5717
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 15 September 2011
______
The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.
The President read the Prayers.
ANTI-SEMITISM
Motion by Dr John Kaye agreed to:
That this House condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms.
PETITIONS
Religious Discrimination
Petition requesting the House to support the amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to make it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief or absence of religious belief, received from the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. David Clarke agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 257 outside the Order of Precedence relating to the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign be called on forthwith.
Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. David Clarke agreed to:
That Private Members' Business item No. 257 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT AND SANCTIONS CAMPAIGN
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.10 a.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(a) notes with concern the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] campaign against legitimate businesses operating in Australia which provide jobs to hundreds of Australians,
(b) calls on all members to condemn the targeting of Max Brenner Chocolate Cafes by anti-Israel protestors,
(c) notes that some of the rhetoric used by proponents of the BDS campaign has descended into anti-Semitism, and
(d) condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms.
The boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] campaign directed world-wide against the state of Israel is a campaign that is misleading and deceitful. It is a campaign that is devious and destructive. It is a campaign that engenders hate mongering and promotes division. This whole world-wide boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign operation should be repudiated and rejected by all people of decency and goodwill, and today I hope that this House will vote to repudiate and reject it as well. Today I hope that this House will reject the whole boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign, not by a handful of votes, but overwhelmingly and comprehensively. Today I hope that this whole boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is repudiated by the Government and by the Opposition and by the cross bench voting as one.
5718 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
Those who fuel this campaign say that it targets some of Israel's policies but the truth of the matter is that it does not target Israel's policies; it targets Israel's legitimacy. The truth is that it targets Israel's right to exist. The truth is that the campaign's end result would see the state of Israel cease to exist as the state envisaged by the United Nations when it voted to recognise its legitimacy back in 1947. This House needs to make clear that it stands four square behind the right of Israel to exist in peace, and to make clear that it recognises that right unambiguously. It needs to make clear that it recognises the right of Israel to continue to exist as the free and democratic nation that it is, side by side with all other free and democratic nations. This House needs to make abundantly clear that it will not be suckered in by this whole boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign propaganda push which seeks to de-legitimise the state of Israel.
The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign has at the core of its platform that there should be a right of return to Israel, not just of all Palestinians who claim to have lived in Israel at the time of its independence in 1948 and who left for whatever reason; it demands that all of the descendants of those who departed for whatever reason should also have the right of return—every child, every grandchild, every great grandchild should likewise have the automatic right of return. This would mean not just scores of thousands or even several hundred thousand; it would mean millions, even many millions. The United Nations in 1947 envisaged two states in Palestine, one Jewish and one Arab. The result of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign would see Israel, as a predominantly Jewish state, face the destruction of its Jewish character. That is not what the United Nations envisaged over six decades ago and it is not what Australia, as a member of the United Nations six decades ago, envisaged either. And it is not something that we should, by our silence, conspire to allow to occur.
The platform of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign demands that Israel commit national suicide, and this Parliament should not be complicit in demanding that Israel commit that suicide. There are forces in this world that seek the destruction of Israel by whatever means they can. The terrorists of Hezbollah and Hamas seek to achieve it by firing their rockets on the civilians of Israel. The late but unlamented Osama bin Laden devoted the last 20 years of his life to the same goal and the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared the same goal as a policy of state. The platform of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign would result in the same goal as well. Who is spearheading the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign? Overseas those involved are many and diverse but here in Australia those who spearhead the campaign and are at the core of energising it are clearly defined. First of all it should be noted that it is not being driven by the Palestinian Australian community. At the apex of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign here in Australia is Senator Lee Rhiannon.
In the days of the Cold War she was a communist activist, a leading light in the Moscow-directed Socialist Party of Australia. At that time her mind was not much focused on boycotts, divestment and sanctions—at least not against the Soviet Union or Cuba or North Korea or any of the other satellite communist nations of Eastern Europe. Whilst these were all places recognised in the free world as being devoid of democracy and of human rights, sanctions against these nation did not figure on Lee Rhiannon's "must do" list. But today Senator Rhiannon is re-energised. She has got over the collapse of the Soviet empire and is now at it with the boycotts, divestment and sanctions campaign with her sights squarely set on Israel. Giving her and the whole anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign push an energising army of cadres is the whole political edifice built around the Socialist Alliance, an outfit that has its origins in the Trotskyite Socialist Workers League. It is Marxist. It declares itself as far left. It is anti-capitalist and it is linked with the Green Left Weekly and, among others, affiliated to the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq in Australia.
In its pantheon of heroes, apart from Karl Marx himself, you will find Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Apart from the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign, the Socialist Alliance has been active in all sorts of campaigns. For instance, in 2008 it organised protests against the visit to Sydney of Pope Benedict XVI. World-wide, many businesses have been targeted by the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign: Estée Lauder, Sara Lee, L'Oreal, the Body Shop, and Motorola. None of them have political connotations. Here in Australia the campaign has zeroed in on the Max Brenner chocolate shops. These Australian outlets have been targeted by demonstrators to pressure the public to boycott them. At some demonstrations there has been violence. At some demonstrations there have been arrests—19 at one demonstration alone. At some demonstrations there has been a nasty and growing trend toward the use of out-and-out anti-Semitic slogans.
The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign organisers could have chosen to demonstrate outside the Israeli Embassy—that at least would have been a political target—but, no, they have chosen to target a private business, and one which happens to be Jewish. This is a very nasty trend and this is something we do not 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5719
want in Australia. That is why more and more people, ordinary everyday Australians, are going out of their way to give their patronage to the Max Brenner chocolate shops. They are showing solidarity with small business owners. They are saying to boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign protesters, "We are not going to be intimidated by people like you". They are saying, "We don't like this victimisation of these small business owners". They are saying, "We don't like hearing some of those vicious, racially over-toned things that are being said at some of these demonstrations".
Some 750 people are employed in the Max Brenner shops throughout Australia—students and young people generally. They, like the owners of those businesses, are innocent. They have done nothing wrong. They are guilty of nothing. It could be our son or our daughter who works there. They are not politically involved. And the business owners who are being politically stalked and harassed are not politically involved either. This is a shameful thing. This is a wicked thing. This is an un-Australian thing. We need to take a stand. As members of Parliament we need to speak out and we need to act. As the Parliament of the people of New South Wales we need to speak out for what we know people are thinking—just as the people of Marrickville made clear what they thought. We need to make clear that we do not support this boycott. We need to make clear that we do not support a boycott the basis of which is to impose upon the sovereign state of Israel a policy that the initiators of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign know full well would lead to the disintegration of Israel as the entity that the United Nations gave its support to more than 60 years ago.
We need to make clear that we repudiate boycotts and intimidatory actions against Australian businesses, that we repudiate these actions which put the jobs of hundreds of Australians, especially young Australians, at risk. We need to make clear that we condemn the violence that we have seen at some of these boycott demonstrations, and the criminal actions that we have seen at some of these demonstrations. We need to make clear that we are disgusted and sickened by the racism, by the anti-Semitism that we are increasingly witnessing at some of these protests. Dear parliamentary colleagues, today we need to take a stand—a stand for decency. We need to show that our nation is not and never will be ruled by the mob. We need to pass this motion which is before us.
The Hon. WALT SECORD [11.22 a.m.]: I fully support the motion condemning the global boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] campaign against Israel. I thank my colleague for providing members with an opportunity to show our support for and solidarity with the Jewish community in Israel, and to place our views on the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign on the record. Across Australia we have seen consistent protests and growing rallies aimed at intimidating customers and workers at Max Brenner Chocolates. At a recent Melbourne protest workers and customers were accused of no less than supporting displacement and genocide.
Let us put this into perspective. This is a chocolate cafe. It is a food business. It is not a manufacturer of landmines or military weapons. Max Brenner makes and sells hot chocolate and serves waffles. There is no reasoning to these protests. Hence I must conclude that Max Brenner is targeted for one reason: because it is an Israeli business and it is a Jewish business. This is why I condemn these boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign protests in the strongest terms, because the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is simply part of an attempt to isolate Israel, to destroy Israeli industry, Israeli creativity and Israeli culture. That such a movement has reached Australia is a concern. What is even more distressing is the racist rhetoric employed in the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. On occasions some of those supporting the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign have lapsed into what I can only describe as naked anti-Semitism. That has no place in Australian political debate.
Members of this Chamber will be aware of my interest in and connection with the Jewish community and my time spent as a journalist at the Australian Jewish News. Members may not be aware that Australia has the honour of being home to the highest percentage of Holocaust survivors in a Jewish community outside Israel. So it is understandable that there is strong concern about the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign in Australia, especially in the Jewish community. They know firsthand what can follow once businesses are singled out simply because they are owned by Jewish people. They know firsthand what happened in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s when businesses were identified as being Jewish. I am certain that those involved in the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign protests would say such comparisons are unreasonable and hyperbole. But I disagree.
The experience of history, repeatedly, is that this is where it starts. States do not slide into systemic racism overnight. Instead, liberties are traded off one at a time. I never thought I would see the day when a Jewish business was targeted in Australia, and that is what is occurring with the boycott, divestment and 5720 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
sanctions campaign. Max Brenner has 11 branches in New South Wales. It is owned by the Strauss Group, Israel's second-largest food and beverage company. It provides 750 jobs, and it pays taxes. It has broken no laws. The reality of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is that it is an unrelenting attempt to target business because it is connected to Israel and the Jewish community.
With this repugnant campaign growing in momentum, it is important for us as political leaders to show our support to the workers and businesses that are being threatened. That is why the Leader of the Opposition and I visited Max Brenner's on 16 August in an official capacity to show our solidarity. That is why in early June I also lodged a series of questions on notice in the Legislative Council with the police Minister on how police are responding to protests outside Max Brenner's. I note that the Minister, the Hon. Mike Gallacher, has treated the issue seriously and thoughtfully. In late August I had the honour of being elected deputy chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel. It is now one of the largest parliamentary groups.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Thanks to you.
The Hon. WALT SECORD: I acknowledge the interjection. Some 60 parliamentarians, from the conservative and progressive side of politics, turned up to the inaugural meeting. I believe the emergence of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign in New South Wales shows how timely it is to revive the Parliamentary Friends of Israel. I also note that other principled stands are being taken at a national level to support Israel. The Australian Government will join Canada, Israel, the United States and several European countries in withdrawing from the controversial 22 September United Nations conference known as Durban III.
As the Government noted, Australia has no interest in joining an "unbalanced criticism of Israel and the airing of anti-Semitic views". This follows the Federal Labor Government's boycott of the 2009 conference. Members may recall that this was the infamous venue where the Iranian President unleashed a vitriolic attack on Israel and Jewish people. This is the slippery slope on which political debate about Israel now stands. And, by withdrawing from the New York conference, the Federal Government has taken a principled stand on anti-Semitism. Today this Chamber can also take a principled stand by formally condemning a campaign that seeks to de-legitimise Israel and the Jewish community.
While issues surrounding Israel and the two-state solution are complex, those who truly seek to resolve them would not resort to such tactics as those of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. Those who truly seek a peaceful and lasting solution know that rather than boycotting Israel we should be actively engaging with the nation. And Australia is engaging with Israel. Bilateral trade last year between Israel and Australia totalled $715 million, an increase from the 2009 total of $602 million. Australian exports to Israel grew by almost 10 per cent on the back of minerals and base metals. In turn, Israel sold $528 million worth of materials to Australia, an increase of 22 per cent on 2009 figures. So, beyond the obvious moral issues at stake, there are significant trade and civic interests that deserve our attention.
But, sadly, the Max Brenner protests are not the only reason the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign has attracted media attention in New South Wales. I refer to the sorry saga of Marrickville Council— and I will do so only briefly. In a move that reeked of politics over policy and common sense, Marrickville Council passed a resolution backing a call to boycott all Israeli products as well as sporting, academic and government exchanges. It had not even sought advice from its own council officers as to the financial impact on its own operations, and within days the boycott began to unravel. After intense public pressure Marrickville Council was forced to back down. There is no other way to describe the Marrickville Council events other than as illogical and foolish. But the situation with Marrickville Council should serve as a wake-up call to all of us who support Israel and a tolerant and diverse society. We cannot assume that common sense will prevail. Marrickville proved that.
The sight of customers being accused of supporting racism because they buy hot chocolate shows that commonsense is slipping again. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is not about commonsense or rational arguments; it is an attempt to de-legitimise the State of Israel through outrageous protests and inflammatory rhetoric. Such tactics serve no good purpose—not for Israel, not for the Palestinians and not for the citizens of New South Wales. Those tactics have no place in our civil and diverse society, which is why I vehemently oppose the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. I commend the motion to the House, and stand side by side with the Jewish community and the State of Israel.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [11.30 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. David Clarke and note that the campaign to which this motion relates goes back to 2005. The campaign seeks to attack Israel, in 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5721
essence, through a series of boycotts on a number of businesses. I would have thought that anyone who had a political motivation to assist a particular outcome would have adopted a targeted approach. In the American experience 10 companies were nominated to be boycotted in order to achieve the positive outcome that was sought by the campaign. Some of the companies to be boycotted by the campaign included Motorola, L'Oréal which owns the Body Shop, Estée Lauder, Intel and Sara Lee, to name just a few. Apparently the boycott works on the basis of encouraging people not to buy phones, food such as cakes or, as we know in the Australian experience, coffee and waffles, which is indicative of a desire to have a protest for the sake of a having a protest, or a gripe for the sake of having a gripe.
In the Max Brenner experience in Australia, people have been subjected to abuse and harassment when they have gone into these shops for a cup of coffee. What logical purpose would be served by such an approach and what benefits could be gained from it? I suggest that the benefits are to be found in the nature of the protest and the opportunity afforded to those in society who want to whinge. Who would seek to gain advantage from such an approach? In May 2011 Ms Lee Rhiannon, on behalf of The Greens, updated The Greens website, which shows support for the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] campaign. She referred to previous resolutions that were agreed at The Greens national conferences going back to 2006 and also to her 7 December 2010 media release.
Recently Ms Lee Rhiannon sought to endorse and maintain a position of support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. She supports the disruption to normal commerce such as that conducted by Max Brenner; to the rights of normal citizens to go about their business, including having something apparently as heinous as a cup of coffee; and to citizens being subjected to abuse. It is being suggested that citizens in this country are in a sense engaging in something inappropriate simply by buying a product from a store in Australia, which is hard to believe. On 7 December 2010 this view was expressed on The Greens website and half an hour ago it was still to be found on that website:
Greens NSW State Council has agreed to back a series of military, trade and services boycotts of Israel and to support the growing international BDS (Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions) movement.
Greens NSW Senator-elect Lee Rhiannon said, "Delegates from our Greens local groups across NSW unanimously endorsed this comprehensive proposal as a way to support Palestinian self-determination and to help bring peace to the people of Israel and Palestine.
I will refer later to that issue. The media release also states:
(Proposal passed by Greens NSW SDC below.)
"We are hopeful that the Greens' back of the BDS movement will win more Australian support for this important cause.
"The Greens have decided to support the BDS campaign, which builds on the US civil rights movement and international campaign against apartheid South Africa.
Many members would be aware of my views of events that have occurred in the United States over time. In her own way, Ms Lee Rhiannon seeks to equate the civil rights movement of the United States of America, where people died in the streets, with the antiapartheid movement where people in cells were beaten to death. She seeks to equate those movements with the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign movement in Australia which abuses people outside coffee shops. What a shameful game of politics! The Greens are garnering a few more of their Socialist Alliance buddies in an attempt to win additional votes. This hypocritical exercise—which is not based on principles but which is an attempt at scoring cheap political points—shows Ms Lee Rhiannon's true colours and the colours of some of The Greens who sit in this Chamber. I support the motion.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.37 a.m.]: It is with honour that I support the motion moved by the Hon. David Clarke which notes with concern the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] campaign against the Max Brenner chain in New South Wales and Australia. As a committee member of the Israeli Friendship Group of the New South Wales Parliament it is good to see so many members from all sides of politics joining in supporting the people of Jewish heritage in this country. I note that the Hon. Walt Secord said that Australia had the highest percentage of Holocaust survivors of any country outside Israel. They have served our country incredibly well—whether it be through Westfield, the biggest chain of retail property owners in the world, or the Pratt Group with its magnificent heritage of employing people, in particular, in regional areas, exporting throughout the world and with divisions in the United States of America. They have served our country well through the heritage they have brought and the economic opportunity they have created for themselves and this country. 5722 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
Only about three weeks ago we discussed in this House a motion commemorating the passing of one of our finest Australian war heroes, Nancy Wake. In Austria in the 1930s Nancy Wake saw the most horrific things being committed against Jewish people while she was a European correspondent for the Hearst chain of newspapers, which turned her life around and encouraged her to stand up to fascism and to the Nazism rule of France. It is significant to note that an Australian led the charge and stood up to what was being perpetrated at that time. It is also unbelievable that that type of action is infiltrating our country in the twenty-first century.
The point has been so eloquently put by all members who have spoken in this debate that we are talking about a chain of coffee shops which has 11 branches in New South Wales, which employs 750 people who serve hot chocolate and waffles and which creates opportunities. It is appalling that members of The Greens are using their position in that party against our own citizens. That is why members on this side of the House support this motion. I acknowledge today the presence in the gallery of the Head of the Jewish Board of Deputies Yair Miller and Chief Executive Officer Vic Alhadeff. It is great to have them here to see members from all sides of politics joining in support of this motion. We do not want this attack on our tolerance and diversity to continue.
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.41 a.m.]: I support this serious motion moved by the Hon. David Clarke and congratulate him and other members of the House on their bipartisan support for it. This issue concerns many Australians because it represents the ugliness that has emerged in our society. People were shocked when they heard what was happening, did not believe it and did not know what it was about. When it was explained they were incredulous that this was occurring in Australia. We must stamp out this sort of activity now. Evil will continue to flourish if good men and women do and say nothing. We are elected to speak out on behalf of the many silent citizens who find this sort of thing abominable.
As members know, the Max Brenner shops are owned by the Strauss Group, which is the second largest Israeli food and beverage company in the world. Because of that they have been targeted by the boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] campaign movement. I make a prediction now that BDS will become one of the most evil acronyms we know. It is already tainted with evil. When considering this anti-Israeli boycott of the Max Brenner chocolate shops I reflected on what inspired me to join the Liberal Party more than 30 years ago. I believed then and I still believe in the philosophies which the party espouses and in which many Australians believe and hold dear, in particular, the inalienable rights and freedoms of all people. They include the right to live in a parliamentary democracy and the right to freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.
We believe in a just and humane society in which the importance of family and the rule of law and justice are maintained. We also believe in equal opportunity for all Australians and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth creation so that we can all enjoy the highest possible standard of living, health, education and social justice. Simply put, the Liberal Party of Australia reflects the views of many Australians in believing in individual freedom and free enterprise. The boycott of Max Brenner chocolate franchises in Australia does nothing other than adversely impact on small businesses and hardworking, innocent Australians who are simply doing their job. Being dragged into this global racist campaign is hurting their livelihood. As many speakers have said, Australians rally when they learn about racist and unreasonable attacks on small businesses, whether it be Max Brenner's shops or some other business. In that situation good Australians of all nationalities will rally and support the business concerned. They condemn any politicians and political parties that stand by and allow this to happen without a comment, particularly the political parties involved in organising protesters.
I strongly believe that this is an infringement of people's rights and freedoms and an attack on free enterprise and I congratulate my colleagues on the stand they are taking on this issue. I include Greens member the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham, for whom I have great respect because he has spoken out against this campaign. This campaign is counterproductive to the cause of peace and human rights in the Middle East—it achieves nothing. Many others have spoken out about this boycott and I will place their names on the record. A member of the Israeli Knesset, Nitzan Horowitz, spoke in England about his opposition to the boycott of Israeli citizens and institutions and slammed the idea of a single bilateral nation as a recipe for failure and civil war. He stated:
I am against boycotts. I don't think this is a positive way to act.
Bernard-Henri Lévy has also spoken out against the boycott. His words are very relevant:
I believe in the power of ideas and, even more, that of the truth. In such circumstances, I am always in favour of debate, the clash of opinions, even the confrontation of convictions—hence, not of censure.
And the fact is that, in this particular circumstance, that is to say in this matter of the Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions campaign that was to be the main issue of the Ecole normale meeting, I would have been more than happy to be able to present those who speak sincerely with facts and, basically, evidence that seems to have escaped them: namely that we are faced here with a skilfully orchestrated ... anti-democratic and, in a word, perfectly despicable campaign.
15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5723
People in Australia have a right to conduct their business and to attend any retail outlet they want in safety and harmony without being abused or having their normal activity disrupted in any way. This is a peaceful, democratic and law-abiding society. People who purchase goods at Max Brenner shops or any other Israeli business should not be bombarded, intimidated or prevented from entering those premises. I sincerely believe that targeting these shops does nothing for peace and human rights but unnecessarily inflames the situation, and, indeed, has a deleterious and discrediting effect on the campaign.
Like all other members who have spoken in this debate and many others in this House I support this motion. We acknowledge the great contribution made to this country by Israeli-Australian citizens. I also acknowledge Yair Miller and Vic Alhadeff from the Jewish Board of Deputies for their strong contribution to democracy and justice. The contribution of Israeli-Australian citizens to our family life, society, business enterprise, the professions, art and culture is outstanding not only in Australia but also globally. However, they are most respected for their contribution to humanity. We must never forget the evils of Nazism or bend to anti-Semitic racism. We must take every opportunity to speak out against it and to act against it. It is a great honour to support this motion.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.48 a.m.]: On behalf the Christian Democratic Party I am very pleased to support this motion moved by the Hon. David Clarke, which states:
That this House:
(a) notes with concern the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] campaign against legitimate businesses operating in Australia which provide jobs to hundreds of Australians,
(b) calls on all members to condemn the targeting of Max Brenner Chocolate Cafes by anti-Israel protestors,
(c) notes that some of the rhetoric used by proponents of the BDS campaign has descended into anti-Semitism, and
(d) condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms.
I also acknowledge the representatives of the Jewish Board of Deputies in the gallery and thank them for their support. Some members of the House are Jewish and I do not think the rest of us can fully comprehend the impact that an attack of this type would have on Jewish people. As a non-Jew, I wish to identify with the Jewish people at this time and sympathise with them for the strong feeling of revulsion that these types of campaigns cause in the hearts of every Jewish person.
