce the covenant as long as the person who originally granted the covenant remains the owner of the land subject to the covenant, called the burdened land. It is only when the burdened land is sold to a person without the covenant appearing on title that the covenant becomes unenforceable. This is because the operation of the Real Property Act—that is, the State guarantee of title—frees owners from interests that are not noted on the title for the land. This is also known as the principle of indefeasiblity.

So the loss may occur either at the time of the act or omission as in the case of fraud, or at a later date when the operation of the Real Property Act prevents a person from enforcing an interest or right over the land, as in the example of the covenant that I have just given. It is at this point that persons suffer loss or damage, as 3 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5191 they lose an estate or interest in the land, whether it is the ownership of the land or the benefit of an interest such as an easement or covenant. The bill also provides that claimants are required to co-operate with the Registrar- General to attempt to resolve the claim administratively.

To this end, the legislation states that a claimant must supply the Registrar-General with sufficient information to ensure that the Registrar-General is able to assess the validity of the claim and the amount of any compensation that may be payable. If a claimant does not comply with any reasonable request by the Registrar- General for information, the claimant is not able to take court action to pursue the claim. Generally, though there is a 12-month time limit on the processing of an administrative claim, if the claimant has given the Registrar- General all of the necessary information and the Registrar-General has not made an offer of compensation, or refused the claim, within 12 months after the claim is made the claim is taken to have been refused and the claimant is free to take court proceedings to pursue the claim.

When persons take court proceedings to claim compensation from the Torrens Assurance Fund they are to be taken against the Registrar-General. Such proceedings cannot be commenced before an administrative claim has been made and determined, and cannot be made more than 12 months after the administrative claim has been determined, except by leave of the court or with the consent of the Registrar-General. In any such proceedings, the Registrar-General is not bound by any prejudicial act or omission by any party to the proceedings. Therefore, should a claimant enter into a compromise with another person who is responsible for a loss that is the subject of a claim against the Torrens Assurance Fund, or waive his or her rights against that person, the Registrar-General is not affected by the compromise or waiver and is still able to take action to recover from the person responsible.

For example, if a claim is made as a result of a person committing fraud by forging his or her parents’ signatures on a mortgage of the parents’ property, the Registrar-General would be able to sue the son or daughter even though the parents may waive their rights against that person. The Registrar-General is presently subrogated to a claimant’s rights and remedies against any person against whom the claimant has a claim. This means that the Registrar-General can claim against any other person that the claimant is able to sue. In this way, the Registrar-General can seek either reimbursement of any damages paid to the claimant or a contribution towards the damages. This provision is reproduced in the bill with some modification.

The new provision does not give the Registrar-General any additional rights, but it does allow the Registrar-General to exercise those rights at an earlier time. It was doubtful under the existing provision whether the Registrar-General could exercise the right of subrogation until a payment is made to the claimant. This meant that the Registrar-General could not make a claim against other parties that were wholly or partly responsible for the loss for a considerable period of time. With delays in the provision of evidence to support claims being common, there is a great risk that by the time the Registrar-General is able to exercise the right of subrogation the claimants' rights may be lost. In such cases the State is left to bear the burden of paying compensation while the person who caused or contributed to the loss escapes the consequences of his or her actions.

To address this problem the bill states that the Registrar-General may exercise any rights of subrogation from the time a claim is made. The Registrar-General may also join any person as a co-defendant if of the opinion that there may be a claim against that person arising from the right of subrogation. The bill re-enacts existing sections 133A and 129 as new sections 134 and 135 respectively. New section 134 establishes the Torrens Assurance Fund as an account in the Special Deposits Account at Treasury and specifies how it is to be operated. The bill also provides that the Torrens Assurance Fund as constituted by new section 134 is a continuation of the existing fund.

New section 135 continues the Registrar-General's power to settle claims and now specifically authorises the Registrar-General to participate in mediation or other dispute resolution processes in order to settle a claim. One last matter introduced by this bill is an amendment to section 117 of the Real Property Act. This section currently provides that each person who executes a dealing should certify that it is correct. However, there is no statutory provision relating to attestation of signatures on dealings. The bill replaces subsection (1) of section 117 with a new subsection that requires the persons executing a dealing to certify that it is correct, as is required by the present section 117 (1).

The new provision has been expanded so that it also requires that each witness to the execution of the dealing must state he or she is satisfied as to the identity of the person whose execution the witness is attesting, and that the execution of the transaction by that person occurred in the presence of the witness. The proposal 5192 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3 May 2000 will not introduce any new liability for attesting witnesses but it will make it clear that an attesting witness is not liable for the correctness of the dealing. However, it must be noted that at present a witness may be liable to contribute towards any compensation depending upon the individual circumstances.

For example, in the unreported Supreme Court case of Saade v Saade and Others, Justice Powell held in 1989 that a solicitor who had negligently attested a transfer that was not signed in his presence was jointly liable with the Registrar-General to compensate the person defrauded. The Real Property Amendment (Compensation) Bill will make it easier for persons to claim compensation from the Torrens Assurance Fund and will assist the Registrar-General to resolve claims quickly. This can only benefit both the claimant, by allowing him or her to receive compensation sooner, and the Registrar-General, by reducing administrative and court costs. The new provisions are also clearer, will assist people to understand their rights under the legislation, and should reduce the number of claims that are litigated. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr D. L. Page.

BILL RETURNED

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council with amendments:

Gambling Legislation Amendment (Gaming Machine Restrictions) Bill

Consideration of amendments deferred.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Urgent Motion: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Motion by Mr Yeadon agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit the resumption tomorrow of the debate on the motion for urgent consideration adjourned earlier this day.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Mr Yeadon agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Thursday 4 May 2000 at 10.00 a.m.

House adjourned at 10.45 p.m. ______