As members know, I covered a number of issues on this matter in my adjournment speech on Wednesday 7 September. I am pleased to be a member of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel group and a member of the committee organising events. There will be publicised future events that all members can attend. I am concerned not only about the attacks on Max Brenner chocolate cafes; I am concerned also that this is the thin edge of the wedge. If one looks at the official website of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign organisation, one establishes that the attacks on Max Brenner shops are only a minor part of what the campaign involves. I believe the organisers are testing public opinion in Australia to see whether they can get away with this type of attack. If they succeed, the attack will be expanded, as I will demonstrate in a moment because I have a list of other companies that the group is anticipating will be attacked in the future.
The organisation's official site talks about boycotting Israeli sporting activities, goods associated with Israel and cultural and academic institutions, that is, universities and colleges. It also refers to artists and others. The divestment aspect covers even university investment portfolios, checking where universities have investments and calling on them to cancel those investments. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is very extensive. The third aspect involves calling for sanctions against Israel and having its membership removed from various diplomatic and economic forums, such as the United Nations. This most serious issue, which involves not just one business in Melbourne, is set to expand. Hopefully that will not happen because of public and political reaction at all levels—from Federal Parliament to this and other State parliaments. Opposition will kill this boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign and stop it in its tracks.
Some of the publicity relating to protests that have taken place outside Max Brenner chocolate cafes involves posters which state, "Max, Max, Murderer!" No attempt is being made to engage in intelligent debate; this organisation is interested only in smearing people. Other posters which read, "Israel Murders Innocent People", were used in Melbourne—in our own country. This campaign does not involve only one company. According to information published by this organisation—and this might come as a shock to many companies— in due course this boycott will be expanded to include Starbucks, McDonalds, Burger King, Coca-Cola, Heinz, 5724 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
Hertz, Holiday Inn, Marriott, KFC, Johnson and Johnson, Planet Hollywood, Pizza Hut, Pepsi, Sara Lee, Subway, and even Toys R Us. In my opinion, these people are off the planet in threatening to target these companies in the future.
I believe that we should not be in any way tolerant of this campaign but reject it absolutely and stop it in its tracks. It is a most evil activity and one that should not be tolerated. I mentioned in my adjournment speech what happened in Germany. Probably, in some people's minds, they were just watching stormtroopers standing outside various businesses that were owned by Jewish people, stopping customers from entering those shops. The Nazis tested public opinion and, when there was no reaction, they moved to the next stage of closing those shops, smashing shop windows and so on. Then we had what the Nazis regarded as the final solution, which was taking Jewish people to concentration camps and removing them from the face of the Earth. That was the end of their campaign. We cannot be tolerant of even the smallest beginnings of this anti-Semitic campaign. I draw members' attention to an excellent article in the Canberra Times, which states:
An essential part of the compact of a free society is that all its citizens are afforded protection from persecution and freedom from fear.
It goes on to state:
The BDS has crossed the line between a protest which is anti-Israeli policy and one which is anti-Semitic. And by failing to denounce such anti-Semitic protest, the Australian Greens are a party to hateful intolerance.
The health of a civil society depends upon a complex web of reciprocal and mutual obligation. Once we become complacent about protests directed at Jewish people and businesses in Australia, the political and civil freedoms we all enjoy are threatened.
I must refer to the strange policy attitude of The Greens. Their leader, Senator Brown, indicated that he is not supportive of the boycotts, but when a motion was moved in the Federal Parliament to condemn them, the Federal Greens voted against it. It is important for us to have unity in our State Parliament on this issue and that all members join us today in supporting this motion.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Before I call Dr John Kaye I remind the House that members who have contributed to the debate thus far have been heard in silence.
Dr JOHN KAYE [11.58 a.m.]: I cannot support this motion and will be voting against it. This motion is a cheap attempt to smear the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign movement as anti-Jewish when it is not. It is an attempt to allege that there is anti-Semitism on the side of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign debate when there is no evidence of such anti-Semitism.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane to order for the first time.
Dr JOHN KAYE: There is direct evidence that the anti-boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign side is being supported by those with excellent fascist connections, the Australian Protectionist Party—and not just fascist connections, but connections to Holocaust deniers. This motion attempts to exploit the real horror of anti-Semitism and its most appalling manifestation in the Holocaust to achieve cheap political points. It cheapens the memory of the six million people who died in the Holocaust and the many more who suffered terribly under Nazism. As such, I cannot support the motion and will be voting against it.
Lest it be said that voting against this motion in any way implies any lack of condemnation of anti-Semitism, I put on the record again that The Greens moved a motion this morning to condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. I did that in order to ensure that the wedge that was designed into this motion, for those who felt the need to vote against it, would not be used. There is, of course, a legitimate debate about advancing the rights of Palestinians who have been dispossessed by Israel, who have been left stateless, without human rights, and who have been left with a dysfunctional territory. As pointed out by the Hon. Trevor Khan, in October 2011 the New South Wales Greens supported the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign mechanism. It is on our website, despite the Government Whip saying that it is not. It is there and if Trevor Khan could find it surely anybody could find it.
The Greens recognise it as a mechanism to address the appalling situation of the Palestinian people and the role that the policies of the Israeli Government have played in promoting those conditions. Just as the consumer, trade and sporting boycotts against South Africa brought about change in that country, it is The Greens' belief that these boycotts can bring about change in Israel and Palestine. The Greens recognise that there 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5725
are those who do not believe that Palestinians face a systemic denial of their rights and there are those who do not support boycotts, divestments and sanctions as a way of achieving an improvement in rights. It is their right to believe so.
The Greens recognise that there were those during the campaign against apartheid in South Africa who thought that the blacks in South Africa got quite a good deal. Some felt that the boycotts would not help the blacks in South Africa—the Liberal Party and The Nationals were full of such people. Who can forget Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a former Premier of Queensland, who fought vigorously against the boycotting of South African sporting events? History shows that those people were dead wrong. History shows that those people supported an unconscionable denial of human rights based on racial background. History shows that the boycotts were an important ingredient in bringing about change in that state and in bringing about a new era, where human rights were no longer determined upon the ethnic, religious or racial backgrounds of people who lived in that state.
I have no doubt that history will show that those who oppose boycotts, divestments and sanctions, those who give Israel unqualified support, are doing no favours to the citizens of Israel and they are ignoring the realities of the systematic denial of human rights to Palestinians. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is controversial and there are a range of opinions on it—as was the case with the boycotts against South Africa. Those who support boycotts, divestment and sanctions are not afraid of criticism and debate. There ought to be criticism and debate about a tactic that is highly controversial, but that criticism and debate should be founded in fact. It should not be founded in a fantasy borne of ideology.
The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is no more anti-Semitic than those who called an end to the attacks on the front-line ethnic groups in Burma are anti-Burmese. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is no more anti-Semitic than those of us who have criticised the Syrian Government and its policies and called for boycotts against that government—as the mover of the motion and I did at a meeting in this Chamber two nights ago. That does not make the Hon. David Clarke or me anti-Syrian; it makes us concerned for the systematic abuse of human rights in Syria. Those of us who support boycotts, divestments and sanctions are not anti-Israel, are not anti-Semitic and are not anti-Jewish; we are concerned about the systematic abuse of human rights.
I cannot support the motion, just as my Greens colleagues Bob Brown and Christine Milne in the Senate and other senators voted against a similar motion moved by The Nationals member Senator Boswell. The motion before the House today is somewhat of a copy of Senator Boswell's motion. That motion was a nasty wedge and this motion is a nasty wedge. As an Australian Jew I find the exploitation of false accusations of anti-Semitism particularly obnoxious. Others of similar ethnic and religious backgrounds to me might disagree and say there is anti-Semitism; it is their right to do so. But let us be absolutely clear, the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is not anti-Semitic. One might not like that it targets Israel or that it targets shops that are owned by Israelis, but it does not target shops that are owned by Jews. It has no connection to the appalling tactics implemented by the Nazis during the Holocaust. I am not the only person of Jewish extraction who believes this. Vivienne Porzsolt is a spokesperson for Jews Against the Occupation in Sydney, and she has worked for years for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In April this year she wrote:
I know many Jews feel deeply threatened by the boycott, divestments sanctions [BDS] campaign against Israel.
It feels like a threat to eliminate Israel. For so many Jews, Israel is a guarantee of survival, so BDS is a threat to Jewish survival and ipso facto anti-Semitic.
But principled opposition to the state of Israel is not anti-Semitic. boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] against the state of Israel are not anti-Semitic. BDS is not aimed at Israel or Israelis or Jews as such; it is aimed at the institutions of the state of Israel until it abides by international law.
She goes on to say:
Israel is in breach of international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in so many ways: torture, collective punishment, transferring settlers to land under occupation, refusal to allow Palestinians displaced in the wars of 1948 and 1967 to return to the land of their birth, disproportionate response to attacks, illegal destruction of Palestinian homes, crops and olive groves; continuing alienation of land; the illegal blockade of Gaza; the systematic discrimination in access to land, education and resources within Israel and ongoing military occupation.
It is fundamentally dishonest to attack opposition to Israel as anti-Semitic. It is intended to silence legitimate criticism. It also makes it impossible to challenge the real anti-Semitism that is, unfortunately, on the increase. ...
5726 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
Jews Against the Occupation supports the broad-based call from Palestinian civil society for boycotts, divestment and sanctions of Israel until it abides by international law.
...
It is the only non-violent way to put real pressure on Israel. It is in the proud tradition of Ghandi and Martin Luther King.
Criticism of Israel in the name of justice and human rights is much more in line with traditional Jewish ethics than the narrow focus of the shortest Zionist movement.
"Never again" must mean "never again" for all people, not just Jews.
I echo Vivienne Porzsolt's words. She is saying that there is a range of opinions amongst Jews with respect to the Middle East. Those who seek to say that the Jewish community is 100 per cent opposed to the boycotts, divestments and sanctions are simply wrong. The mover of the motion seeks to close the attack on the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign under the mantle of anti-Semitism. But the accusation surely does not sit comfortably with him. He is the same David Clarke who twice—once in April 2005 and then in April 2007— attended a commemoration of the rise of the fascist Ustasha Government into power in Croatia in April 1941. He is the same David Clarke who was reprimanded by the chief executive officer of the Jewish Board of Deputies, Mr Vic Alhadeff, who I acknowledge is present in the gallery today. In the Jewish News of 26 April 2007, Mr Alhadeff said of the Hon. David Clarke:
The function— that is, the function attended by the Hon. David Clarke—
celebrated Hitler's establishment of the Nazi state of Croatia ... This is a state that supported the Jasenovac extermination camp, where hundreds of thousands of people were murdered, including 60,000 Jews ... It is very troubling that such a brutal regime still finds support in democratic Australia.
There is no excuse for the Hon. David Clarke moving this motion when he so shamefully supported the celebration of the Nazi regime in Croatia. Like so many who come from the extreme Right, today he finds himself with the fanatical support of Israel. He joins with groups such as the Australian Protectionist Party and others in opposing the boycotts, divestments and sanctions campaign. Many in the Jewish community will be shocked to see the way the Hon. David Clarke summons up the memory of the Holocaust when his mentor—
The Hon. David Clarke: Point of order: I take exception to some of the comments made by Dr John Kaye. I find the comments offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Dr John Kaye is well past the point of merely addressing the motion. He is making serious reflections on the Hon. David Clarke, who has taken exception to them. The Hon. David Clarke, who moved the motion, will have an opportunity to respond to the comments of Dr John Kaye in his reply. However, if Dr John Kaye wishes to continue to explore these matters he should do so by way of substantive motion.
Mr David Shoebridge: To the point of order—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have made my ruling. Mr David Shoebridge will not canvass my ruling by taking a further point of order.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Use of the memory of the Holocaust for political purposes, as has been done in the Chamber today, is unconscionable. It is unconscionable because it holds to ransom the memory of people who cannot speak for themselves, the many people who were fine supporters of social justice and who stood up for the rights of other oppressed people. I cannot support this motion. Earlier this week Bob Brown, Christine Milne and the other Greens senators voted against the motions put forward by Senator Boswell and Senator Abetz. I will follow their lead and vote against this motion. I move:
That the question be amended by omitting paragraph (a).
The boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is a valid expression of democracy. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found that the boycotts did not in any way interfere with company profits. It is a legitimate way for individuals to protest. It is a way for individuals to say that they cannot tolerate the treatment of the Palestinian people, just as they cannot tolerate the treatment of other people who are abused around the world. If the Hon. David Clarke and supporters of this motion were serious about supporting the 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5727
future of the Jewish people they would desist in giving unqualified support to Israel. The future of the Jewish people in the Middle East will be determined by a settlement that respects the human rights of the Palestinian people.
Those who live outside Israel, who give that unqualified support and refuse to tolerate any criticism of Israel, do the Jewish people no favour. All they do is create an environment in which the Jewish people and the state of Israel continue to operate without respect for the human rights of the Palestinian people. As long as that continues there will not be peace or human rights in the Middle East. This motion does nothing to advance the cause of human rights and peace in the Middle East; it works against them. This motion does nothing to respect the systemic denial of the Palestinians in the Middle East, and it does nothing to respect the rights of Australians to legitimately protest when they see injustice internationally. I am opposed to the motion.
The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [12.11 p.m.]: I support the motion. I did not know it was being moved today so I do not have extensive notes; I am going on my instincts. I am a member of the Israeli friendship community and I acknowledge the presence of the Board of Deputies. I shall make a couple of observations on the boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] campaign from an economic, domestic and international perspective. I think the most recent figure I heard was that the Marrickville brainwave would cost the Marrickville ratepayers $3 million; it would disadvantage them in many ways, their services would cost extra and they would have to forgo some services. For a local government body such as Marrickville Council to indulge in foreign affairs—I think I mentioned this in another speech on the Marrickville issue—is terrible. It is not what local government is about. It is far beyond the skills, capacity and knowledge of councillors.
The electors of Marrickville passed judgement on those attitudes and, thankfully, the mayor of Marrickville was not elected to Parliament. That would have been a grave mistake for the lower House. In terms of the international perspective and the economic impact from campaigns such as the boycott, divestment and sanction, I do not support boycotts in any way, shape or form. The history of them is weak, especially in South Africa, which has been mentioned several times in this debate. I think the great losers from boycotts are always the voiceless, the disadvantaged, the poor, the unskilled—those who do not have a say in these matters. What would be the outcome of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign if it flowed through to Israel? It would largely impact on the Palestinians. Why do we have such discord and discontent amongst the Palestinians? Because inevitably they are at the bottom of the economic chain in that region.
Most companies that have been mentioned employ Palestinians. Hundreds of people travel from Palestine every day to work in the factories. What would be the outcome of boycotts and a reduction in economic activity by infrastructure technology, defence and food firms, et cetera? It would result in more economic disadvantage for the Palestinians. What would be the product of that? Probably more youth, particularly males, would be unemployed. They have some of the highest unemployment in Israel. In conclusion, the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is muddle-headed. The impact would be most keenly felt by the Palestinians, and it would lead to greater discontent, more conflict and loss of life in Israel and Palestine.
The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK [12.15 p.m.]: As time is limited I simply place on record that the Shooters and Fishers Party totally supports the motion. For both personal and policy reasons, we think it is a good motion and we will be voting for it.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [12.15 p.m.]: At the outset let me say that there are elements of this motion that I support as a member of The Greens New South Wales. I support paragraph (d), which states:
(d) condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms.
I confirm my support for the motion moved earlier by my colleague Dr John Kaye that did just that. Indeed, I echo and commend the words of my Greens colleague Dr John Kaye in his contribution to the House. If the motion were drafted to condemn violence, including violent protests, I would support it. However, the motion goes well beyond these matters; therefore, I do not support it and I will be voting against it. I join with my Federal colleagues—including Senator Bob Brown, Senator Christine Milne and Senator Lee Rhiannon—who opposed a similar motion in the Federal Senate earlier this week.
I am a proud member of The Greens New South Wales. I have a deep respect for our history, our structures and the decisions the party makes. One core principle underpinning The Greens New South Wales is peace and non-violence. We oppose violence and promote peace wherever we can. The Greens oppose the use 5728 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
of violence by police and protesters alike. We oppose violence by Israelis and Palestinians. We also respect the right of people to protest as fundamental to a healthy, functioning democracy. This is true even when we disagree with those protesters. For example, when 300 hopelessly misguided individuals went to Canberra to protest against the carbon tax I did not agree with them, but my Greens colleagues and I respected their right to protest.
When Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile wants to protest against Greens policies—such as abortion law reform, euthanasia or marriage equality—and organises supporters to protest outside Parliament House or in the Domain I will not agree with what he is protesting about, but I will respect the fact that he and his supporters have a right to protest as a sign of a functioning democracy. I cannot support this motion as it seeks to condemn people for exercising their right to protest. I have not been involved in the Max Brenner protests. The Greens New South Wales have not endorsed any of them, but I respect the right of those protesters to make their views known and to use peaceful protests to raise their concerns about the plight of Palestinians under occupation, those in refugee camps and those suffering from an unjust trade blockade in the Gaza.
I will not condemn people of goodwill who are protesting on our streets for the rights of oppressed people, such as the Palestinians. The protests outside the Max Brenner premises clearly have been controversial. I may not choose to protest outside one of these premises in New South Wales, but I will not condemn those people of goodwill who choose to peacefully protest and raise in the way they see best the plight of the Palestinian people and the culpability of the Israeli state in that plight. The motion attacks the boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] campaign. Many people from across the globe have drawn inspiration from this global movement to promote the human rights of Palestinian people. The movement was initiated by Palestinian civil society in 2005 and is coordinated by the Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions national committee established in 2007. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is one strategy to allow people of conscience to play an effective role in the Palestinian struggle for justice. As the committee says on its website:
For decades Israel has denied the Palestinians their fundamental rights of freedom, equality and self-determination through ethnic cleansing, colonisation, racial discrimination and military occupation. Despite abundant condemnation of Israel's policies by the UN, other international bodies and pre-eminent human rights organisations, the world community has failed to hold Israel accountable and enforce compliance with basic principles of law. Israel's crimes have continued with impunity.
In view of this continued failure Palestinian civil society called for global citizens' response on 9 July 2005 a year after the International Court of Justice's historic advisory opinion on the illegality of Israel's Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, a clear majority of Palestinian civil society called upon their counterparts and people of conscience all over the world to launch broad boycotts, implement divestment initiatives and to demand sanctions against Israel until Palestinian rights are recognised in full compliance with international law.
This is a peaceful movement. It is an option raised by many Palestinians in place of a further armed struggle or intifada. We must not forget this. For many people struggling with occupation, armed struggle is an option. By contrast, the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is rooted in peace and non-violence. It is a campaign that The Greens New South Wales support. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign seeks to place pressure on the Israeli Government until it meets its obligations under international law by:
(1) ending its occupation and colonisation of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the wall;
(2) recognising the fundamental rights of the Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
(3) respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.
Many members of this House would support these goals if they took the time to read and understand them. However, opponents go to great lengths to discredit supporters of this movement by talking about anti-Semitism, by talking about violence and by alleging incorrectly that the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign denies Israel's right to exist. It simply does not. As I have set out above, none of these allegations is true of the principles of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. Of course, no movement is perfect. No global grassroots campaign is without difficulties. I am opposed to people being violent, racist or discriminatory whatever banner they do it under—including if it happens under the banner of the Liberal Party, the banner of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign, or any other banner.
This is not an issue that I have sought to make the focus of my time in the New South Wales Parliament. However, given the motion has been moved, I note that I am opposed to the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories by the Israeli Government. I also oppose the continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank, both in density and size. There are now more than 230 illegal settlements in the West Bank, East 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5729
Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. All are illegal under international law and have been repeatedly condemned in the United Nations, yet nothing changes on the ground. Since 1967 more than 24,000 Palestinian homes have been destroyed in the occupation. This is simply wrong.
I am opposed to the ritual humiliation of Palestinians at checkpoints by members of the Israeli Army. Again, it is wrong. Of course, I fully support the right of Israel to exist in safe, secure and United Nations mandated borders. This is a fact enshrined in The Greens policy at both a State and Federal level. I emphasise this fact. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign acknowledges the right of Israel to exist, but it also confirms that Israel, like all nations, has an obligation to those people who live within its borders. It is within its power to respect the rights of those people and it is a necessity that Israel respects the rights of Palestinians, including the right to self-determination.
The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign in Australia has been answered and supported by groups as diverse as the Australian Council of Churches, the Victorian Trades Hall and various unions, including the Electrical Trades Union, the Australian Manufacturing and Workers Union, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the Queensland Branch of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union and the Finance Sector Union. It is supported in one form or another by groups and individuals across the globe, including many local governments. Indeed, it is supported by the socialist left of the New South Wales Labor Party. One notable supporter of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is Nobel Laureate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who recently wrote to Marrickville Greens Mayor, Fiona Byrne, and three fellow councillors in relation to the campaign. I quote from Desmond Tutu's letter:
We in South Africa, who both suffered Apartheid and defeated it, have the moral right and responsibility to name and shame institutionalised separation, exclusion and domination by one ethnic group over others. In my own eyes I have seen how the Palestinians are oppressed, dispossessed and exiled.
We call on all our Jewish and Israeli sisters and brothers to oppose the occupation, and work for equality, justice and peace, between the River and the Sea, in the same way that so many South African Whites took risks to oppose the crime of Apartheid.
It continues:
International Boycotts Divestment and Sanctions against the Apartheid regime, combined with the mass struggle inside South Africa, led to our victory. I recall that after the very strong actions to prevent Apartheid sportsmen competing with Australians, that Councils, starting with Wollongong, declared their cities "Apartheid-free" areas, and this was a great contribution.
Sometimes taking a public stand for what is ethical and right brings costs, but social justice on a local or global scale requires faith and courage.
Paragraph (d) of the motion speaks about condemning anti-Semitism in all its forms. I think we should recognise that includes condemning anti-Semitism where we see it appear in New South Wales politics. Sadly, it has raised its head in the ranks of the Liberal Party in New South Wales. My colleague Dr John Kaye spoke of the attendance by the Hon. David Clarke at that appalling celebration of Croatia's independence in April 2007 and 2005. I join with Dr John Kaye in condemning the Hon. David Clarke in that regard.
Again we must look towards the Liberal Party's rather unfortunate flirting with anti-Semitism, including allowing into its ranks a gentleman by the name of Lyenko Urbanchich, who had an absolutely appalling history. He held a senior position in the then German quisling Slovenian administration that commenced in 1943. He had an appalling history of anti-Semitism. Indeed, he spewed forth streams of Nazi propaganda in the position that he held in the Slovenian administration at the time. Unfortunately for Australia, he migrated here in 1950. Unfortunately for opponents of anti-Semitism, he joined the Liberal Party. Indeed, in 1964 Mr Urbanchich was president of the Liberal Party's Kings Cross branch. But he went beyond that: he took a central role in the Liberal Party. At the peak of Lyenko Urbanchich's success—
The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Point of order: Mr President, I refer you to your earlier ruling in relation to comments made by Dr John Kaye in similar circumstances. I did not know Mr Urbanchich. He is dead and cannot defend himself. The comments of Mr David Shoebridge have nothing to do with the motion before the House. They are not relevant.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: The motion condemns anti-Semitism. I am referring to that issue.
Dr John Kaye: Mr President, I ask that you turn the clock off.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Clerk to stop the clock. 5730 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
Dr John Kaye: To the point of order: Your ruling in relation to my speech was about comments I made about a member who was present in the House. I abided by your ruling. Mr David Shoebridge is not talking about somebody who is present in the House; he is talking about somebody who is not here. Other members chose to attack another person who is not here: Ms Lee Rhiannon. They thought that that was absolutely fine.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Earlier I made a ruling in relation to Dr John Kaye making reflections on another member of this House. The second part of the point of order taken by the Hon. Marie Ficarra referred to relevance. Paragraph (d) of the motion states:
(d) condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms.
If the comments of Mr David Shoebridge are directed towards that paragraph of the motion they are in order. However, I ask the member to ensure that his comments are relevant to that paragraph in all his observations.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Mr President, I note and appreciate your ruling. The peak of Urbanchich's success came in 1977, when he helped form the Liberal Ethnic Council. I take the following from the obituary of Urbanchich written by Mark Aarons, "As council president, he automatically had a seat on the State executive. Other council executive members included his close ally, David Clarke," who, it was said, learnt ethnic branch-stacking techniques from his mentor, and today leads a faction of the Liberal Party. It is well known that the Hon. David Clarke helped organise the numbers to narrowly save Mr Urbanchich—
The Hon. John Ajaka: Point of order—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Mr David Shoebridge is clearly casting reflections on a member of the House and appears ready to continue to do so. I remind Mr David Shoebridge of the rulings that have been made on this issue. The standing orders are quite clear.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Again, I note and respect your ruling, Mr President. So when this House joins in condemning anti-Semitism, as it did earlier today in a motion that I proudly and happily supported, it must recognise that doing so condemns anti-Semitism wheresoever it appears, in whatever form it appears. Of course, that is a sentiment that The Greens—I, my colleague John Kaye and other members of The Greens— fully and sincerely support. The strong and principled opposition to anti-Semitism, and falsely drawing a connection between the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign and anti-Semitism for what is a shallow and cheap political point, goes against that campaign, that strong sense of unity that we should all be building against anti-Semitism. I will not be supporting this motion.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL [12.30 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. David Clarke. In doing so I want to record some facts in Hansard. I think it is important to understand the history of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign, because there seems to be some misunderstanding about it and how it was created. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign was not created in 2004, as has been claimed by previous speakers in this debate. The campaign was created out of Durban I in 2001. Durban I, which was of course supposedly the United Nations conference against racism held in Durban, was one of the low points in the history of the United Nations. It became a hate-fest against Israel and was blatantly anti-Semitic—to the point that a number of Western countries, including the United States of America and Australia, boycotted conferences following Durban I.
The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is about turning the legitimate state of Israel, the Jewish homeland, into an illegitimate state. People will sugar coat it in any way they want—some who have spoken in this debate have done that, and I understand the discomfort of The Greens as they attempt to justify their support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign at the same time as attacking other people in this place—but let us look at what the campaign is about. It is about saying that the state of Israel is the new apartheid South Africa. That is the essence of the campaign. It manifests itself over Max Brenner chocolates shops as a consequence of a decision made by those people.
Why do people feel uncomfortable about this boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign? I feel uncomfortable to see Jewish shops, Israeli shops, being targeted because that brings back images very similar to those seen pre-war in Nazi Germany, Austria and other places. I think that is a legitimate concern. It is interesting that people say, "We passed a resolution earlier condemning the Syrian Government for atrocities 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5731
being committed there." I do not see the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigning outside a Syrian kebab shop. I do not see people targeting Syrian stores in this country—or stores that have an association with the Syrian Government or have businesses in Syria.
Dr John Kaye: Name one.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Let us just look at who the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign believes are guilty: McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Volvo, Starbucks, Max Brenner, Dannon—the list goes on. Those are some of the companies that boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is targeting. Sure, if they want to do that, that is fine. But they need to understand, and The Greens need to understand, that there is a distinct discomfort in watching particular civilian stores being targeted in a way that is very similar to what happened in pre-war Nazi Germany. I think that is a legitimate concern for people to have. The strategy that came out of Durban I—one of the most notorious stains on United Nations history—was to try to equate the state of Israel with apartheid South Africa. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign tries to equate Israel as an apartheid state in order to de-legitimise it. That is the objective. Its objective is not a two-state resolution.
What was the chant at the Max Brenner store in Victoria? It was, "From the River to the Sea". What does that mean? It means they want to see one state running from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean—one state. The basic theory of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is that removing the only Jewish state in the Middle East and turning it into an Arab state will somehow contribute to peace.
Dr John Kaye: That's not true.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I hear the chants from members behind me, "That's not true." Unfortunately for some members of this House, documentation, including the boycott, divestment and sanctions manual issued by Australians for Palestine, shows it is true. That manual contains some very interesting things—apart from the extensive list of shops of United States companies that do business with Israel. It is this document that raises the issue of the Holocaust and equates the treatment of the Palestinians with the treatment of Jews in the Holocaust—not I; it is in this document. That is a fact.
Some of the organisations that this document, the guide to how to run the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign, says should be avoided include trade unions linking Israel and Palestine. Do not associate with them, says the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign manifest, because they actually encourage a two-state solution in the Middle East. Do not be involved with the Peres Centre for Peace—another organisation directly targeted by the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign group, which says we must not associate with them. Do not associate with StandWithUs—another peace movement in the Middle East. And do not associate with Invest for Peace, which argues that the best way to have a two-state solution in the Middle East is to build the economies of both the Palestinians and the Israelis. Those are organisations that boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign prohibits people from being directly involved with, according to the campaign manifesto. That is the sort of action we are seeing in Victoria.
It is important to understand that this strategy of trying to make Israel the new apartheid nation is a very deliberate one: basically, they want to make it unpopular to support Israel or to have any involvement with Israel. Of course, the Jewish community has many different views on Israel. I am not a supporter of everything that happens in Israel. I am not particularly a supporter of the present government in Israel. However, I do support the right of Israel to exist in secure and safe borders. It is interesting that we heard about a long list of crimes committed by the state of Israel—this one Jewish state about the size of Tasmania, surrounded by such broad democracies as Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and with other neighbours Iraq, Iran, Yemen and Libya. All of those nations are just absolute stars of democracies!
Under the second major platform of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign we are led to believe that the resolution of all the problems in the Middle East will come from the abolition of the state of Israel—from the river to the sea. Take away this little Jewish state stuck in the centre of the Middle East and all of the problems in the Middle East will be resolved. The problems in Libya will disappear. The problems in Egypt will disappear. The problems in Syria will disappear. The problems in Lebanon will disappear. Herein lies the basic fault in the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign: it is targeted very viciously, and very deliberately, at the existence of the state of Israel. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign cloaks what it is really about in nice and different acronyms, but it is very clear what it is about: de-legitimising the existence of the state of Israel—from the river to the sea. 5732 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
Members might ask: Where does the slogan "From the river to the sea" come from? It is not an original slogan of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign; it is, of course, the slogan of Hamas—that democracy-loving organisation which is prohibited in many Western countries around the world. The manifesto of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign published by Australians for Palestine mentions Hamas as just a Palestinian organisation that is doing many good things for the Palestinians. Perhaps it is doing good things for some Palestinians. But I feel uncomfortable when the slogan chanted outside Max Brenner stores is the same slogan as that of a recognised terrorist organisation. I do not understand or see the connection between a white chocolate frappé and Max Brenner and resolving the problems of the Middle East. I see a sinister campaign run by some extremists who seem to have infiltrated one particular political party to try to de-legitimise Israel, a strategy clearly planned at Durban I and now being consistently followed to try to destroy the reputation of Israel.
We need to think carefully about this motion, because it is a good motion. The manifestation that we have seen of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign in this country has been very disappointing. Protests have been violent and targeted by extremists on both sides. Indeed, the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is extreme and some of the opponents from the right-wing political party cited by a previous speaker are also extremist. I have heard all these arguments before. I have been called a communist Zionist, a fascist Zionist—often in the same day in my time at university. I have heard it all before and I have seen it before. I recognise that if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it is usually a duck.
I support a two-state solution in Palestine and Israel, as do most reasonably minded people. They believe that the final outcome to the challenges in that part of the Middle East will be a two-state solution. What the final boundaries will be is something to be resolved, but I do not support the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign, which does not seek a two-state solution. Its terms are "from the river to the sea". It seeks to have one Palestinian state and argues that all of the problems of the Middle East will go if this is achieved. Two earlier speakers have explained the various crimes of Israel. They failed to mention that the small sovereign state of Israel has been through numerous wars in its very short existence.
Indeed, in the past decade more than 10,000 rockets and mortars have been launched into Israel. Members should think about the current debate in the community in relation to the refugee issue and boats arriving in this country. Where would we be today if 10,000 mortars and rockets had landed on Australian soil in the past 10 years? Indeed, we can understand why both the Israelis and the Jewish community are concerned about a seeming complete imbalance in the debate. I do not pretend for one second that the Palestinians have had a great deal in the state of Israel the whole time. I am quite reasonable about that. I believe that a two-state outcome is the solution. Whether Hamas can ever be a partner in peace is something to be seen, but certainly while it still commits itself in writing to the destruction of the state of Israel that seems very unlikely.
Here in Australia, with our values of a democracy, I certainly support protest. People are welcome to protest outside the Israeli Embassy. Why do they target a Jewish chocolate shop? They should cut out the middle man and protest outside synagogues, because almost everybody at the synagogues would be supportive of the state of Israel. There may be a few there who are not but the majority would support it. A couple of high holidays are imminent. So the protests could be outside synagogues. These people target stores in a deliberate media campaign to de-legitimise the state of Israel. They believe that if they can destroy the reputation of a Jewish chocolate shop they can destroy the reputation of the sovereign state of the Jewish homeland. That is why I say to the House: We must support this motion.
The Hon. David Clarke and I do not see eye to eye on many issues. Indeed, in the past I have taken advantage of the rules of this House to have a few jibes at the Hon. David Clarke. However, as bad as the Hon. David Clarke may be in some aspects of his life, and I will not judge those today, do not be fooled by the red herrings raised by The Greens about what is happening in the Liberal Party. That is a debate for another day.
Dr John Kaye: You don't care about that?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: No. The Greens are trying to distract attention from the debate. I do care about it and I have raised it in this House but today we are debating the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. Dr John Kaye is the one who claimed the Holocaust should not be raised yet it is raised in the campaign's own document. I will always support the right of people to protest. I have protested many times, and I have been the subject of protests in my life as well, but when Jewish chocolate shops are targeted on the slimmest of reasons I know something is going wrong. Yes, I feel uncomfortable when I look at images of people standing outside Max Brenner's and people being violent. I think I have seen those images before 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5733
somewhere and I am uncomfortable with that. This boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is sinister and is designed to de-legitimise the state of Israel. It does not help this country of Australia. It does not come up with a solution.
The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign group does not believe in a two separate state solution but it believes basically in the extinguishment of the state of Israel to be replaced by a Palestinian state. It believes that on that basis somehow all the problems in the Middle East will be solved. I do not think the rebels in Libya are particularly concerned about what is happening with the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign right now. I do not think the oppressed people of Syria are concerned about what is happening with the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign right now as they try to overthrow the Assad regime. The real solution will come through peace, negotiation and reconciliation. That is exactly what the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign will not do.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [12.45 p.m.]: The Greens have a strong and principled position on the question of the Israel-Palestine conflict in the Middle East. The Australian Greens resolution on the matter makes clear our support for the rights and aspirations of both the Palestinian and the Israeli people to live in peace and security in their own independent, sovereign States. The ongoing injustices against the Palestinian people, including ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories and the expropriation of Palestinian land and resources for Israeli settlements, is unacceptable. The Greens are extremely critical of Israeli Government actions in this area.
The motion moved by the Hon. David Clarke deals specifically with recent events in Australia and protests which have targeted the Max Brenner stores. The motion is, of course, as we all know in this place, a highly cynical exercise. This is an attempt to score political points and has nothing to do with finding a just peace in the Middle East, as many speakers have said. I will address the content of the motion. Paragraph (a) notes with concern the boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] campaign targeting businesses which operate in Australia. The campaign is a tactic used by some Palestinian human rights campaigners. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign urges various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law. I agree that this tactic has been extremely controversial and its success in Australia has been brought into question. The Greens New South Wales are currently undertaking a review of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign.
Paragraph (b) condemns the targeting of Max Brenner by protesters. While I do not agree with much of what other members have said in this debate, I share the concern of some members that the tone and public perception of these protests have been counterproductive and they are of concern to me. The Greens do not endorse the Max Brenner protests. The Greens are not involved in the organisation, promotion or otherwise of these events. I note that some members have tried to directly link The Greens with those protests. We are not officially involved and we do not endorse it. The word "condemn", however, in paragraph (b) can mean to sentence someone or to condemn something as unfit to use or similar. All members need to be very careful how we use this term and, indeed, whom we condemn. To that end I move:
That the question be amended as follows:
1. In paragraph (b), omit "calls on all members to condemn" and insert instead "notes with concern".
2. Insert after paragraph (d):
(e) supports Australia's rich heritage of peaceful protest and the right of all Australians to participate in peaceful protest".
The right to peaceful protest is something The Greens fundamentally support and, we believe, should be emphasised. I note that many members of this Chamber have said that they support the right of legitimate peaceful protest. Paragraph (c) notes that some of the rhetoric used by those involved in the boycott, disinvestment and sanctions campaign has descended into anti-Semitism. In my view certain chants used at the protest have descended into that domain. The Hon. Eric Roozendaal mentioned the "From the river to the sea" chant. I echo his concerns about it and do not support its use. It is unfortunate and it should be condemned. I therefore support paragraph (c) of the motion. Paragraph (d) calls on the House to condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. Dr John Kaye moved a similar motion this morning and it was agreed to by this House. The sentiment in that paragraph is of course completely noncontroversial and I also support it.
I urge all members to support my amendments. I recognise that they may not succeed, and if they do not I have no choice but to support the motion as it stands. I note that the motion moved in the Senate this week, 5734 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
which The Greens supported, was slightly different from this motion. It did mention The Greens, Greens member of the Legislative Council Jeremy Buckingham and other issues. It is therefore very different from this motion. In fact, if the motion moved by Senator Boswell in the Senate were moved in this House I, too, would vote against it. However, I do not support the way in which this motion is being used as a political weapon against The Greens. It is being used in a manner similar to that used by the Hon. Penny Sharpe when she moved a motion about Marrickville Council garbage workers going on strike. Like that motion, this motion is being used to bash The Greens. I have given this motion a great deal of considered thought and I have found it difficult to arrive at this decision, but I can only vote in support of it.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.52 p.m.]: I support the motion and congratulate the mover, the Hon. David Clarke, on moving it. I note what has been said by other speakers and, in particular, the Hon. Trevor Khan and the Hon. Eric Roozendaal. I will not deal with the issues they have raised other than to say that I agree with them. This form of boycott as pushed by the boycott, disinvestment and sanctions movement is nothing more than prejudice and racism. With all due respect to some members who say that this is simply another form of protest in a democratic society, I cannot agree. It is a form of racism and prejudice directed at one part of our community.
We take great pride in the multicultural nature of this country and this State. As the Premier has said on many occasions, we take pride in the fact that that is one of our greatest assets. I take pride in being part of a multicultural community. My father was born in Lebanon and my mother was born in Palestine-Jerusalem. I say that because she has two birth certificates: one says that she was born in Palestine and the other says she was born in Jerusalem. I was born in Australia. If this type of boycott were directed at an Islamic, Catholic or Jewish community or any other religious or cultural community it would not be acceptable. It is a form of prejudice and racism and I cannot accept it. We in this country welcome people who want to do business here, because they provide jobs and resources. I must admit that I have had a few Brenner waffles—perhaps too many. It is unacceptable that such a business is being subjected to this dreadful boycott.
My office library contains the first book that I read, Mein Kampf. I read it as a year 11 student while studying advanced history. I still have it, but not because I respect it; in fact, I detest it and its message. I have kept it as a reminder of the potential outcome of a protest such as the one we are witnessing against one religious or ethnic community. It is a reminder that that should never happen in Australia. We cannot allow this type of prejudice and racism to fester and spread. It is not a protest; it is the dreadful beginning of a movement targeting one culture and one religion. I cannot accept that and I will not allow it to happen: I will do everything I can to prevent it. That is why a protest against a business such as Max Brenner's is unacceptable. It is not a protest; it is a fundamental attack. For those reasons, I reject the boycott, disinvestment and sanctions movement and everything it represents. I support this motion and ask all honourable members to do likewise. Let this House be a house that continually stands against any form of prejudice and racism.
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [12.56 p.m.]: Like my colleagues, I was not aware that this motion was to be debated today. I support paragraph (d) of the motion and condemn all forms of discrimination, anti-Semitism and racism. I condemn it in this House and everywhere else. I ask the mover of the motion not only to condemn anti-Semitism but also to follow my lead in condemning the cheap political motivation behind the rest of the motion. I do not believe that the rest of the motion is genuine. Unfortunately, this is nothing more than wedge politics. Just as we argued that Marrickville Council should not interfere in international politics, we in this House also should not interfere in international politics.
I do not know Max Brenner but I offer him my best wishes. I have not eaten the chocolate or the waffles that his shops offer. However, I wish him the same success that I wish any Australian business operators who are doing the best they can for their family. I also know nothing about the boycott, disinvestment and sanctions movement, but I do know that the politics motivating the motion should be condemned. Although that motion is shameful, this motion is designed simply to drive a wedge between members of this House.
I cannot support what the Israelis are doing. I come from southern Lebanon, which the Israelis have invaded many times. I was there when the tanks rolled in and the jets roared overhead. My family was there when 10 of my father's first cousins in a car were the victims of an Israeli missile attack and eight were killed. The Israelis have occupied southern Lebanon for 25 years and created a southern Lebanese army of mercenaries whose job it is to punish the local people. That must also be condemned. I support the comments made by Dr John Kaye and Mr David Shoebridge to the extent that people who have suffered under the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon or elsewhere—leaving aside the Palestinians at this point—must have a say and their rights must be recognised. 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5735
The Palestinians, who have been made homeless as a result of the Israeli state for the last 60 years, must be recognised. They are human beings who have rights. They have as much right as Israelis, and everybody recognises that. In my inaugural speech I said that Israelis and Palestinians have a right to exist side by side. The Israelis must have their state, as should the Palestinians. They are, like you and me, human beings who have a right to live in their homeland. Although it has been 60 years, some of them still have keys to their homes and wait for the opportunity to return.
It is not much for people to be able to protest, to have a say democratically in a non-violent way. People can protest on the street here if they wish. I am happy for them to so as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. I do not think these protests will infringe on the rights of others. I do not support targeting a business, but there is a principle behind this, human beings are behind this and the Palestinian people have suffered for so long. I call on the Israeli state to make peace with the Palestinians, to give them their rights and to allow Palestinians a homeland. If it does not do so, we will continue to have this debate for many years to come.
In conclusion, I respect the Hon. David Clarke. I have had a good relationship with him since becoming a member of this Chamber. I call on him, as he condemns anti-Semitism, to move motions to condemn the vilification of the Muslim community in this House and outside. I ask the Hon. David Clarke to move a motion condemning all forms of anti-Muslim sentiments happening here in this House.
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [1.02 p.m.]: Boycott, divestment and sanctions activists regularly demonise Israel as an apartheid state, even though the analogy between Israel, where Arabs exercise full citizenship rights, and apartheid South Africa is utterly specious. Israel is a pluralist democracy with an elected Parliament, independent courts, a free press and vigorous intellectual debate. Israel is a lot more accommodating of human rights, individual freedoms and democratic movements than any other nation in its region. It is, of course, possible to support Israel's right to exist and right to self-defence while at the same time oppose its excesses and counterproductive policies, such as ongoing construction of illegal settlements. I am no fan of Israel's current Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Lieberman, but the Israeli polity alone in the Middle East permits opposition.
I recognise that the Palestinian people have suffered greatly in pursuit of their legitimate aspiration—a national homeland of their own. I also recognise that Israel cannot make peace with those that seek to deny its existence. International campaigns to impose trade and cultural boycotts serve the purpose of de-legitimising the state of Israel and, in doing so, they feed the eliminationist narrative of Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and all those who want Israel wiped off the map, and they align themselves with their putrid racism of those groups, their holocaust denial, promotion of anti-Semitic stereotypes and raw sewage Nazi ideology.
Israel is currently held to a far higher standard than any other country. Israel has not always got the balance right between human rights and legitimate security requirements, but where are the campaigns to boycott the serial abusers of human rights, such as Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Zimbabwe, or the regimes in Cuba and Venezuela that are lauded by some who promote the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel? The call to boycott Jewish commerce is Europe's oldest political appeal. That call today goes under the name of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. I condemn it.
Pursuant to standing orders debate interrupted to permit the mover of the motion to speak in reply.
Leave granted for debate to continue to allow the Hon. Jan Barham and the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to speak for no more than three minutes each.
The Hon. JAN BARHAM [1.07 p.m.]: I acknowledge that The Greens have a principle of peace and non-violence and an adopted position of support for the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Palestinian and Israeli people to live in peace and security in their own independent sovereign states. I respect that there are many different views on this issue and, in particular, I acknowledge the contribution of the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane and his emotional words. The amendments proposed by other Greens members are valid and should be considered by the House. For example, some of the language used in the motion is improved by the amendment moved by the Hon. Cate Faehrmann.
I acknowledge the concern that has been expressed with respect to the boycott, divestment and sanctions protests and the protest against Max Brenner. Many of my Jewish friends have raised their concerns 5736 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
about where this might go if left unchecked and the types of people it is attracting—extremists from the Right or the Left, however one would describe them. It is a worrying situation for many people. I agree with the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane, who said that this is a foreign policy matter and not really a matter for this place. However, I recognise the concerns expressed by the Australian public. There is misinformation. Many people feel fear at a time of unrest in the world, particularly as they watch other protests happening.
My position is to reluctantly support the motion, mindful that it may be used politically and that people may delight in raising an issue such as this to create division. I find it abhorrent that there are consistent attacks against The Greens and generalisations made to condemn all Greens. We have clear and long-term principles about peace and non-violence, about seeking resolution in peaceful and non-violent ways, about supporting people's rights and aspirations, and about seeking to uphold United Nations resolutions, international law and conventions, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [1.10 p.m.]: I support this important motion. I congratulate all members on their contributions to this debate. In particular, I congratulate the Hon. Eric Roozendaal on his passionate speech. I am an Australian with Hellenic heritage. My ancestors fought strongly, were butchered and died in their fight against totalitarian regimes. My ancestors fought for freedom, democracy and peace, and I will continue to fight for those values. Australia is a civil democratic society. I will always fight against racism. I will always fight against those who discriminate against people because of their religion, race or where they came from. I stand shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish community in New South Wales and Australia against the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. I stand against those people who believe that protesting outside a chocolate shop is okay. History demonstrates it is not okay. I encourage members to visit the State Library and read what happened in the history books.
This is a damaging campaign against hardworking businesspeople; against those hardworking, diligent, enterprising Australians who wake up every morning to do the right thing for their country, their employees and their communities. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign damages the hard work that most of us as community leaders have worked tirelessly for in our diverse communities: to live, work and raise families in a peaceful, free and harmonious democratic civil society. I am concerned about the focus of this campaign, which is to target businesses that, in many cases, are owned and operated by people of the Jewish faith. This type of action—even if it is not intended to do so—is evocative of some of the worst crimes to have ever taken place in our history. Targeting stores owned by Jewish people cannot help but arouse memories of those events and many find that painful and traumatic. It must stop. I commend the motion to the House.
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [1.13 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to this debate. The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane made a contribution to the debate. He is a good man who is well liked in this Chamber. I understand why he feels as he does on these issues, but this is a specific motion. The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane was speaking in general terms. The two issues are not in conflict. From time to time I attend functions held in the Muslim community. In fact, for three years running I have been the only member to have attended the annual function of the Bosnian-Muslim community, the celebration of Eid.
However, the comments made by Dr John Kaye are another issue. Dr John Kaye said we were making cheap political points and that the purpose of the motion was to cause wedges. I did not bring The Greens into this debate. I did not do that out of respect for people such as the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham and Hon. Jan Barham. Even though we have grave differences on policies, the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham and the Hon. Jan Barham are liked and respected in this House. I did not bring The Greens into this debate in the vain hope that people such as Dr John Kaye might come on board. Dr John Kaye spoke about the use of the memory of the Holocaust as being unconscionable. That was a vile and shameful thing for him to say. I did not hear any member in this Chamber speak about the Holocaust in any way other than in a respectful way. Mr David Shoebridge and Dr John Kaye said we do not tolerate any criticism of Israel. [Extension of time agreed to.]
The Government criticises the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign because the platform contains the seeds of destruction of the state of Israel because of its unnecessarily wide definition of "Palestinian refugees". The Hon. Eric Roozendaal referred to supporters of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign using the term "From the river to the sea"—we all know what that means. I now turn to some of the comments Dr John Kaye made about me. I can hold my head up high in opposing anti-Semitism, opposing racism and opposing Nazism, and so can my family. Holding my head up high will overcome people such as Dr John Kaye any day of the week. My stand on these issues over many years, and my actions, speak for themselves. They will not be undone by the smears of people such as Dr John Kaye or Mr David Shoebridge. I commend the motion to the House. 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5737
Question—That the amendment of Dr John Kaye be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 5
Mr Buckingham Dr Kaye Mr Shoebridge Tellers, Ms Barham Ms Faehrmann
Noes, 31
Mr Ajaka Mr Gay Mr Roozendaal Mr Blair Mr Green Mr Searle Mr Borsak Mr Khan Mr Secord Mr Brown Mr Lynn Ms Sharpe Mr Clarke Mr MacDonald Mr Veitch Ms Cotsis Mrs Maclaren-Jones Ms Westwood Mr Donnelly Mr Mason-Cox Mr Whan Ms Fazio Mrs Mitchell Ms Ficarra Reverend Nile Tellers, Mr Foley Mrs Pavey Mr Colless Mr Gallacher Mr Primrose Dr Phelps
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendment of Dr John Kaye negatived.
Question—That the amendment of the Hon. Cate Faehrmann be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.
Amendment of the Hon. Cate Faehrmann negatived.
Motion agreed to.
[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner) left the chair at 1.26 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 2.30 p.m. for questions.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______
ORICA PLANT INCIDENT
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Why will the Minister not inform the House when he was first advised of the Orica chemical leak?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I took the question on notice and I explained to the Leader of the Opposition that if he had asked the question in a different way I might have answered his question straightaway. But members would be aware of how stroppy he gets. The Leader of the Opposition was not in the Chamber on 12 August when I was first asked a question about this matter; he was scaremongering in Stockton. That is why I thought it was best to obtain a proper answer and to give it to him in accordance with the normal rules of this House. In relation to Orica, yesterday in question time once again I clearly encouraged any employee or interested party who had any questions, concerns or evidence about work health and safety issues at the Orica site to contact WorkCover. WorkCover has not received notifications of any actual illness or injury as a result of the chemical leak at Orica. 5738 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
WorkCover's investigation is ongoing. I have already noted on several occasions that WorkCover inspectors have regularly been on the site since commencing their formal investigation on 11 August 2011. WorkCover has already issued two improvement notices and one notice requiring the production of documents and these notices have been complied with. Four statements were taken from people who were on the site at the time and, as I indicated yesterday, a further 32 notices have been issued to other people. That means that everyone who was on the site on the day will give information to WorkCover. That means that WorkCover is asking questions of every worker on the site.
Yesterday I indicated also that I would ask the chief executive officer of WorkCover to give the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Walt Secord a call to invite them to give WorkCover any information that they might have. They would not take the call from the chief executive officer of WorkCover.
The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order: She has rung me.
The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a point of order. There is no standing order to that effect.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My advice is that they would not take the call from the chief executive officer of WorkCover. Did you take the call, Walt? Did you take the call?
The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order: No. For the record I did speak to the chief executive of WorkCover. The Minister is misleading the House.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The member is trifling with the House by making a debating point instead of taking a point of order.
The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: I take offence. I have not received a phone call from the chief executive officer of WorkCover. I ask the Minister to withdraw the allegation that he made about me.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My advice is that the chief executive officer of WorkCover called the office of the Leader of the Opposition and he did not take the call. I will come back to this issue.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Can the Minister inform the House about this Government's commitment to provide an around-the-clock fire response capability to the communities in Bathurst and Nowra?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I acknowledge the member's ongoing interest in emergency services. It gives me great pleasure to remind the House that last week's State budget provided $3.9 million in funding for Fire and Rescue NSW for additional staff at Bathurst and Nowra fire stations. This Government is committed to ensuring that our communities are prepared and protected in times of an emergency. This announcement supports that commitment and boosts community safety in both Bathurst and Nowra. The allocated funding will result in two additional fire station officers and eight additional fire fighters assigned to each station. This will enable crews to provide a fast response around the clock to fires and other emergencies, enhancing protection for the community.
Unlike those opposite, this Government understands that growth is not concentrated solely in the areas populated around inner city Sydney; many of our regional communities are also burgeoning. That is why the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government is delivering on its commitment to provide a 24/7 fire service to the Bathurst community. The Bathurst population is rapidly expanding, along with growth in commercial and industrial development. Nowra is also a major regional centre—a centre with which I know the President is familiar. The population of Nowra has steadily increased over the past 10 years with the Shoalhaven area supporting a large tourism industry and other major facilities. I am sure that the Hon. Paul Green is interested in and excited about this announcement.
These staffing upgrades will ensure that there are adequate numbers of firefighters in Bathurst and Nowra to provide 24/7 response and recovery services as well as frequent and improved community safety activities. Last week I informed members that I was particularly pleased to hear praise for the Government's initiative from Tim Anderson from the Fire Brigades Employees Union [FBEU]. Mr Anderson said on radio:
It's basically creating ten extra jobs for Bathurst and obviously all the advantages this brings with it. The extra dollars into town, ten extra people living in town, ten extra houses that will be occupied in town. So yes, it's definitely a benefit for the Bathurst community.
15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5739
These staffing upgrades will definitely benefit the Bathurst community.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: What about those members opposite who said that there would be job losses?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The union leader in that area said, "… it's definitely a benefit for the Bathurst community". Those words speak for themselves. The Fire Brigades Employees Union also publicly expressed its delight at the boost that the recent budget has provided to the people of Nowra. Andy Coppin, another member of the union, said:
It means you have got an enhanced fire protection coverage available for the residents of the Nowra and Bomaderry region which is something that an area the size of Nowra and Bomaderry has required for a number of years. It's good to see that the Government has come through with the funding.
We now have a new Government, a new approach to Fire and Rescue NSW and a new approach to country and regional New South Wales, which is long overdue for these regions. When the Hon. Steve Whan was Minister for Emergency Services he knew absolutely nothing about it. But Premier Barry O'Farrell is delivering for the people of Bathurst and Nowra.
ORICA PLANT INCIDENT
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. I refer to the Minister's answer yesterday when he said in relation to the Orica leak at Stockton, "My staff have given me all the briefings I needed in our detailed discussions about it." When did the Minister's staff first brief him on the Orica leak at Stockton?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I state clearly that in my capacity as Minister with responsibility for WorkCover I have put in place great protocols and processes to ensure that I am informed about issues of relevance. WorkCover is to become involved if there is a safety issue, an injury or obviously a death. Regrettably, there was a death. The situation with Orica is that as of today there has been no report of any injury, so it has not been necessary—
The Hon. Adam Searle: Point of order: The question was: When did the Minister's staff first brief him on the leak? It was nothing to do with injury or the WorkCover Authority. It was about when his staff first briefed him. Also, the Minister's answer was not relevant to the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister was being generally relevant.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: As I was saying, my role is to oversee WorkCover. In this case, there was no injury, so it was not part of our normal processes for me to be briefed by WorkCover when there is no injury. The briefings therefore came through my staff, and they came very promptly and very regularly.
BROTHELS
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Premier and the Attorney General, a question without notice. Does the New South Wales Government acknowledge that brothels foster sexual exploitation, dehumanisation and the abuse of women? Is the Government aware that the Lord Mayor of Sydney and her city council plan to push ahead with the development of Australia's largest super-brothel, to be located near Sydney university? Is the Government aware that the council has dismissed the concerns of local residents and more than 80 submissions against this development? Will the New South Wales Government amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to ensure that approvals for brothels and similar activities are ultimately at the discretion of the Minister?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for the detailed question on an issue that has long been of interest to him. I will seek an answer in response to it and report back to the member as soon as I can.
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Could the Minister update the House about the questions on notice that have been lodged in this session? 5740 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: As members would be aware, I take my parliamentary duties very seriously; I answer questions on notice with a significant eye for detail. That is why I would like to bring to the attention of the House just how hard some members have been working in asking me questions on notice. Special mention goes to our friends the North Korean Greens and their controllers. Mind you, it is sad to note that factional tension has boiled over. Jeremy Buckingham has shown us that there are Greens who will stand up against Lee Rhiannon. The Hon. Amanda Fazio, who is always quick to let us know which motions and issues she thinks are good or bad, shows that she has an eye on her next career path—train spotting. Her most penetrating question has been when the term "railway station" was replaced by the term "train station". She also asked me a question on notice about the Tweed-Richmond Local Area Command. It took her days to come up with that question, but I have to tell her that after 16 years in government there was no such local area command.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order is whether the answer is in order. The answer relates to questions on notice. The House is now dealing with questions without notice. I submit the Minister is out of order in continuing with his answer. If he is not, he has been simply trifling with the House and wasting its time.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Clerk to stop the clock. A number of complex issues are involved in the point of order. The time allotted to the Minister's answer should not be taken up by contributions to the point or order.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: To the point of order: The question was in relation to the activities of those opposite. Ministers get a lot of questions about their activities, and I submit it is perfectly in order for us to talk about the activities of those opposite. They are all sensitive, precious little petals.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Opposition members are making it virtually impossible for me to rule on the point of order as I cannot hear the members who are speaking further to the point of order. That is unacceptable. This is a complex issue.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: Standing Order 67 (4) notes that answers to written questions are to be published in the Questions and Answers paper. Answering those questions in this forum is not in accordance with the standing order.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: Already in this session of questions without notice, some questions asked by the Opposition have been similar, if not the same, as questions that are on notice. If this question and answer were to be ruled out, so would each one of those Opposition questions. If the Opposition wants to go down that track—
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Further to the point of order: In response to the point raised by the Minister, answers to questions without notice can be given in this forum. The question asked about written questions that are not before the House and therefore must be answered in the published Questions and Answers paper.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order: My understanding is that the Minister was asked about questions on notice that had been lodged in this session. It is attendant upon the Minister to answer questions in relation to work that might have been done by his office, or by his department, because that is the nature of a Minister's responsibility in this place. If questions have been asked and have been answered, and some cost has been incurred in relation to manpower in the department or in the office, it is perfectly reasonable for questions to be asked about the use of that time and that manpower.
Mr David Shoebridge: To the point of order: The question was trivial. The answer was hopeless, to say the least. Objection has been taken. But we are now eating into the hour that members have to ask questions. I ask you, Mr President, to rule on the point of order. But I also ask those opposite to respect that the purpose of question time is to seek answers from the Government about government activities.
The Hon. John Ajaka: To the point of order: Standing Order 24 relates to questions directed to Ministers and other members, and subsection (1) sets out what a Minister may be asked. Standing Order 65 sets out rules for questions. Nothing within the rules provides for exemptions, or what is permitted or not permitted. The rules do not contain any provisions that suggest the question asked of the Minister is inappropriate or not a proper question. The Minister's response was relevant to the question. There is no basis for the point of order. 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5741
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: To the point of order: The standing orders are unclear on this matter. However, at the end of every question the Leader of the Government says, "If members have further questions, they should place them on notice." That is the way in which those questions are then dealt with. Ministers have a proper process outside question time to answer those questions. There is no reason why the Minister should be answering questions on notice during the time allowed for questions without notice.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The standing orders provide that questions may be put to Ministers relating to the public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected. It is out of order for members to make comments about questions on notice. Therefore, the question is out of order. However, previous Presidents have ruled that although a question may be out of order once it has been asked the answer will be in order. There was a great deal of noise in the Chamber when the question was being asked. Let this be a salutary reminder to all members. If they constantly interject while a question is being asked it can be impossible for members to hear it or understand its meaning until the Minister has commenced his answer. In this case, had the question been heard properly, a point of order would likely have been taken and I would certainly have ruled it out of order. However, I will follow the precedent set by President Burgmann, which is that although the question may be out of order, once it has been asked the answer will be in order.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Hon. Steve Whan directed eight questions to the wrong Ministers. We had to tell him on eight occasions who the right Minister was. His best effort was a most concerning question about my Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox. He wanted to know all sorts of things about the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox—from how many postage stamps he had licked to what he eats for lunch. The Hon. Steve Whan really has a worrying fascination for the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox. When I received that question—
The Hon. Steve Whan: You didn't bother to answer it.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: No, I thought I would answer it but why break from the normal rules? The Hon. Walt Secord, the man who ordered the former Premier to prorogue this House, has been assiduously asking questions trying to find a job for his former boss the Hon. Eric Roozendaal. Why would he ask 23 questions about bureaucrats who earn salaries of up to $1 million or more? He tried to even up the ledger for his bus lane escapades when he asked a question—
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Point of order: I wish to take two points of order—two for the price of one. The Minister knows he must use members' correct titles when addressing members of the House which yet again he has failed to do. He deserves to be reprimanded. My second point of order relates to relevance. A little sojourn into the history of the former Government really is not relevant to the question that was asked.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the first point of order taken by the Hon. Eric Roozendaal. The second point of order is superfluous now that the Minister's time has expired.
POLITICAL DONATIONS AND GUJARAT NRE
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra. What action is the Government taking regarding any alleged breaches of planning and electoral laws by Illawarra mining operator Gujarat NRE which failed to disclose the donations it made to Labor and Liberal local branches, as well as at least one Independent candidate, Ron Oxley, in the recent Wollongong local elections?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I saw that newspaper report which forms the basis of the question. As I do not have an answer I undertake to provide one to Mr David Shoebridge.
NATIONAL BROADBAND NETWORK
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Given the Minister's comments on Tuesday that the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government is committed to making New South Wales the leader in information, communications and technology innovation and delivery, and the almost unanimous support from the information, communications and technology industry for the National Broadband Network [NBN], will the Minister advise the House of the Government's support for the National Broadband Network? What action has the Minister taken to support the rollout of the National Broadband Network in New South Wales? 5742 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I think members know that we have some reservations about the National Broadband Network. If the Hon. Penny Sharpe had done any homework or research she could have used some of my comments before and after the election. Our major concern with the National Broadband Network is whether rolling out a massive single technology will work.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister for Roads and Ports will come to order. The Hon. Steve Whan will come to order.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: However, I have had a number of meetings with departmental officers, representatives of the technology sector and our public trading enterprises and the electricity and water companies to discuss the National Broadband Network. In relation to the National Broadband Network the key objective of this Government is to ensure that the people of New South Wales receive the greatest benefit from any technology rollout that is available to them. One element of that issue is that for a long time National Broadband Network Co. has been keen to utilise some of the assets of our trading companies to roll out its fibre. But due to the mismanagement of the former Government, as usual, it was a complete and utter mess. The former Government and its Ministers did not pay any attention, put in place a process to ensure there was whole-of-government negotiation and it did not go ahead. It fell apart because of the incompetence of the former Government. It mismanaged everything to which it turned its hands. It could mismanage anything, including the State's response to the National Broadband Network. To the extent that the assets of New South Wales will be used in relation to the National Broadband Network I will ensure that the people of New South Wales receive the best value and the best services.
ERSKINE PARK LINK ROAD
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on roads funding for Erskine Park Link Road in western Sydney as part of the 2011-12 State budget?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is good news.
[Interruption]
I will talk about the Hon. Steve Whan in a moment. I am pleased to report on the progress of the Erskine Park Link Road project which has the potential to unlock hundreds of hectares of new employment lands within the western Sydney employment area. Unsurprisingly, it took this Government to deliver this vital project for western Sydney. The Government understands that as a key growth area this investment is essential to improve the road network for thousands of motorists who travel through the area every day. The Premier took on the job as Minister for Western Sydney as he is determined to ensure the welfare of western Sydney residents.
Putting aside for a moment all the talk by Opposition members about protecting workers and generating new jobs, they spent 16 years in office implementing schemes that failed to achieve much of anything. It is no wonder that in March Liberal candidates were overwhelmingly elected across western Sydney. As I have previously reported to the House, the contract to build the $55 million Erskine Park Link Road has been awarded to NACE Civil Engineering Pty Ltd. I am happy to inform the House that as part of the 2011-12 State budget $16 million was allocated to commence construction. The project, which is a 3.1 kilometre four-lane divided road between Lenore Lane, Penrith and Old Wallgrove Road, Blacktown, includes an 80 metre long dual bridge across Ropes Creek, three intersections, major earthwork and drainage and road- surfacing work.
I will tell members on this side of the House about the Erskine Park Link Road because members opposite are obviously still not interested in western Sydney. The project will provide a vital link between the western Sydney employment area and the M7 and M4 motorways. It will reinforce the western Sydney employment area as a significant employment hub, reduce industrial traffic on the existing Erskine Park Road and adjoining local roads, improve traffic flow in western Sydney with direct connection to and from the M7 motorway, provide a new shared and properly planned cycle-pedestrian path, and reduce transport costs for industry located in the western Sydney employment area. It will also connect Lenore Lane and Old Wallgrove Road with a 3.1 kilometre four-lane divided road. Construction work on the link will commence in late October this year and is expected to be completed in 2013. The project is crucial for the development of this area of Sydney and will provide a major boost for jobs and infrastructure in western Sydney. If members opposite had been quiet, they would have heard something. 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5743
FORSTER DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING UNIT FIRE
The Hon. JAN BARHAM: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Family and Community Services. In light of the overnight tragedy that took place in a former Department of Housing unit block in Forster, will the Minister advise what action, if any, was taken by the department in response to concerns about the property raised by the Great Lakes Council over the past two years?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: That is a difficult question.
[Interruption]
The reaction of members opposite to people being injured is to burst into laughter.
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Point of order: We are not laughing about the question; we are laughing at the Minister.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Eric Roozendaal to order for the first time.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Members opposite have asked me dozens of questions about Orica, but the Leader of the Opposition did not take up the offer yesterday to call WorkCover and he did not take the call from the chief executive officer.
The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: The Minister is once again misleading the House. It is simply not true to say that I did not take a call from the chief executive officer of WorkCover. I said that I did not receive the call. The Minister should withdraw that statement.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: You did not take the call.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume his seat.
The Hon. Luke Foley: I didn't receive one, you lying prick.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the Opposition should withdraw those unparliamentary words.
The Hon. Luke Foley: I withdraw.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: To the point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Hon. Jan Barham's question was very serious; she asked about the tragic fire that occurred yesterday in a former Department of Housing dwelling. The Minister should be asked to answer that question and not to talk about questions he was asked earlier in question time.
The PRESIDENT: Order! If the Minister has no information relevant to the Hon. Jan Barham's question, he should conclude his answer as quickly as possible.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: As I was going to indicate, I will come back with a detailed answer.
ROAD MAINTENANCE CONTESTABILITY
The Hon. MICK VEITCH: I direct my question to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Did the Minister consult with or speak to the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales about his Government's plan to introduce the contestability of road maintenance services prior to the Treasurer announcing that in his budget speech last week?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No. 5744 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
R U OK? DAY
The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD: I direct my question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. What important steps have been taken today to address mental health issues in our community?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the member for his question and his interest in this issue. I suspect that all members are interested in this very important topic. R U OK? Day was initiated three years ago by Gavin Larkin following the death of his father, Barry, who sadly took his own life. It aims to prevent suicide by encouraging Australians to connect with one another and to help stop little problems turning into big ones. Today, Thursday 15 September 2011, members of the community are encouraged to strike up a conversation with someone—family, friends, colleagues, even strangers—from any walk of life or background and to ask them, "Are you okay?" Gavin Larkin, who is battling the advanced stages of cancer, has worked tirelessly to ensure that this day is firmly on our calendar—and so it should be. The R U OK? Day organisation's motto is: "In the time it takes to have a coffee you can change someone's life, even save someone's life."
The statistics on suicide are unpleasant, to say the least, but sadly they are very real. More than 2,100 Australians take their own life each year. Men are about four times more likely to commit suicide than women are, and for each person who dies another 30 attempt to end their own life. Lifeline New South Wales alone takes more than 170,000 calls a year from people seeking crisis and mental health support. R U OK? Day aims to reduce those figures and to stop more members of the community becoming suicide victims. Many people are reluctant to share their feelings and those who are feeling down are even less likely to open up. It is up to others in the community to listen, to show they care and to help those whom they believe are vulnerable.
The Liberal-Nationals Government is committed to breaking down the stigma that surrounds suicide. In last week's budget the Government committed more funding to mental health than any other government in the State's history. It is important in these busy times that we do not lose sight of what is important; that is, the wellbeing of the people around us. It is ironic that while we live in an age in which we are more connected than ever we do not know the innermost feelings of those who matter most to us.
In 2009, its inaugural year, R U OK? Day attracted a response from more than one million Australians. Researchers found that more than 650,000 conversations took place as a result of the day. Last year, more than two million conversations took place and more than 700 organisations were involved. This year the organisation hopes to build on the great results it has already achieved in just two years and to get even more Australians connected to themselves, their family, their friends and their colleagues. R U OK? Day is more than a day; it is a sentiment we should carry with us every day of our lives. This is an important issue.
I represent the Minister responsible for mental health in this House, and as Leader of the Government in this place I believe it is important that we acknowledge this day. I know that all members are concerned about suicide and the mental health of our community. There would be many members who have been touched personally by mental health problems, and those who have not been affected would have concerns about family and friends who are struggling with depression. This day gives us an opportunity to strike up a conversation and eventually R U OK? Day will be every day. It should be a constant in our daily life that we ask our friends, people around us and even strangers, "Are you okay?"
RIVERINA EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES
The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: I direct my question to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Education. Is it true that the Natural Resources Commission report on the river red gum forests contained an appendix on educational attainment in the Riverina region of New South Wales showing that none of the seven largest towns in the area had more than 15 per cent of residents who had achieved a post-school education compared with more than 50 per cent in the general population? Given that the declaration of these parks has resulted in the closure of a raft of viable sawmills and several hundred people being thrown out of work—
[Interruption]
Money does not buy education. I ask: What has the Government done to improve post-school qualification opportunities for people in this area?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for his question. It contains considerable detail and a couple of key facts that have worried me, and other members in the Government, for a long time. 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5745
We have witnessed what Labor did while in government to trade jobs in regional communities in exchange for Green votes in Sydney because it was not running the State well. I do not think there is a clearer indication of this than in the river red gums region of the Riverina or The Pilliga. I remember The Greens promising us a Mecca of environmental tourism throughout The Pilliga, and they made the same promises about the river red gums areas down south. People in Barham worked in the timber industry, saved their money and invested in homes. These frugal, hard-working people brought their families up in those communities. To them The Greens ecotourism meant nothing, because there were no jobs, there was no value in those communities and there was no money for homes. The Labor Party sold them out on a myth. Sadly, I believe that a similar situation will arise in southern New South Wales with the river red gums.
I am not surprised by the reference in the question to educational qualifications. In the past, people who were born and raised in country communities—and I am talking about people who are now in their 40s through to their 60s—got out of education as soon as they could, without going on at school, to get a job. But when labouring jobs fold, as they have in these areas, there is no longer any work for these people. This matter is obviously outside my portfolio so I will refer it to the Minister for Education for a detailed response.
NEWCASTLE PORT
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Why has the Government tripled the dividend to be collected from Newcastle Port over the next four years?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The rules of the House do not permit Ministers to comment on questions asked of them, but my feeling is that this question is based on an article that appeared in today's Newcastle Herald that theorises about what Newcastle Port is doing. I am not exactly sure, because the member has not given me any more information to go on. I do know, however, that I have not said to Newcastle Port, "You are to triple your costs". I am aware, through some peripheral reading this morning, of the article I referred to in the Newcastle Herald; it was written I think by Ian Kirkwood. I will seek further information and come back to the House with an answer.
UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG INNOVATION CAMPUS
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for the Illawarra. Can the Minister update the House on the latest developments at the University of Wollongong's innovation campus?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the honourable member for her question and her interest in the Illawarra, a region that this Government is committed to support and grow. On 1 September I had the privilege of attending the opening of the new Enterprise 1 building at the University of Wollongong's innovation campus. The building was opened by the Premier and special guests, including the Hon. Paul Green, mayor of Shoalhaven, and the member for Kiama, Mr Gareth Ward, who is a former student of the University of Wollongong and a member of the council of the university. The event was hosted by Emphasis, an Indian-based information technology company, which is part of the Hewlett Packard group, in part of the Enterprise 1 building leased by that company. The building is a fine example of how the university is collaborating with business to drive new industries and growth. Four floors of A-grade real estate house the likes of BHP Illawarra Coal, the Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Emphasis, the Cancer Council and tickets.com.
The event marked the next stage in the expansion of the innovation campus, which is without doubt the heart of the knowledge services sector in the Illawarra. Emphasis will create 265 jobs in Wollongong as part of its regional software delivery centre, which services its Asia-Pacific clients. It forms part of its global network adding to centres already established in Europe and the United States of America. The University of Wollongong's innovation campus has already won a number of accolades, including being named by the Property Council of Australia as the best business park in Australia. It is founded on a philosophy that builds relationships and drives the growth of the knowledge services sector in the Illawarra. In addition to the businesses I mentioned that are housed in the new Enterprise building, other business also call the innovation campus home, including the Commonwealth Bank, IRIS, Beca, L3 and iTree. Once fully realised, the innovation campus will have created over 5,000 jobs. It stands as a shining example of how Wollongong can grow to achieve such goals with efforts to attract businesses from outside the region.
In the new Enterprise 1 building—and as a result of the efforts of the university and the New South Wales Department of Trade and Investment—approximately 400 new jobs have been created or preserved for 5746 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
Wollongong. This is only the start of growth in this valued knowledge services sector that is emerging in Wollongong. The city of Wollongong is already the knowledge services capital of the Illawarra and South Coast, and with the expanding innovation campus driving private sector investment it is fast proving that it has the potential to be a significant knowledge services capital in New South Wales.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Greg Donnelly to order.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Wollongong offers a unique combination of proximity to major markets, cost advantages, established knowledge-based companies and a highly skilled workforce. This successful grouping of likeminded information and communication technology industries in Wollongong, and particularly within the university's innovation campus, is forging a new road of collaboration and development opportunities for the information and communication technology and knowledge services sector in the Illawarra. It is remarkable that we have an Indian information technology company coming to the Illawarra under this Government.
BULAHDELAH LIONS PARK
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Can the Minister confirm that the Roads and Traffic Authority has received a request from the Great Lakes Council for several hundred thousand dollars to reinstate and improve the Bulahdelah Lions Park, which is located on the southern side of Myall River directly opposite the town centre? Given the likely impact on tourism and through-traffic for Bulahdelah as a result of the soon to be completed Pacific Highway bypass, can the Minister advise the House whether the Roads and Traffic Authority will provide the funding to the Great Lakes Council to reinstate and improve this important tourist attraction for the town of Bulahdelah?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his question. I am aware that in September 2011 Great Lakes Council wrote to the Roads and Traffic Authority about potential community projects to be carried out in conjunction with the conditions of approval for the Pacific Highway Bulahdelah bypass project. The letter included a proposal for about $215,000 to be spent on improvements to the public reserve on the south-west side of the existing Myall River bridge, which I understand is the Bulahdelah Lions Park. The proposal is for improvements to the access road and includes a request for the provision of furniture and other fittings that might improve or encourage public use of the area.
Paragraph 5.7 of the environmental impact statement for the Bulahdelah upgrade project includes a requirement to improve access—vehicular and pedestrian—to the public reserve located to the south-west of the existing Myall River. The requirement also states that any work would be carried out by council and would be subject to a separate environmental assessment. I understand that the Roads and Traffic Authority has been working with council and the community over many years to mitigate the impacts of the bypass on the local economy. Improving Bulahdelah Lions Park is but one of many measures being considered. Others include building highway interchanges on both sides of the town to facilitate easy access on and off the new highway and building new toilet blocks in the town. These are much needed.
The Hon. Walt Secord: Have you been caught short too?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes. Other measures are gateway and service signs on the new highway at the approaches to the town and adjustments to the existing highway once the bypass is open to traffic. The bypass is expected to be opened in late 2012. This Christmas will be the last time that people travelling north will have to queue at Bulahdelah. The Christmas after next motorists will go straight through—whoosh—of course, travelling under 110 kilometres per hour to ensure they keep the discount on their licence. The Roads and Traffic Authority is continuing to work closely with both council and the local community on this range of measures. Bob Higgins, who is in charge up there—
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: A good man.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I agree; he is a good man. Bob Higgins was to meet with the council about this matter either this morning or yesterday.
KINGSCLIFF POLICE STATION
The Hon. WALT SECORD: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. What steps is the Government taking to 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5747
ensure probity for the $15 million Kingscliff Police Station redevelopment, given a report that Mr Garry West, the chair of the regional planning panel, felt compelled to make a formal disclosure that Monday night last he was contacted by a former National Party State member of Parliament, Don Beck, who had urged him to switch the location of the police station to Mr Beck's land at Cugden?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Before I answer that question, I advise the House that during the course of question time I have been advised that the Hon. Walt Secord did return the telephone call of the chief executive officer of WorkCover. I thank him for doing that.
The Hon. Luke Foley: Why tell the truth now, Greg? You never have in the past.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Now, now. The member is showing—
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will direct his remarks through the Chair. He will answer the question he has been asked.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Leader of the Opposition loses control. He has little temper tantrums.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will direct his remarks through the Chair. He will answer the question he has been asked.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I do not have the detail with me. I will take the question on notice.
GALSTON GORGE
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on measures to stop oversized vehicles entering Galston Gorge?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Many people other than members of this place share concern about Galston Gorge. There is a history of over-length vehicles becoming stuck on roads through the gorge, creating traffic problems and significant delays at considerable cost to the community. I am pleased to report that line marking for the over-length measuring bays in Galston Gorge was completed on Monday last. The measuring bays are easy to use and give motorists the opportunity to measure the lengths of their vehicles before entering the gorge. The message for the drivers of heavy vehicle is: If in doubt, measure the length of your vehicle.
As I have stated previously, a number of new measures to stop over-length heavy vehicles getting stuck in Galston Gorge are already operating. The newly installed roundabout on the western side of Galston Gorge will allow heavy vehicles to turn around safely. Traffic sensors have been installed on both sides of the gorge to detect over-length vehicles and to activate electronic warning signs—also installed on both sides of the gorge— that instruct drivers to turn around. Rogue drivers of over-length vehicles who ignore signs and fail to turn around will be captured by the cameras that have been set up at the eastern end of the gorge. The system then alerts Roads and Traffic Authority inspectors and the registration numbers of the offending vehicles will be captured by the cameras.
I am advised that following extensive analysis the length restriction for Galston Road between Calderwood Road and Montview Parade will remain at 7.5 metres for heavy vehicles. However, light-vehicle combinations up to 11 metres can safely pass through the gorge. Drivers of light-vehicle combinations in excess of 11 metres in length—cars with trailers or caravans et cetera—will be advised not to proceed to the gorge. This follows on from a meeting I had with the Roads Traffic Authority and the great local member for Hornsby, Mr Matt Kean, in June.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Super Kean.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: He is keen. Matt Kean has been advocating for greater measures to stop over-sized vehicles from entering Galston Gorge since his election in March, and his hard work has paid off. Under Labor this issue languished and was relegated to the sidelines while Labor attempted to cling to power. The former Government simply was not interested in serving the people of Hornsby and the gorge. Interestingly, all that the former Minister in this portfolio was prepared to do was to bag the Roads and Traffic Authority. I must also pay tribute to Ray Hadley who often raises this issue— 5748 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
[Interruption]
The Hon. Walt Secord might want to sledge Ray Hadley; I certainly do not want to.
The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order—
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Melinda Pavey will come to order.
The Hon. Walt Secord: My point of order is that the Minister for Roads and Ports is misleading the House. I love Ray Hadley.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Walt Secord moves remarkably quickly for a big man when he has to. These new measures are state-of-the-art. The Government hopes they will work, but if they do not work we will have to do something draconian. The Government would rather not do that. We are hopeful that common sense will prevail and that good technology will work. However, these things are hard to judge when we are dealing with idiots. [Time expired.]
DARGUES REEF GOLD PROJECT
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Is the Minister aware of the approval in the last fortnight of the Dargues Reef gold project at Braidwood—a project that will see 38 truck movements per day transporting gold ore concentrate 373 kilometres to be processed at a facility at Parkes? How much money does the Government think it will cost taxpayers in road maintenance and upgrades along this already partly congested road corridor to accommodate the trucks servicing this mining operation?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: True it is that New South Wales has some congested roads. Indeed, there are several in Sydney that we inherited from the former Labor Government. But it is beyond belief that anyone would suggest that the roads between Majors Creek and Braidwood, and through Goulburn and Cowra to Parkes, are amongst the State's most congested roads. Unlike the member who asked the question, I travel those roads—
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: The member is misleading the House. I travel that road—
The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a point of order. I remind the member that he may use other forms of the House should he wish to correct the record.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Greens do not want any wealth in this State, nor do they want any jobs in this State. One of my greatest disappointments—and I am speaking about The Greens and others—is that some people in this State are sending out bogus letters to landholders stating that coal seam gas mines are being opened in their areas. Those bogus letters are from companies that do not even exist. Is it not interesting that a member of The Greens is defending that activity in this House?
Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: The Minister is clearly casting aspersions on the character of the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham and drawing a connection between the member and the misleading correspondence. The Minister is out of order.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: To the point of order: I had not made that connection; it was only Mr David Shoebridge.
The PRESIDENT: Order! It is not in order for members to reflect on other members in their answers or at any other time. The Minister is being generally relevant to the question asked. I ask him to remain generally relevant in the remainder of the time available to him.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I have finished.
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister aware that in the last financial year goldmining royalties contributed a pathetic $22 million to the State? 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5749
The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: That is clearly not a supplementary question and I ask you to rule it out of order.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Under the standing orders, that is not a supplementary question. I rule it out of order.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: If members have further questions I suggest they place them on notice.
TAXI DRIVER SAFETY
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Yesterday the Hon. Greg Donnelly asked me a question relating to the safety of taxi drivers. The Police Force works closely with bus and taxi drivers to reduce the risk of robberies and assaults. For example, police attend monthly training programs held by the New South Wales Taxi Council, where it provides participants with information and strategies aimed at reducing risks, as well as discussing any issues which may arise. The Police Force's commuter crime units also have a constant focus on incidents occurring on the transport network. Commuter crime units are based at Broadmeadow, Campbelltown, City Central, Flemington, Gosford, Hornsby, Hurstville, Lidcombe, Miranda, North Shore, Parramatta and Wollongong.
I am advised that if an area is identified through intelligence as having a high level of incidents the commuter crime units will focus attention there, along with local area commands, which also respond to this intelligence. I am pleased to report that police are having success in investigating transport-related crime— success which often relates to the extensive closed-circuit television network in buses and taxis. For example, on 6 August 2011 a group of young men hailed two taxis from Elizabeth Street, Sydney, to Dudley Page Reserve, Dover Heights, and attempted to flee to avoid paying. When the taxi driver attempted to keep hold of one young man the rest of the group returned and assaulted the driver. Police were able to identify three of the young men through closed-circuit television and they have subsequently been charged with assault, affray and robbery.
In The Rocks on 19 August 2011 at approximately 4.00 p.m. a young man assaulted a bus driver after he was asked to leave the bus because he did not have a valid ticket. Police now have a still image of the man from the closed-circuit television footage on board the bus and are attempting to identify him so that he can be charged with this office. Everyone has a right to feel safe at work, and bus and taxi drivers are no exception. Police will continue to work closely with bus and taxi drivers to address transport-related crime. I thank the Hon. Greg Donnelly for his question.
ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: On 24 August 2011 the Hon. Jan Barham asked me, representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, a question without notice regarding Aboriginal programs and services. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following response:
The recently announced Ministerial Taskforce of Aboriginal Affairs will be the New South Wales Government’s peak body and structure to consult with Aboriginal people. The Taskforce will determine a new direction for Aboriginal affairs consultation and service delivery in New South Wales.
Aboriginal Affairs New South Wales is the key agency that provides advice to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on all matters affecting Aboriginal people.
Every department is required to have processes in place and a commitment to consult with peak Aboriginal bodies and organisations.
FORSTER DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING UNIT FIRE
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Earlier today the Hon. Jan Barham asked me a question about a tragic incident overnight in Forster. The Government and, I am sure, all honourable members extend our condolences to the victims of the incident overnight in Forster. The property in Little Street, Forster, is owned by Housing NSW and had been managed by Community Housing Ltd for a number of years. Housing NSW plans to sell the property and the tenants had been relocated. There was only one remaining tenant in the complex and she was not injured in the incident. Housing NSW is arranging temporary accommodation prior to finalising her relocation. All the windows of the vacant units on the ground floor had been boarded up and the doors screwed shut to deter squatters. The stairwells to the upstairs units had also been boarded to prevent 5750 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
access to those units. I am advised that staff from Community Housing Ltd had been on the site late last week. At that time the boarding was intact and there was no sign of squatters. Housing NSW is assisting police with their inquiries.
Questions without notice concluded.
MINISTER FOR FINANCE AND SERVICES, AND MINISTER FOR THE ILLAWARRA
Personal Explanation
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY, by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation. Twice today in question time the Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra accused me of not returning a phone call from the chief executive officer of WorkCover. Twice I asked that he withdraw that allegation. I have now checked with my staff member. He advises me that my office has not received a phone call from the chief executive officer of WorkCover. An honourable Minister would accept my clear advice to the House that his allegation is untrue and withdraw his claim.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I am happy to withdraw. The advice I had was that the Leader of the Opposition had been called. Clearly, the Hon. Walt Secord had been called and had not been able to return the call.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.37 p.m.]: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 140 outside the Order of Precedence relating to a reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 regarding government media strategies be called on forthwith.
This matter is urgent because there is nothing more essential than ensuring that our most senior police act first and foremost to protect the public and, indeed, not to protect their position or the position of politicians of the day. I am calling for an urgent parliamentary inquiry to review the actions of the now police commissioner in giving an order not to publicly release information about a serial predator in a Sydney park because he was concerned, as has been alleged on oath, that it would reflect poorly on the police who had not done enough in a bygone era. This matter is serious. In May of this year former assistant police commissioner Mark Goodwin said on oath in the District Court that the now police commissioner, Mr Scipione, put politics before safety in not telling the public that there was a possible serial predator in a Sydney park.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: Mr David Shoebridge is not speaking to urgency; he is starting to debate the substantive motion. As far as I am aware, he has not spoken to anyone in this House about this matter. With something as serious as the allegation he is now making, he should have had the decency to speak to members.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The only question before the Chair is whether standing and sessional orders should be suspended. The member will direct his remarks to that motion.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I note your ruling. This matter is urgent because former assistant commissioner Goodwin put his position under oath in District Court proceedings in May this year, and there has been no sworn response on oath by the commissioner.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order is the same as that of the Leader of the Government. Mr David Shoebridge must persuade the House why his matter is more urgent than other business on the Notice Paper.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I refer Mr David Shoebridge to my previous ruling.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Indeed, Mr President, it is urgent because there has been no response, and the commissioner had the opportunity to respond in May on oath but settled the case before he was required to be called as a witness to meet the allegations by former assistant commissioner Goodwin. That cannot be allowed to go on for one further day. Indeed former assistant commissioner Goodwin's evidence is backed up. 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5751
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: Just because you include the word urgent does not mean you are speaking of urgency. We are now starting to go into evidence given by a former police officer, Mr Goodwin. This member really is stretching the whole concept of urgency.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind Mr David Shoebridge that the only motion before the House is that standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith. His remarks should be directed to that motion only.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I accept your ruling, Mr President. The seriousness of these matters requires an urgent response and if the Government does not want to hear about the seriousness of the matters in order to respond to the urgency behind this motion that is a poor statement about any government of the day, because former assistant commissioner Goodwin's evidence was backed up—
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Mr President, it is clear that this is going to work out as nothing more than a glute exercise for me—up and down and up and down. The member is referring to evidence, quite simply, and is now trying to bait the Government by saying that we do not want to hear this. The member is using the suspension debate to get his allegation out there—without any consultation—knowing he is using parliamentary privilege to make allegations. What he is attempting to do is a disgrace.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: On the point of order: I raise a slightly different issue. You have ruled at least four, perhaps five, times on this issue and the member is flouting your ruling.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Mr David Shoebridge will confine his remarks to the motion.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Mr President, the former assistant commissioner described the actions of Commissioner Scipione as totally inappropriate—self-serving and inappropriate.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Mr President, how many times?
[Time expired.]
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
IDENTIFICATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011
Second Reading
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.42 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The Government is pleased to introduce the Identification Legislation Amendment Bill 2011.
This Bill is about ensuring that police, juvenile justice officers, officers authorised by Corrective Services and court security officers have the power to require that a person remove a face covering to enable the person's face to be seen for the purpose of identification. The new powers are designed so that these officers are able to function effectively to ensure the security and safety of our community and its citizens.
The Bill also provides that a police officer can request a person to identify himself or herself when the officer proposes to give that person a move-on direction.
The Government has consulted with members of the community on how these powers are to be exercised and is committed to working with and educating the community about the new powers, and individual rights and responsibilities regarding their application.
The Bill contains appropriate safeguards and a monitoring mechanism to ensure that the application of the power to require the removal of a face covering is both sensitive and accountable.
5752 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
The Bill also requires a person witnessing a statutory declaration or affidavit to identify the person swearing the declaration or affidavit and to certify that they have done so.
I turn now to the detail of the Bill.
Schedule 1 to the Bill amends the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to provide that a police officer may, when requiring identification—whether that is name and address or a form of photographic identification such as a drivers licence—also require that the person remove any item that is concealing or obscuring part or all of that person's face.
The intention behind giving police this power is so that police may see the person's face for the purpose of identification. It will be sufficient compliance with the requirement if the person removes only so much of the face covering as prevents the person's face from being seen, or the person removes the face covering only for so long as is reasonably necessary in the circumstances to enable an officer to see the person's face. A person also will be compliant if they enable a police officer other than the officer who has given them the direction to see their face. This provides for a person to be compliant in circumstances where, for example, they reveal their face to a female officer notwithstanding that a male officer may have given them the direction.
"Face" is defined to mean the area from the top of the forehead to the bottom of the chin and between, but not including the ears. "Face covering" means an item of clothing, helmet, mask or any other thing that is worn by a person and prevents the person's face from being seen, whether wholly or partly.
The Bill creates an offence of failing to comply with a direction by a police officer to remove a face covering. The maximum penalty will match the maximum penalty applicable for failing to provide identification under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. In most cases, the penalty for failing to comply with a police requirement to remove a face covering will be a maximum fine of $220, or two penalty units. Where police are exercising the power when requesting identification in relation to vehicles used in or in connection with indictable offences, as provided by section 14 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, the penalty matches the higher penalty that non-compliance with section 14 attracts, which is a maximum fine of $5,500 or 12 months' imprisonment.
The Bill recognises that there may be limited circumstances where a person cannot remove a face covering. It provides that a person may refuse to remove a face covering if they have a "special justification", which is defined as being a legitimate medical reason for not removing the face covering. This may apply, for example, where a person has recently had surgery and is required to have their face or eyes bandaged.
Police exercising these new powers will be required to comply with requirements that are set out in section 201 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. These already apply to a range of other activities that police engage in when exercising their functions. Section 201 requires police to provide the person with evidence that they are a police officer, their name and place of duty, the reason for the exercise of the power and warnings and notification that non-compliance may be an offence. Police are required to do this if it is practicable to do so before or at the time of exercising the power or if it is not practicable to do so as soon as is reasonably practicable after exercising the power. Additionally, the Bill provides that police must, as far as is reasonably practicable, ensure that they request that the person cooperate with the requirement to remove the face covering, provide the person with reasonable privacy if the person requests it and conduct the viewing of the person's face as quickly as is reasonably practicable.
For police, it is often necessary to ascertain a person's identity in the course of carrying out their functions. There may be times when a person who is required to remove a face covering requests a degree of privacy. The Bill provides that, as far as is reasonably practicable, police will endeavour to meet requests for privacy.
For example, police may be investigating a serious assault in a public space. A witness, who is required to remove a face covering may request that they be taken back to a police station to afford them some privacy. This may or may not be reasonably practicable, depending on the circumstances. The scene may not be contained and police may be required to remain at the scene. In such instances, police may have to decline the specific request but, to a practicable extent, may afford that privacy. They may be able to shield the person at the scene or find somewhere close where privacy can be provided.
These legislative safeguards will be supported by a commissioner's direction explaining the Bill and reinforcing the need to respect an individual's right to dignity and privacy.
The Bill also provides a monitoring mechanism, which will require the NSW Ombudsman to review the operation of the police powers for a 12-month period from when the legislation commences. This review will ensure that the exercise of the powers is independently scrutinised and accountable, as the final review will be reported back to Parliament.
Schedule 1 to the Bill also amends section 11 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to allow a police officer to request that a person disclose their identity to the officer where the officer proposes to issue a move-on direction to that person. A failure or refusal by a person to disclose their identity without a reasonable excuse will be an offence, as will providing false or misleading information about the person's identity. The maximum penalty for each offence will be a fine of two penalty units ($220). This will enable police to identify people to whom they propose to issue a move-on direction and also to require that person to remove a face covering, as the new general power in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 will apply.
Schedule 2 to the Bill provides for amendments to various Acts and regulations to provide powers to Juvenile Justice officers, officers authorised by Corrective Services, and court security officers to require that a person remove a face covering to enable the officer to see that person's face.
These amendments recognise that juvenile justice officers, officers authorised by Corrective Services, and court security officers are responsible for ensuring that people who are seeking entry to, or are on, particular regulated premises—that is, courts, juvenile detention centres and correctional centres—are properly identified to ensure the secure and proper operation of those facilities.
15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5753
The definitions of "face", "face covering" and "special justification" that will be inserted into the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 will apply to the amendments in schedule 2.
Schedule 2.3 to the Bill amends the Court Security Act 2005 to provide that court security officers, that is, sheriff's officers, will have the power to require that a person who is seeking to enter court premises, or who the officer has arrested or has grounds for arresting, remove a face covering to allow the officer, or another person at the direction of the officer, to see that person's face for the purpose of identification. A person will be compliant with the requirement if they remove only so much of the face covering as prevents the features of their face from being seen. A person may refuse to remove a face covering if they have a "special justification".
The Bill prescribes a range of safeguards that are to be applied as far as is reasonably practicable. These safeguards require court security officers exercising the power to:
• ask for the person's cooperation;
• conduct the viewing of the person's face in a way that provides reasonable privacy if the person requests this;
• conduct the viewing of the person's face as quickly as reasonably practicable;
• conduct the viewing of the face of a child under 12 years of age only in the presence of a responsible person for the child; and
• ensure the viewing of the person's face is carried out by a security officer of the same gender if the person requests this, or where the person is a child under 12 years of age, where the child's responsible person requests this.
If a person entering the court does not remove their face covering when a security officer requires them to do so, the security officer must warn them that it is an offence not to remove their face covering, or to leave the premises. The maximum penalty for non-compliance will be the same as the existing maximum penalty for non-compliance with other requirements of a court security officer, which is five penalty units ($550).
Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to provide that regulations made under these Acts can provide for the identification of visitors to juvenile detention centres and correctional centres respectively, and that this can include provision for the removal of face coverings.
The Bill also amends the Children (Detention Centres) Regulation 2010 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 to provide that Juvenile Justice officers and officers authorised by Corrective Services may require visitors to detention centres, correctional centres or compulsory drug treatment detention facilities to remove a face covering to enable the officer, or another person directed by the officer, to see the face of the visitor. A visitor may be asked to identify himself or herself as they attempt to enter the facility for the purpose of a visit, at any time during the visit or as they finish the visit and proceed to exit the facility. A person may refuse to remove a face covering if they have a "special justification", being a legitimate medical reason.
The safeguards that apply to court security officers will also apply to Juvenile Justice officers and officers authorised by Corrective Services when they are exercising the power. A failure or refusal to comply with a requirement made by a Juvenile Justice officer or an officer authorised by Corrective Services may result in the person being refused permission to visit. This could include refusing access to the centre or terminating the visit. Where permission to remain on the premises is withdrawn a person will be required to leave the premises.
The powers and safeguards that apply to court security officers, Juvenile Justice officers and officers authorised by Corrective Services recognise that those officers are responsible for ensuring and maintaining the security and integrity of the facilities in which they operate. Wherever it is reasonably practicable, officers will endeavour to meet these requests.
In some cases it will be possible to take a person aside to another room or to have an officer of the same sex attend. It may be, on occasion, that a person may have to wait until a room is available or for a person of the same sex to attend. However, in some instances it may not be reasonably practicable to comply with the request. For example, there may be times when officers at male correctional centres are unable to locate a female to assist with a visitor's request for a female to conduct the inspection, as there are fewer female staff working in those facilities. The inability of an officer to meet such a request does not invalidate the requirement to remove the face covering.
Schedule 2.6 to the Bill amends the Oaths Act 1900 to place an obligation on a person witnessing a statutory declaration or affidavit to identify the person making the declaration or affidavit.
An authorised witness will be required to see the face of a person making a statutory declaration or affidavit. If the witness does not know the person they must confirm their identity in accordance with the regulations. Regulations under the Oaths Act will prescribe the kinds of documentation to be relied upon to confirm a person's identity.
A witness will need to certify on the document that they have met these requirements, and there is a maximum penalty of two penalty units for not complying with the requirements.
These amendments introduce new safeguards to ensure the identity of persons making statutory declarations or affidavits.
Affidavits and statutory declarations are written statements of fact sworn or affirmed or declared by the person to be true in the presence of a person authorised to be a witness—usually a justice of the peace, a legal practitioner or a notary public. Affidavits are used in court proceedings and statutory declarations are usually used in other situations. A person who makes a false statement in an affidavit commits perjury and a person who makes a false declaration in a statutory declaration also commits a serious offence.
5754 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
People need to be confident that affidavits and statutory declarations have been made by the person whose signature appears on them.
Requiring a witness to see the face of the person who is making the affidavit or statutory declaration will ensure that the witness can later identify the person if there is any dispute about that.
If a person who wishes to make an affidavit or statutory declaration refuses to remove a face covering to allow the authorised witness to see their face the witness will not be able to witness the document.
This Bill recognises that there are various circumstances where it is necessary for police and other officers to be able to see a person's face to assist them to identify that person. The Bill is not specific in its application to any particular group in the community and the provisions apply to any person wearing a face covering of any type that falls within the definition. However, the Government recognises that there are members of our community who wear face coverings for religious, cultural or personal reasons, and the Government is committed to working with these groups and the broader community to ensure that people understand not only their obligations but also the extent to which safeguards can reasonably be expected to apply.
In this regard, the Government has consulted with members of the Islamic community on the content of this Bill and is committed to ongoing work through the Community Relations Commission on the development of guidelines that will apply to government agencies. The guidelines will assist to ensure that the Government is responsive and sensitive to individual wishes for privacy and flexibility in the provision of quality services and support.
This Bill is premised on the foundation that people will comply with a lawful request to remove a face covering. It is about ensuring that our police officers, and other specified officers, have the powers they need to exercise their functions and to ensure the protection of everyone in our community, while respecting and being responsive to the different reasons that people may wear face coverings, be they sunglasses, masks, balaclavas, religious headwear or motorcycle helmets.
The legislative safeguards provided by the Bill, the monitoring mechanism, the community consultation and development of guidelines demonstrate the Government's commitment to ensuring that it strikes a balance between the need for certain officers to have the power and the appropriate exercise of them with respect to the diverse needs and wishes of everyone in our society.
I commend the Bill to the House.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.43 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Identification Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The Opposition does not oppose the proposed legislation. The objects of the bill are:
(a) to amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002:
(i) to allow a police officer to require, in certain circumstances, a person to remove a face covering so as to enable the officer or another police officer to see the person's face for identification purposes, and
(ii) to allow a police officer to request that a person disclose the person's identity to the officer where the officer proposes to give the person a direction under that Act to leave a place,
(b) to amend the Court Security Act 2005 to allow a court security officer to require a person to remove a face covering if the person is seeking to enter court premises or the officer has arrested (or has grounds for arresting) the person under that Act,
(c) to amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 to allow an authorised officer to require a visitor to a correctional centre to remove a face covering so as to enable the officer and certain persons assisting the officer to see the visitor's face for identification purposes,
(d) to amend the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 and the Children (Detention Centres) Regulation 2010 to allow a juvenile justice officer to require a visitor to a detention centre to remove a face covering so as to enable the officer and certain persons assisting the officer to see the visitor’s face for identification purposes,
(e) to amend the Oaths Act 1900 to provide for identification procedures to be followed by persons taking or receiving statutory declarations or affidavits.
The bill seeks to amend five statutes and two regulations. It has a broad and difficult background dealing with burqas or the Arabic equivalent, the hijab. We have a notice of motion on the subject matter of prohibiting full face coverings in this place. Indeed, Liberal Senator for South Australia Cory Bernardi has also called for a ban on the wearing of burqas in public, and that ban has been supported by extremist and tabloid media and commentators who often make reference to events in other countries. Whilst wearing a burqa or hijab is not done by a large number of women in this country, nor indeed even by a majority of Islamic women, that of itself is not a reason to prohibit the use of face coverings generally. It seems strange, and indeed in a modern era unacceptable, to propose that society should tell women what they can or cannot wear or prescribe how they should express themselves. I thought we had moved on from the dark ages.
Overseas in places such as France the president and his ruling party have argued that banning the burqa or the hijab should be done on the basis of human rights. It is interesting that this argument, supposedly put on 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5755
the basis of human rights, sometimes degenerates into an attack on a particular way of life or indeed is simply anti-Islamic and anti-Arabic. The anti-Islamic position is fundamentally inconsistent with contemporary multicultural Australia, where people are allowed to hold their own beliefs and practise their own religions. Those who oppose multiculturalism and want to generally prohibit the wearing of the burqa or hijab really do not understand contemporary Australia. Abolishing multiculturalism would be equivalent to, for example, seeking to abolish much of western Sydney—it is that ridiculous. As I said, the Opposition has consulted with the Islamic community about the legislation and the general view is that the legislation should not be opposed. Our sense is that communities would oppose extending powers in relation to scarves or hijabs specifically and would oppose a generalised extension of powers to require the removal of a facial covering whenever someone simply feels like it.
There are two conversations going on around this legislation. One conversation is about the specific bill, with its very precise and specifically drafted provisions, and there is another less informed, more vitriolic discussion about Islam in Australia. The existence of facial coverings in this State is hardly new and is a serious issue for public consideration, as opposed to tabloid rantings and posings by some persons. There have been few instances of its having arisen in practice. The instance that is ascribed as the origin of this bill is, of course, the case involving Carnita Matthews. That matter has been significantly canvassed by the shadow Attorney in the other place. I will not repeat those issues here but the points the shadow Attorney raised in the other place about that case were well made.
Turning to the details of this bill, the proposed insertion of section 19A of the Law Enforcement Powers and Responsibilities Act seeks to give the police power to require a person to remove a face covering worn by the person to allow that officer or another officer to see the person's face. This applies where the person has been lawfully required to provide photographic identification or to identify himself or herself or to provide other identification particulars. Proposed section 19A subsection (6) defines "lawfully required" to mean:
Lawfully required or requested to provide the identification or information concerned in circumstances where a failure or refusal to comply with the requirement or request of that kind may constitute an offence.
There are a number of matters to note about this particular structure. While the express power to require the removal of facial coverings is new, it seems to be largely limited to only those circumstances in which the police already have power to require identification and to make it a criminal offence not to comply. So it is not intended to be a carte blanche provision allowing police to demand removal of face coverings in a dramatically widened range of circumstances. However, the precise circumstances in which the demand can be made to remove facial coverings are not spelt out specifically in the bill.
I can understand why for the purposes of drafting that is the case, as the shadow Attorney did. If a list of circumstances, for example, were included in the bill there would be the risk of some situations being left out by oversight. By the same token, if new circumstances were subsequently legislated that would require a further amendment to the Act. The elegance of this drafting avoids those problems. However, it does result in the somewhat unsatisfying situation that we cannot actually know the full range of circumstances to which the provisions of the bill will apply. If this bill passes into law it may not be possible to give a comprehensive answer. Although that is not ideal, I understand why the drafting has been done in the way that it has.
The shadow Attorney informs me that he asked departmental officers for an exhaustive list of the legal situations in which the legislation might apply. They were unable to guarantee that any list that they prepared would be exhaustive. Again, the shadow Attorney was not being critical of those officers. We do not always know, when legislation is being enacted the absolutely full range of circumstances to which it will apply. There is always the risk of unintended consequences. However, the departmental officers did provide the shadow Attorney with a fairly extensive, but not exhaustive, list of indicative offences. I join with him in thanking them for their courtesy in providing that list and for the briefing that they provided to him.
There are 40 or so of offences indicated in that briefing by the departmental officers that could trigger the additional powers under section 19A. They include section 43 of the Animal Diseases (Emergency Outbreaks) Act 1991, section 96 of the Casino Control Act, section 31 (1) of the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority Act, clause 43 of the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust Regulation, section 12D of the Child Protection (Offender Registration) Act, clause 35 of the Combat Sports Regulation, section 69G of the Companion Animals Act 1998, section 35A of the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act, section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Act, section 167 of the Crown Lands Act, section 104 of the Fines Act, section 258 of the Fisheries Management Act, section 38A of the Forestry Act, section 47 of the Game and Feral Animals Act 5756 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
2002, section 53 of the Gaming Machines Act, section 11 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, section 680 of the Local Government Act, clause 104 of the Management of Waters and Waterside Lands Regulation, sections 119, 120 and 121 of the Marine Safety Act and section 157 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act.
The list also includes section 19 of the Parliamentary Precincts Act, section 27 of the Parramatta Park Trust Act, section 55 of the Passenger Transport Act, section 28 of the Photo Card Act, sections 24A and 24B of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, section 104 of the Rail Safety Act, section 33 of the Recreation Vehicles Act, section 67 of the Registered Clubs Act, section 171 of the Road Transport (General) Act, section 27B of the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act, section 229 of the Roads Act, section 132 of the Rural Fires Act, sections 140F and 140G of the Rural Lands Protection Act, section 10 of the Sporting Venues (Invasions) Act, section 11 (5A) of the Summary Offences Act, clause 14 of the Sydney Cricket Ground and Sydney Football Stadium By-law, clause 22 of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Regulation, clause 29 of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Regulation, clause 13 of the Sydney Opera House Trust By-law, section 16 and 26T of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act, section 79 of the Tow Truck Industry Act, section 40 of the Unlawful Gambling Act and clause 5 of the Western Sydney Parklands Regulation.
The Act also includes in proposed section 11 (2) a specific power for police officers to require a person to disclose their identity to police where the officer proposes to give that person a direction to leave a public place. Those provisions are dealt with in sections 197 to 200 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. Those provisions are subject to a requirement that the viewing of the person's face be conducted with reasonable privacy and as quickly as reasonably practicable. They are both governed by a further provision that it be reasonably practicable. The aspiration is appropriate, but in practical terms the reasonably practicable identification could include a whole range of very different situations.
The penalty for failing to comply with a direction to remove a facial covering connected with section 14 of the Act, which relates to officers requesting the disclosure of driver or passenger identity, is $5,500 or 12 months in jail. In other cases it is $220 or two penalty units. There is also a lengthy section 242B that deals with the monitoring of this new section by the Ombudsman. I understand some amendments will be moved in this place in connection with that part of the proposed legislation. The next portion of the legislation deals with detention centres. A juvenile justice officer may require a visitor to remove a face covering. There are aspirations of reasonable privacy and acting as quickly as practicable, also subject to the test of reasonable practicability. There are special provisions relating to children under 12 years of age, and if possible people over 12 years of age being viewed by a person of the same sex. A person who does not comply with a requirement under this clause may be refused a visit to the detention centre. So the legislation is not criminalising not removing a facial covering in that circumstance.
There are also amendments to the Court Security Act. They require that a court security officer may require a person wearing a face covering to remove it if the person is seeking to enter the court premises or if the officer arrests or has grounds for arresting the person under the Court Security Act. There are provisions relating to reasonable privacy and speed, for children under 12 years of age, and for same-sex viewing if practicable for people over 12 years of age. If a person is required to remove a face covering and fails to do so, or fails to leave the premises, the security officer can repeat the requirement, and if the person does not then comply with it or leave the person is guilty of an offence, with a maximum fine of five penalty units, or $550. If it is a situation covered by section 13A (1) (6) there is no option to leave, but the warning must be repeated for an offence to have occurred. This is an important safeguard.
There are also amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008. The Act is amended to incorporate references to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act and to allow regulations to be altered to permit authorised officers to require a visitor to correctional premises to remove facial coverings. There are also the usual provisions as to privacy, speed, same-sex viewing of people over 12 years of age, children under 12 years of age and the special justification provision. The amendments to regulation 89 mean that if a person's facial covering is not removed a visit to a correctional centre may then be refused.
The final amendments relate to the Oaths Act. Those amendments deal with situations where a person makes a statutory declaration or affidavit before what is termed an authorised witness. This is the issue that arose in the case of Carnita Matthews and gave rise to this legislation. The witness must see the face of the person making the instrument, must know the person or confirm their identity, and certify it on the document. It is a criminal offence not to do so, with a maximum penalty of $220. The witness may request a person to 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5757
remove a face covering, and failure to do so will mean that the document cannot be witnesses. The shadow Attorney, on behalf of the Opposition, consulted with the New South Wales Justices Association in relation to that part of the bill, and the association raised no objection to the legislation.
One issue about which there has been conversation between the shadow Attorney and the Attorney in the other place relates to situations where persons have full-body coverings. Imagine a situation where a police officer pulls over a vehicle that has a dodgy headlight and wants to be satisfied as to the identity of the driver, who may be in a full-body covering. That may perhaps be an unusual situation, but it may arise.
The Hon. John Ajaka: Full facial.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: Yes, and I think longer. As I understand it, there have been conversations between the offices of the Minister for Police and the Commissioner of Police as to how these circumstances will be dealt with. Obviously, it is not practicable to ask a person to remove a full-body covering on the side of a road. I understand that the Minister for Police believes the Commissioner of Police will issue an instruction that in those circumstances police officers will take such people back to the police station so that they may remove their covering in privacy and with sensitivity. I also understand that in his reply the Minister will confirm those matters.
Earlier I referred to two conversations in relation to this bill. The first conversation is about the legislation and its provisions that the Opposition does not oppose. The second is the entirely separate conversation that is occurring in parts of the community that are far less informed and is based on objection fundamentally to people of the Islamic faith. The Opposition disassociates itself from those remarks. We believe that they are contrary to contemporary multicultural Australia. That kind of approach should be condemned and rejected by rational persons in this House and amongst all thinking persons. As I indicated, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.01 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I support the Identification Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. This bill will amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 and other Acts to confer a power on police officers, juvenile justice officers, officers authorised by Corrective Services and court security staff to request the removal of face coverings in certain circumstances. The bill will also amend the Oaths Act 1900 to require a person witnessing a statutory declaration or affidavit to identify the person swearing the declaration of affidavit.
As members know the catalyst for this legislation was the initial conviction and subsequent acquittal of Carnita Matthews for making a false complaint against a police officer. That case raised the issue of how police and other officials interact with people whose faces are covered. Currently there is little legislative authority for police or other government officials to require a person to remove a face covering. We need to ensure that police and certain other officers, juvenile justice officers, officers authorised by Corrective Services and court security officers have the power to require that a person remove a face covering to enable them to see the person's face for the purpose of identification.
I congratulate the O'Farrell Government on introducing this bill as it fills a gap in the law. However, I believe it deals with the issue in a piecemeal fashion. It would have been far simpler had the Government supported my bill, the Summary Offences Amendment (Full Face Coverings) Prohibition Bill 2010, which was second read in this Chamber. My legislation was far simpler and simply prohibited the concealing of a person's identity while in public without a reasonable excuse to do so. As members know, I drafted that bill based on the successful bill passed by the French Parliament almost unanimously and by the Belgium Parliament.
My bill related to all face coverings, which were defined as any item of clothing or personal wear, such as a helmet, that conceals a person's identity. The bill was all encompassing and simply dealt with any item of face covering that concealed a person's identity while in a public place. I hope that in due course the Government may see the value of my legislation. However, this bill is a step in the right direction and the Christian Democratic Party supports it. In the Carnita Matthews' case a police officer was confronted by a driver of a vehicle, whose identity he could not establish, who may have broken the law. He wanted to check her driver's licence photograph with her face. In normal circumstances the officer could look at the face of the driver. However, Carnita Matthews would not allow that to happen and later made false complaints that the officer tried to remove her face veil.
As members now know, but she did not know, the interaction was recorded by video camera in the police officer's vehicle. The video showed that the officer was telling the truth and that Carnita Matthews was 5758 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
not. As a result, she was charged with making a false complaint. Initially she was convicted but on appeal some clever lawyers were able to have the charge quashed. Even the magistrate was not sure who was facing him in the court during the hearing as two women were wearing burqas, one of whom was obviously Carnita Matthews. The Christian Democratic Party hopes that this legislation will improve the matter.
I note that the legislation recognises that there may be limited circumstances where a person cannot remove a face covering. It provides that people may refuse to remove a face covering if they have "special justification", which is defined as being a legitimate medical reason for not removing the face covering. This may apply, for example, where a person has recently had surgery and is required to have his or her face or eyes bandaged. Police exercising these new powers will be required to comply with requirements that are set out in section 201 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. These requirements already apply to a range of other activities in which police engage when exercising their functions.
I have been advised by the Attorney General that the bill has been drafted following consultation with members of the Islamic community in New South Wales. The Government is committed to ongoing work through the Community Relations Commission to develop guidelines that will apply to government agencies. Those guidelines will ensure that the Government is responsive and sensitive to individual wishes for privacy and flexibility in the provision of quality services and support. As far as I can ascertain, there is no requirement either in the Koran or in the teaching of the Muslim religion for any woman to have her face covered. There is no religious requirement, although there may be cultural requirements. Any legislation dealing with this issue is not an attack on Islam or the Muslim religion. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.08 p.m.]: I support the Identification Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. This bill is not about banning the burqa, nor is it to target a particular religion or culture; it is a practical and reasonable response for genuine law enforcement purposes. Our Government is committed to keeping our communities tolerant, safe and cooperative. My belief is that faith-based practices that are marginal and embedded in historical custom attract fear and misinterpretation. I believe that such practices will have their own demise over time in our freedom-loving and tolerant Australian society. As legislators and community leaders we have a responsibility to diminish racism and intolerance in our community. Effective law enforcement requires that police are able to identify people in the community whether they are suspects, witnesses or offenders. This legislation will assist the police in the execution of their duties if they can see the faces of the people with whom they are dealing.
The bill provides that police officers must, as far as is reasonably practicable, ask for the person's cooperation and conduct the viewing of the person's face in a way that is reasonably practical. A small minority of Islamic women choose to wear the full burqa, which covers their head and neck and the rest of their body. Police officers are very sensible and reasonable and they will provide a woman who chooses to wear the full burqa with the privacy she requires at the nearest police station if the situation warrants that. The bill also provides that the actions of police officers must be independently monitored by the Ombudsman, whose report will be submitted to Parliament. This bill reinforces the need for members of the community to comply with lawful requests made by a police officer and provides that the powers it confers should be exercised with respect for the dignity and privacy of the individual.
The O'Farrell Government continues to work with multicultural leaders, including those from the Islamic community, to encourage better understanding of faith and cultures and how we can all live together in harmony while respecting each other's traditional lifestyles, and particularly our very relaxed Australian lifestyle. The Government has consulted members of the Islamic community on the bill and will continue to work through the Community Relations Commission on the development of guidelines that will apply to government agencies regarding the application of this legislation. The guidelines will assist in ensuring that the Government is responsive and sensitive to an individual's desire for privacy and flexible in the provision of quality services and support.
I note that the purpose of the bill is to amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 and other Acts to confer a power on police officers, juvenile justice officers, officers authorised by the Department of Corrective Services and court security staff to request the removal of face coverings in certain circumstances. The bill also amends the Oaths Act 1900 to require a person witnessing a statutory declaration or affidavit to identify the person swearing the declaration or affidavit. The new powers will allow officers to function effectively and to ensure the security and safety of our community and citizens. The bill enables a police officer to request a person to identify himself or herself when an officer proposes to give that person a 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5759
move-on direction. I am sure that all honourable members appreciate that it is central to police officers' and other public officials' duty to ascertain a person's identity in the course of carrying out their functions in the law enforcement, court or justice system.
This bill is a response to significant community concern following the initial conviction and subsequent acquittal of a woman whose identity could not be properly established. The Government has acknowledged that there are members of our community who wear face coverings for religious, cultural or personal reasons. It is committed to working with these groups and the broader community to ensure that people understand not only their obligations but also the extent to which safeguards can reasonably be expected to apply. This bill seeks to strike a fair and reasonable approach to allow police officers and other public officials to do their jobs. The Government has consulted with many members of the community on how these powers are to be exercised. I note the advice of Attorney General, the Hon. Greg Smith, SC, who stated:
The Government is committed to working with and educating the community about the new powers, and individual rights and responsibilities regarding their application. The bill contains appropriate safeguards and a monitoring mechanism to ensure that the application of the power to require removal of a face covering is both sensitive and accountable.
The bill also provides for limited circumstances in which a person cannot remove a face covering. It provides that a person may refuse to remove a face covering if he or she has a special justification, which is defined as being a legitimate medical reason. For example, this may apply when a person has recently had surgery and is required to have his or her face or eyes bandaged. Police officers exercising these powers will be required to comply with the requirements as set out in section 201 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. I am informed that these already apply to a range of other activities in which police engage when exercising their functions.
This Government would never apply a blanket ban to the wearing of a burqa. There is a diminishing number of women who wish to wear such garments. For some reason they feel comfortable wearing this form of full-face or full-body covering. Most Australians of culturally diverse backgrounds find it hard to accept that women would want to wear these hot and restrictive forms of clothing, especially in our warm climate. However, most would also respect that it is their decision and that we should not interfere with their personal sense of security in normal circumstances. Burqas may be confronting and upsetting for those who believe that women are forced to wear them. However, having discussed the issue with many in the Islamic community I now know that the majority of the women who choose to wear them do so freely and would feel incredibly uncomfortable if they were forced to remove them. If we did so we would confine many women to their home and that would be un-Australian.
As other members have said, the wearing of veils or similar garments that cover a woman's face is the subject of debate and legislative proposals in several European countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Spain and Switzerland. France has banned the wearing of the burqa and Italy did so in 1975. It is true that Turkey's first President, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, banned the burqa in 1923 when that country became a secular state. During my travels in Turkey in recent years I noted that the burqa was tolerated, but wearing it was not a widespread practice. Women in Australia who wear a full face cover will invariably remove it when necessary—for example, if they are visiting a doctor or a dentist, or if they are passing through the customs area at an airport or port. The practice is to pull the garment aside when they pose for a photograph for a passport or driver's licence. The Roads and Traffic Authority allows a photograph to be taken in private by a female staff member if required. When speaking about the bill the Premier said:
This is not about banning a piece of clothing. This is about ensuring whether if someone is wearing a motorcycle helmet, a burqa, if they're in the snow wearing a balaclava, if they're wearing some other face mask, if police have concern and reasonable grounds for suspecting that breaches of security or laws may have occurred or will occur, that they can require those people to make their identification clear. So this is not about discrimination in favour of any religion or against any religion, in favour of any racial background or against any racial background; it's about giving police the powers consistently for the whole community in relation to identifying people suspected of criminal breaches.
In line with the Premier's comments, great care has been taken by the Government to ensure that this bill is comprehensively non-discriminatory and it is warmly welcomed by the community that we represent. I compliment the Attorney General and the Minister for Police and Emergency Services for the respectful and genuine manner in which their departments have consulted with the many cultural groups affected by this legislation. I also compliment members of the Opposition for offering their bipartisan support for this bill. Some minor amendments may be moved, but I believe the bill has attracted cross-party support. The positive feedback that has been received is a credit to the process adopted and the maturity of all involved who have placed the welfare of law-abiding citizens to the forefront in this legislative process. I commend the bill to the House. 5760 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [4.19 p.m.]: The Greens do not oppose the Identification Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. However, we will move amendments during the Committee stage as some provisions cause concern. I place on record that the manner in which Ministers who have had carriage of this bill, including the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, have dealt with this issue has always been respectful and has been aimed at limiting the amount of inflammatory rhetoric on what could very easily be an inflammatory matter.
I commend the Government for doing something that we did not always see with the previous Government—that is, it did not rush through legislation seven days after a headline in the Daily Telegraph; it consulted with the Muslim community about the terms of the bill and the processes that should be put in place to have respectful provisions in the bill. In particular, I commend the Hon. Marie Ficarra for the way in which she contributed to the debate today. She recognised the cultural diversity that we have in New South Wales and the need for people, particularly women in burqas, to have some freedom around this city and State. I also recognise the contribution of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. From day one questions were put to him about this issue. I commend him for the sensitive way in which he and his Government have responded.
The objects of the bill are to amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, which gives police officers the power to require a person, in certain circumstances, to remove a face covering to enable the officer or another police officer to see the person's face for identification purposes. It also allows a police officer to request that a person disclose his or her identity to the officer where the officer is proposing to give the person a move-on direction under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. That is a matter with which The Greens have some issue. The bill also amends the Court Security Act 2005 to give court security officers the power to require a person to remove a face covering. Whilst The Greens see a role for court security officers to have that power, The Greens have some concerns with the extent of the power being granted to the court security officers in this bill.
The bill makes some other amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation, the Children (Detention Centres) Act and the regulations under that Act, which give powers to juvenile justice or prison officers who are administering juvenile justice detention centres or prisons to remove face coverings to identify visitors. The Greens can understand the rationale behind that and note the protections that are put in place. The bill also makes some amendments to the Oaths Act. The Greens recognise to some degree that there is potential merit in those amendments, but we are concerned about the extent of them. We will move an amendment in the Committee stage that we believe will improve the provisions in that Act. I shall deal more specifically with the provisions in the bill. Schedule 1, item [1] provides a somewhat technical but rational definition of the word "face". Schedule 1, item [4] inserts a new power in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. It inserts new section 11 (2), which states:
(2) A police officer may request a person whose identity is unknown to the officer to disclose his or her identity if the officer proposes to give a direction to the person in accordance with Part 14 for the person to leave a place.
That is an extended power given to the police to demand someone provide his or her identity in circumstances where there is no suspicion that the person has committed an offence, where there is no basis upon which the police could at that point charge the person. Indeed, it will lead to a significant number of people having their details entered into the Computerised Operational Policing System [COPS] register and put on police records in circumstances where they have committed no offence. It would appear that this section is required in order for the Government's previously much-hyped drunk and disorderly powers to work in practice.
A matter of weeks ago the law was amended by this Government to give police the power to charge people who were found intoxicated and disorderly on a second occasion after they had been given an initial move-on order. The hole in the Government's legislation was that there was no way that the police could prove that that person had been given the initial move-on direction. In order for police to charge a person found drunk and disorderly on a second occasion they have to be able to prove that that was the person who received the move-on direction on the first occasion. Under the current law police do not have the power to compel someone to produce identification when they give the first move-on direction.
Clearly, the Attorney General—who had much-hyped legislation about drunk and disorderly—got his legislation through the Parliament, gave it to the police and they looked at it and said, "We cannot make this legislation work. We cannot prove the charge because we do not have the identity of the person when we give them their first move-on direction." That is an obvious glaring hole in the Government's drunk and disorderly legislation, which the Government is trying to fill through the back door in the face coverings legislation. It is trying to cover up a grossly embarrassing mistake in its drunk and disorderly legislation through the back door 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5761
by inserting this power in new section 11 (2) of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. This is an admission by the Government that its earlier law was inherently flawed. Worse still, it will give the police the additional power to demand information from citizens who are not guilty of any offence and who are not under suspicion for any offence. It is an inappropriate step backwards for civil liberties in New South Wales. The Greens will move an amendment to strike out that provision. We commend that amendment to the House.
Division 4 inserts new section 19A in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, which gives police officers the power to require, in certain circumstances, the removal of face coverings. I said at the outset that The Greens recognise that there may be a small number of circumstances where this power may be appropriate. If one looks at the long history of Muslim migration to Australia one can see that there has been only one instance where police have had a confrontation with a woman wearing a face covering. That one incident proves that this is a marginal issue. Indeed, when I look at those basic facts, it proves what an inherently law-abiding and positive contribution that part of the Muslim community makes to our society. In more than 50 years of substantial Muslim migration to Australia only one incident has raised an issue.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: It is a lot more than 50 years.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I said "substantial migration". Australia has had Muslim migration since the nineteenth century. However, substantial migration of the Muslim community has occurred in New South Wales in the past 50 years. This one incident shows that while The Greens concede that there may be a narrow number of cases, it is an extraordinarily narrow number of cases. There has been a lot of attention in this House and in the media over a very small issue.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: Hence the reasonable nature of this bill and the way that it has been introduced.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I acknowledge the interjection. I said earlier that this is a reasonable power and that it is reasonably couched. I have said that it is inappropriate to give the police this power at the time of a move-on direction. It is almost impossible to see how intoxicated and disorderly move-on directions would be given to women wearing burqas, for example—it is extraordinarily unlikely. That proves that this additional power is not dealing with face coverings but is filling in the glaring hole in the Government's drunk and disorderly legislation. There is some concern about new section 19A (6), which provides that "lawfully required" means lawfully required or requested to provide the identification or information concerned in circumstances where a failure or refusal to comply with a requirement or request of that kind may constitute an offence.
The power to remove a face covering should be granted to police only when a person is required to provide identification. The inclusion of the word "requested" potentially broadens police powers. The Greens have a proposed amendment to limit it explicitly to "required" in order to make it clear that it is only in those narrow circumstances when police have power to compel someone to reveal his or her identity. A penalty provision is included for those who fail to remove a face covering when required. Concern has been expressed about a penalty provision being attached to that as a maximum penalty, but The Greens note that it is consistent with other offences of a similar nature in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act and that that was the basis upon which the penalty provision was included.
Pleasingly, the bill includes a monitoring provision by the Ombudsman, but it is limited. The Greens have a proposed amendment to expand the reference to the Ombudsman to monitor the expanded powers under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. This would be a positive step forward, particularly when one considers the powers under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act are being given to police officers in respect of citizens who have committed no offence. In those circumstances it would be appropriate to expand the reference of the Ombudsman to encompass those expanded powers given to police under new section 11 (2). The Greens hope that this amendment will be supported.
As I said earlier, The Greens do not take issue with the powers given to juvenile justice offices to deal with visitors in such a restricted manner with the protections put in place. The same applies to the amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act. However, The Greens are concerned about the expanded powers to court security officers in the Court Security Act 2005. Section 13 (1) (a) and (b) of the Court Security Act states:
(1) A security officer may require a person who is entering or in court premises and whose name or residential address is unknown to the officer to disclose the person’s name and residential address or to disclose the reason for the person’s visit to the court premises, or both, if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that:
(a) the person is carrying a restrict item or offensive implement, or
(b) the person has committed an offence in the court premises.
5762 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
Consistent with what the Greens have said about other provisions in this bill, if the power to compel someone to remove a face covering was limited to those circumstances The Greens would not oppose this provision. Unfortunately, the proposed power being given to security officers in new section 13A goes beyond that. It is important to place on the record that section 6 of the Court Security Act 2005 makes it clear that courts are public places. Members of the public have a right to go to court. Members of the public have a right to enter and exit freely from courts, subject to the overarching control of the judicial officer and subject to the powers given to security offices as to offensive implements, pets and animals and the like. Concern has been expressed about restricting the right that is being given to people who wear face coverings in new section 13A. New Section 13A (1) provides:
A security officer may require a person who is wearing a face covering to remove the covering so as to enable the officer, or another security officer or person assisting in following the procedures set out in subsection (2), to see the person's face if:
(a) the person is seeking to enter court premises, or
(b) the officer arrests, or has grounds for arresting, the person under this Act.
If an officer is arresting someone then there is argument for being able to give a direction to remove a face covering. But when someone is simply entering public court premises—which all citizens have the right to enter—what is the rationale behind giving a security officer the power to remove a face covering in those circumstances? No other identification requirement is necessary for people as they enter and exit from court premises. There should be no fetter, particularly for women wearing burqas, to be arbitrarily subject to a court officer demanding the removal of their face covering. If they do not remove their face covering they are subject to a penalty unless they immediately leave the court. No explanation has been given in the second reading speech or in the contribution in this place as to the expanded power to be given to court security officers.
The Greens have a proposed amendment that would limit the scope of that power to circumstances in which court officers can otherwise reasonably require the identity of a person: the existing circumstances in section 13 where the officer believes the person is carrying a restricted item or offensive implement, or the person has committed an offence, as well as the circumstances that the officer has arrested or has grounds for arresting the person under this Act, but would exclude circumstances where the person is seeking to enter court premises. There is no rationale behind it and it could be seen to operate unfairly particularly against that section of the community that wears face coverings. In certain circumstances the fact that a person must immediately comply with directions could be onerous; a person should be able to comply as soon as is reasonably practicable with an order to remove face coverings. The Greens have a proposed amendment to deal with that issue.
No study has been done to suggest that the Oaths Act, as currently drafted, allows affidavits or oaths to be sworn in circumstances where the person witnessing them is not normally an officer of the court, a public notary or a justice of the peace. It is not suggested that the Oaths Act is under attack or that a series of affidavits and oaths have been improperly sworn, or that some identity issue has been proven. It is difficult to understand why this somewhat cumbersome process is to be forced upon people under the Oaths Act. Why is there a requirement for someone to see the face of the person making the declaration or the affidavit or to basically compel a woman wearing a face covering to remove that face covering? For example, if a woman had had a long relationship with a solicitor, he would know her voice, her demeanour and her look and he would be absolutely confident of the identity of the person swearing the affidavit without the requirement for her to remove her face covering.
The Hon. John Ajaka: They do not have to.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I note the interjection of the Hon. John Ajaka. The provisions in section 34 are cumulative. The Greens have a proposed amendment to allow for those circumstances where a person is otherwise well satisfied as to the identity not to require the removal of the face covering.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Why not just take it off?
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I hear the interjection of the Hon. Rick Colless, "Why not just take it off?"
The Hon. Rick Colless: It would be a lot easier.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I congratulate the Government on the sensitivity with which it has given the power to police. I give the example of a male sole practitioner or solicitor who has a female client. It may be 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5763
very difficult for such a solicitor to find an appropriate alternative person before whom to swear an oath where the woman would be comfortable enough to remove her face covering. It may involve additional legal costs. It would most definitely be an inappropriate circumstance for someone to be in where a solicitor was fundamentally comfortable with the person, knew who was sitting across the desk from him or her, and was perfectly comfortable with witnessing the oath or the affidavit in those circumstances. The Greens hope that this amendment will be supported. The Greens do not oppose the bill but note the issues to which I have referred. Again, The Greens commend the Government for the sensitive manner in which it has consulted on this bill.
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [4.39 p.m.]: I speak in debate on the Identification Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 and reiterate the position taken by the shadow Attorney General, Mr Paul Lynch, in the lower House not to oppose the bill. The Opposition does not oppose the bill as far as it relates to providing the police with the necessary powers to require a person to comply with face identification. As a lawyer, I am prepared to say there is some, though very limited, legal justification for this bill if for no reason other than the necessary identification needs of police and others in the court and Corrective Services systems. The background of this bill is a matter of concern.
The thrust of the bill lies with Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and its spirit emanates from the Summary Offences Amendment (Full-Face Covering Prohibition Bill) 2010. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile tried to introduce similar bills in 2002 and 2006, which promoted widespread condemnation—and deservedly so. Even the Summary Offences Amendment (Full-face Coverings Prohibition) Bill 2010, voted on last year, attracted the support of no more than three votes. I do not support this bill but I will not vote against it because it may trespass on the personal rights and liberties of Australian citizens. The Parliament's Legislation Review Committee commented on the bill as follows:
The Committee notes that powers conferred by provisions in this Bill that require an individual to remove a face covering may trespass on personal rights and liberties.
I also question the haste behind the bill. I see it as a knee-jerk reaction to one highly publicised incident because it involved the police and a woman wearing a burqa. Therefore I have significant concerns and questions about infringements on the civil, religious and political rights of citizens. I am suspicious of the politics behind it which, if the Government were genuine, it would lay out for all to see. So as a matter of need to give police officers and other authorised officials the power to ascertain an individual's identity, I will not object to the bill.
The object of the bill is to amend certain legislation to enable police officers and other authorised officials to require the removal of face coverings for identification purposes and to provide for identification procedures relating to individuals subject to a move-on direction, or for individuals in relation to the making or receiving of statutory declarations and affidavits. The bill proposes to achieve these aims through amendments to the following Acts. Previous speakers have detailed the amendments. The bill amends the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to allow a police officer to require a person to remove a face covering for identification purposes and enable a police officer to request that a person disclose his or her identity if the individual is to be subject to a move-on direction.
The bill amends the Court Security Act 2005 to allow a court security officer to require a person to remove a face covering for identification purposes if the person is seeking to enter court premises. It amends the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 to allow authorised officers to require a visitor to a correctional facility to remove a face covering for identification purposes. The bill amends the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 and the Children (Detention Centres) Regulation 2010 to allow an authorised officer to require a visitor to a detention centre to remove a face covering for identification purposes. Finally, the bill amends the Oaths Act 1900 to provide for identification procedures to be followed by persons taking or receiving statutory declarations or affidavits.
The background to this bill is as follows. In November 2010 Carnita Matthews was convicted of falsely accusing a police officer of forcibly removing her face covering after she was pulled over for allegedly driving without having her P-plates displayed. In June 2010 her conviction was quashed on appeal after the appellate court judge found that there was no evidence to confirm that the woman, Ms Matthews, who was convicted of the offence, was the same person who made false allegations against the police officer because the person who made the allegations was wearing a face covering at the time.
Mr David Shoebridge: It was a bad identification.
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: I acknowledge Mr David Shoebridge's interjection. As such, the woman could not be positively identified. The principal element in this bill is the proposed insertion of 5764 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
section 19A of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, which provides the police with power to require a person to remove a face covering worn by the person to allow that officer or another officer to see the person's face. This applies where the person has been lawfully required to provide photographic identification, to identify himself or herself, or to provide other identification particulars. Section 19A (6) defines "lawfully required".
So at face value, this bill does not intend to be a carte blanche provision, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, allowing police to demand the removal of face coverings in wide-ranging situations. The Government appears to be at pains to make this point. On the other hand, the precise circumstances in which the demand can be made to remove facial coverings are not spelt out in the bill. According to the shadow Attorney General, there are 40 or so offences that could trigger the additional powers under section 19A. I will not itemise the offences; suffice it to say that the shadow Attorney General has been diligent and itemised each of the 40 offences. I refer anyone interested to read the member's speech on this matter.
An important part of the bill is the penalties for non-compliance. Some of these penalties are significant financially and attract significant custodial sentences. The penalty for failing to comply with a direction to remove a facial covering connected with section 14 of the Act, which relates to officers requesting the disclosure of driver or passenger identity, is $5,500 or 12 months in jail. In other cases it is $220 or two penalty units. When it comes to detention centres the legislation does not impose a penalty if an individual refuses to remove the face covering. However, juvenile justice officers or an official at the detention centre may refuse entry until the individual complies. So a person who does not comply with a requirement under this clause may be refused a visit to the detention centre. The legislation will not criminalise a refusal to remove a facial covering.
Amendments to the Court Security Act provide that a court security officer may require a person who is wearing a face covering to remove it if the person is seeking to enter court premises. I acknowledge the points raised by Mr David Shoebridge. If a person is required to remove a face covering and fails to do so or to leave the premises, the security officer can repeat the requirement; if the person does not comply or leave he or she is guilty of an offence, with a maximum fine of five penalty units. If it is a situation covered by section 13A (1) (6) there is no option to leave, but the warning must be repeated for an offence to have occurred. The bill also amends the Oaths Act. These amendments deal with situations when a person makes a statutory declaration or affidavit before what is termed an authorised witness.
The witness must see the face of the person making the instrument or must know the person or confirm his or her identity and certify it on the document. It is a criminal offence not to do so, with a maximum penalty of $220. The witness may request a person to remove a face covering, and failure to do so will mean that the document cannot be witnessed. The Attorney General, Mr Greg Smith, said that this bill is about ensuring that police, juvenile justice officers, officers authorised by Corrective Services and court security officers have the power to require that a person remove a face covering to enable the person's face to be seen for the purpose of identification. The new powers are designed so that these officers are able to function effectively—I highlight this point—to ensure the security and safety of our community and its citizens. I will come back to this point.
I cannot understand how an issue about headwear is a threat to community safety. The bill fails to explain or define the burqa, niqab and hijab, and it shows a failure of those behind the bill who claim to have understood the issues surrounding this Islamic wear. Herein lies the more complex issues for police and other authorised officers, prosecutors and court officials as a whole. What is a burqa? What is a hijab? What is a niqab? What is a chadri? What is a scarf? What is a purdah? A scanning of the web shows a burqa and chadri in different forms. Indeed, it shows many different Islamic dresses. Whether in Afghanistan, Iran or the Middle East, Islamic woman have different forms of dresses.
This bill makes reference to a piece of cloth that covers the top of the forehead to the bottom of the chin, but some women's clothing covers the lower part of the forehead to the top of the chin. Would police officers have the power to ask women to remove their face coverings when their faces are already visible? As the Hon. Adam Searle said earlier, in some instances a niqab head covering is connected to a woman's dress. Does that mean that police officers or court officers would have the power to ask a woman to remove her entire piece of clothing? In such circumstances police officers would not be complying with the law in that they would have to ask a woman to remove her dress as opposed to only a face covering.
These measures will result in police officers and other court officials experiencing significant difficulties. In this really dangerous field the definition of "face covering" could be varied and present 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5765
significant difficulties for police officers and other officials. The most common view of the limited number of people who are aware of this bill is that it is not opposed. However, the follow-up question is: What is next? There is a sense of apprehension in the community that this may be the thin edge of the wedge. When dealing with a sensitive issue such as religious dress everybody should tread warily as it could impact on the rights and civil liberties of members of our society. We should support not only multiculturalism, free speech and religious rights; we should also practice those things.
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR [4.52 p.m.]: I will make a brief and relatively simple contribution in debate on what I believe to be one of the best pieces of legislation I have seen in my short time as a member of this Chamber. The Identification Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 will put an end to many of the conversations in the community relating to this issue. Other members have already referred to the genesis of this legislation. Some of the media reports and the potential hysteria surrounding the Carnita Matthews case identified issues that put our wonderful police officers in a position where they had little guidance. It had the potential of turning this issue into a public debate on a range of cultural issues that were not welcome in New South Wales. I acknowledge the calm and measured approach with which the Premier and the Minister for Police and Emergency Services approached this matter.
I commend Commissioner Scipione and the Minister for Citizenship and Communities, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. Victor Dominello, for bringing all stakeholders together, for addressing these issues, and for introducing a simple piece of legislation that provides protection for our police officers and enables them to carry out their duties efficiently. This legislation addresses all those cultural issues that might affect the Islamic community and it has dispelled any fears that might have been held by those who wear any form of face covering. When we debated similar legislation in the past, Opposition members used as an example the safety of bank tellers and a similar argument could be made in relation to this debate.
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: You are not suggesting that Muslims hold up banks, are you?
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I am not suggesting that Muslims hold up banks; I am referring to the fact that the definition of "face covering" in this bill includes face coverings, for example, masks and motorcycle helmets. I am sure those provisions will dispel any fears that are held and will add some weight to the stickers that are displayed at the front of our banks.
The ASSISTANT-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! Members will listen to the member with the call in silence.
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I refer members to the stickers that are displayed at the front of our banks and service stations which are placed there to inform members of the public that the wearing of motorcycle helmets are not permitted. The definition of "face coverings" in this bill includes masks and motorcycle helmets, which will provide some form of security and assurance for those who work in our banks and in our retail sector that anyone entering a store or service station will not be wearing a face covering. I commend the Government for consulting with leaders of the Islamic community, in particular, the Lebanese Muslim Association, on these cultural issues. All stakeholders were brought to the table and they discussed the implementation of this legislation. I made a brief contribution in debate on this bill to refer, first, to the measured approach that was taken by the Premier and Minister Dominello; second, to commend the leaders of the Islamic community and other cultural leaders who presented their case in such a dignified manner and worked with Minister Dominello's office; and, third, to commend the Government on its balanced and well-presented bill.
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [4.58 p.m.]: As other members have said, the Opposition will not be opposing the Identification Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I speak in debate on this bill for a number of reasons. I will not address those points that have already been made by other members. However, I place on the record my support for the New South Wales Police Force and the Muslim women in this State. It is imperative for our police officers to have necessary and clear legislation in place, which is not open to confusion or confusing interpretations, and that enables them to carry out their important job of protecting all the citizens of this State. I commend the Government for introducing this legislation as soon as it was evident that there was a gap in the law.
I am very pleased that the Minister went to Lakemba and consulted the Muslim Women's Association. To me, that is very important. I find it frustrating that when we have a discussion about Muslim women's religious dress it is always Muslim men and non-Muslim men who speak on the issue. Muslim women's voices are seldom heard. Nor are Muslim women asked their views on this issue. It is imperative that the voices of 5766 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
Muslim women be heard when we are discussing this issue. My experience is that every time there is an issue around the Muslim community and perceptions of negativity, regretfully, the media will hold up that one example of wrongdoing as being representative of the Muslim community. That is very unfair and inaccurate.
It is important to consult with Muslim women, because they bear the consequences of those sorts of incidents. Every time an issue blows up Muslim women who wear the hijab in public and get on buses and trains become fair game for those who have concerns about the Muslim community, or who simply do not understand the Muslim community and its beliefs, or regretfully have accepted much of the negative stereotyping seen in this State and nation about the Muslim community. Some who accept that negative reporting then believe they have the right to abuse Muslim women. It is easy to identify Muslim women who chose to wear the hijab or niqab, and they become fair game for some in our community who have quite racist and anti-Islamic views. It is also important that police and other law enforcement officers given powers under this legislation be educated about these laws and their responsibilities in respect of the laws, as well as the responsibilities of citizens to abide by these laws. Where appropriate, officers should be sensitive and take a woman to a police station or location where she can reveal her identity to a woman. Education is very important.
Another matter that is very important—it has been referred to by a number of members—is the review of the legislation. I am not sure of the detail of the review; I have not heard any member say how the review will be carried out. But it is important that the review involve Muslim women, because it is they who will live with the consequences of this legislation. It is imperative that those conducting the review consult with Muslim women. I acknowledge that a number of organisations in this State represent Muslim women, but by far the largest organisation is the Muslim Women's Association. The Government would only have to consult again with Maha Abdo Krayem or Waffa Ziam or Ghena Krayem from the Muslim Women's Association, because those women are absolute leaders in the Muslim women's community in New South Wales, indeed in Australia. I am sure they would be pleased to take part in the consultation process when it comes to review of this legislation.
I also point to the language that is often used around this issue. A number of members today—even those who I know are quite supportive of Muslim women and condemn the inflammatory language that we often hear when speaking about issues around Islam in Australia—have referred to the face coverings that women wear as the burqa. The fact is that in Sydney we do not see burqas. In all my years I have never seen a woman wearing a burqa in Sydney, or Australia for that matter. Burqa, for Muslim women as well, has very negative connotations. The burqa is very much associated with Afghanistan. It is imperative that we use appropriate language. We know that language is powerful. Because of its negative connotations we will not see women wearing a burqa in Australia—certainly not in Sydney. Go to Bankstown, Lakemba or Auburn and you will not see women wearing the burqa. Yes, you will see women wearing a niqab. More and more women are doing that. However, they are still a minority: a very small number of women choose to wear the face covering.
I speak with women who wear a niqab, and most of them travel around the world. So they are used to complying with the laws of the various lands that they visit. They go into and out of airports and other places where, because of our concerns about security, they must comply with requests to reveal their face and establish their identity. They do that without question. It is regrettable that this one incident in Campbelltown involving Ms Matthews led to an overreaction by the media. In the following weeks a blond-haired, blue-eyed journalist dressed in an Islamic robe and niqab was out wandering the streets of Lakemba. I am not sure what that was supposed to prove to us. I question whether, in other areas of criminality, journalists would don the dress of that group and walk the streets to try to portray that as somehow or other representing the experience of that group. Really, it is quite absurd how issues to do with the Muslim community are treated by our media. They are certainly beaten up by the shock-jocks in this country.
Neither journalists nor members of this Parliament have to live with the consequences of their actions. I lived in Bankstown for a time after 9/11 and I was there in the aftermath of the gang rapes. I know who suffered the consequences of those vile criminal acts. It was not the perpetrators of the acts; it was ordinary Muslim women, easily identified by their dress. They were the ones who were abused and spat on. Some were even the victims of attempts by complete strangers to remove their hijab. In multicultural societies such as Australia's that response is unacceptable. Tolerance and acceptance are virtues that all of us need to not only preach but practise. We live in a pluralist democracy, and that means living with people of different colour, sexuality and linguistic backgrounds, who are non-believers or have a range of faiths and beliefs. We all aim to live in Australia's society free from violence and abuse because of our culture, religion or lifestyle. I implore the media in this country to be more ethical and responsible when reporting issues, such as the case that led to the introduction of this legislation. I believe that Ms Matthews did Muslim women a great disservice by her response. 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5767
The Hon. John Ajaka: Absolutely. They will be the first to tell you that.
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: They have told me that. I speak with Muslim women regularly. They were deeply offended by her actions. They tell me how frustrating it is when people use the example of one as representing the behaviour of all or most Muslim women. Muslim women overwhelmingly are law abiding. They go about their business like all of us: raising their families, going to work and going to university. It is an absolute misrepresentation to portray them as having different lifestyles and being interested only in the good of their own religion or group. Muslim women belong to their local parents and citizens associations, they train local soccer groups, they go to gym classes and they run local netball clubs. Muslim women do things just like the rest of us.
It is imperative that we not continue to portray Muslim women as somehow living differently from us, not being Australian and not sharing Australian values, because that is not true. These days many of the Muslim women here were born in Australia. I am certainly pleased that Muslim women were consulted on this legislation. However, I repeat that it is important that all the law enforcement officers who now will have powers under this Act are educated appropriately. They need to be sensitive in how they ask Muslim women to comply with this law. I also urge the Government to ensure that Muslim women are very much a part of the review of this legislation.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.12 p.m.]: I support the Identification Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I shall not refer to each provision in the bill, because they have been well covered by previous speakers. I concur with the vast majority of members' comments on the subject. This bill does not relate to an Islamic issue. It is sad for that to be continually mentioned in this House, because nowhere does the bill relate to an Islamic, burqa or niqab issue. This bill clearly relates to the issue of face coverings for the specific purpose of identification. It is incorrect to indicate that the bill goes outside that simple parameter. As a lawyer who worked for a number of years with the then Clerk of the Peace, now Director of Public Prosecutions, and who worked on many criminal matters in our brilliant, fair and reasonable criminal justice system in this country, it is clear to me that the bill addresses the identification issue.
Proper identification is paramount to our system of criminal justice: it is a golden thread that runs through the justice system, and not just from a defendant's point of view. Defendants should be protected if they are innocent. But this issue relates also to victims. Proper identification will ensure that those who commit offences are brought to justice. Appropriate identification is required to protect people. That is what this bill is all about. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile mentioned earlier that, in a sense, the bill deals with issues in a piecemeal fashion and that he would have preferred the bill he introduced prohibiting face coverings in public places. He said that that was a simple way to rectify the issue. I do not agree; it would not have been a simple way to deal with the matter.
It would have created serious problems because it would have been perceived as an attack on one community: one cultural community, one religious community and one sectarian community. I do not believe it is appropriate for any member to give examples or discuss in any way their interpretation of the Holy Quran. I will not say I have read the Holy Quran. It is not for me to give my interpretation of it. If a woman has a genuine belief, whether religious or cultural, to wear a head covering, a burqa, a niqab, she should have that right in this democratic country. That is her entitlement if that is what she genuinely believes. Many people in this country do not believe God exists. I believe God exists. I have faith in my God. I believe Jesus exists. I have read the Bible and understand it. I do not want someone who does not believe in God telling me how I should interpret the Old Testament or the New Testament just as I do not believe that it is for me to tell a woman how she should live her life or interpret her faith.
We talk about dealing with the Islamic community and understanding women of the Islamic community. The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane and I have probably dealt more with the Islamic community than other members of this Chamber or this Parliament. I have dealt with Islamic people my entire life. I remember attending their homes when I was five and six years of age. I have been associated with men and women of the Islamic faith, as I have with men and women of many faiths. I have had dinner at their homes, I have spoken to them and I have associated with them. I respect that the Hon. Helen Westwood has an excellent relationship with women of the Islamic faith. But we all do.
I do not agree that Islamic women in this country are oppressed. Islamic women in this country, like all women in any family unit, have their rights, their entitlements and their say. Most Islamic women I know are 5768 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
well respected and well adhered to by their husbands—I use that term "adhered to" deliberately. They are not oppressed. And they will not stand for anyone being oppressed. That is why many object strongly to any law that would prevent or prohibit them from choosing what they wear and how they wear it.
Mr David Shoebridge: The only person who voiced that opinion was Fred Nile.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: In answer to the Mr David Shoebridge, sadly the media—the so-called radio shock jocks, if I can use that expression—continually raise this issue. But they are wrong. The bill is designed to ensure the appropriate identification of a person. At the age of 21 years, before I became a solicitor, I was fortunate to be sworn in as a justice of the peace. For many years I signed affidavits and statutory declarations. When the Oaths Act came into effect allowing lawyers to sign affidavits, I continued that practice. I know that most, if not all, justices of the peace and lawyers make it their policy not to witness an affidavit unless they know the person who is making the oath or declaration before them. If a complete stranger asked me to witness his or her signature, on every occasion I asked to see identification—be it a passport or drivers licence—to satisfy me that the correct name was on the documentation. That is a common and sensible approach. This legislation also takes a sensible approach. I never signed an affidavit for a woman or a man with a full-face covering. It would be totally inappropriate to do so unless I saw their full face. Mr David Shoebridge said that he is not aware of a justice of the peace experiencing a problem.
Mr David Shoebridge: Or with anyone.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: If I misquoted you, I apologise. But that is exactly what happened in the Carnita Matthews case. The justice of peace admitted that he did not see her face when she signed the affidavit, and that cannot be permitted to occur again. I congratulate the Attorney General, the Minister for Police and the Government of which I am a member on the way they have handled this matter. Mr David Shoebridge put it best when he said that the Government dealt with the issue sensitively. When the Minister for Police was first asked about it he said that that was the appropriate way to approach this matter. I have spoken to many leaders, male and female, of the Islamic community—many of whom I see almost daily—and all of them have told me specifically that they are pleased with this legislation because it is appropriate in the circumstances. I understand that the Minister for Police will outline the directions from the Commissioner of Police so I will not address that issue. However, I am confident it will alleviate many concerns. This is an appropriate bill that should be supported by all members in this Chamber.
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [5.22 p.m.]: I make a brief contribution to debate on the Identification Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I ask the Minister in replying to the debate to clarify the legislative meaning of the removal of face covering. Does it require the person in question to fully remove the item of clothing or is the person required only to lift the clothing in order to confirm identity? This area is not clear in the legislation and I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify that point.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.23 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to debate on the Identification Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The Government consulted extensively about the bill. I was involved with the legal practicalities, the Attorney General looked at its legality and the Minister for Citizenship and Communities, Mr Victor Dominello, worked with the Islamic community to ensure that its voice was heard. It was important to get this legislation right and to ensure that it was not discriminatory. The Government has said time and time again that this bill is not about people's choice of clothing as a result of their religious beliefs; it is simply about face coverings. It does not discriminate between someone wearing a bike helmet, mask, balaclava or any other type of face covering. The Government is trying to adopt a mainstream, workable approach. The Hon. Helen Westwood spoke about police. She said the bill is about making sure that police can work in a fair, reasonable and safe environment and that the law enables them to do their job. At the same time, this legislation is respectful of an individual's needs.
This bill is about ensuring that police, juvenile justice officers, officers authorised by Corrective Services, and court security officers have the power to require that a person remove a face covering to enable the officer to see that person's face for the purpose of identification. The new powers are designed to ensure that these officers are able to function effectively to ensure the security and safety of our community and its citizens. The bill also provides that a police officer can request a person to identify himself or herself when the officer proposes to give that person a move-on direction. Justices of the peace, lawyers and other authorised people witnessing a statutory declaration or affidavit will be required to see the face of the person making the declaration or affidavit and to identify the person. These safeguards are designed to ensure the identity of persons making statutory declarations or affidavits. 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5769
In relation to the question asked by the Hon. Lynda Voltz, under new section 19A (4) I have been advised that it is sufficient compliance if only so much of the face covering as prevents the person's face from being seen is removed. Today I have gone further in relation to that matter. When a person is wearing a single all-enveloping garment so that the face—that is, hairline to chin and between the ears, not the whole head— cannot be exposed without removing the whole garment then the only option is to take the person to a convenient place of privacy, probably a police station, so that the face can be displayed without having the person disrobe in public. Members should note that there is no need for the person to expose their whole body, just their face. So there is no need for the person to remove the entire one-piece garment. The shadow Attorney General expressed concern about this matter. Any decision to take the person somewhere, such as a police station, to facilitate removal of a one-piece garment would be discretionary. We do not expect police to go to those lengths unless it is operationally necessary in order to conclusively establish identity, such as when it is necessary to prove the identity of the person to them or to a court. This procedure will be covered in the standard operating procedures of the New South Wales Police Force once the legislation has been passed.
I congratulate all members on their contributions to this debate. It has been difficult to balance the issues. There was a time when we were in opposition and the then Labor Government would make tough decisions about matters such as this. The Greens were the first to accuse us of embarking on a law-and-order auction. I point out that that did not happen today. On this sensitive issue we achieved a balance between rights, responsibilities and the ability of police to do their job. All members must be congratulated on their contributions. It is about reaching a balance. Sadly, one member said it was about playing politics. I will not labour the point. That contribution was made in the context of this debate. No politics has been played on this issue.
Mr David Shoebridge: There has, but it has been good politics.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is about consultative politics in order to get an outcome so that at the end of the day everybody wins. There has been a lot of talk—not in this place but in the wider debate—about Muslim women being disadvantaged as a result of this legislation. The bill will protect them as well because, sadly, they may be victims of crime and there may be a need to identify their assailants who may well use some face covering—it may be a ski mask, a bike helmet or something else. They may work in their own business and feel offended by the conduct or actions of somebody wearing a mask. The bill is about ensuring that everybody is dealt with equally and fairly by the system in New South Wales. I think this is a good outcome. In fairness to the person who made the comments about playing politics, I think it was more a case of that person not having looked seriously at the legislation rather than playing politics on this issue. It is a good outcome. We can now move forward and ensure that all people, irrespective of background, are dealt with fairly by the law in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [5.31 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet C2011-082:
No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [2]–[4], lines 12–23. Omit all words on those lines.
This amendment relates to the extended power given to police in relation to being able to require the identity of persons to whom they propose to give a move-on direction. The Greens' concern about the bill is that it gives the power to require the identity of people who have not committed an offence, who are not suspected of having committed an offence, and who are not witnesses to some indictable offence or crime. There is no rational basis for expanding police powers other than to fill a gap that the Government obviously now perceives in its earlier drunk and disorderly legislation. The power is given to police in this bill simply to ensure they can get a charge to stick under their new drunk and disorderly legislation. For a charge to stick under the new drunk and disorderly legislation, police are required to be able to prove that a person was initially given a move-on direction and then was found at a later time drunk and disorderly in some public place. 5770 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
That power being given in this legislation has nothing to do with face coverings. This is about the Government trying to fix a glaring hole in its drunk and disorderly legislation. In doing so, it is giving an inappropriate power to police to demand identification from citizens who are not suspected of committing an offence, who are not being arrested and who otherwise do not have a legitimate reason to be under compulsion. It will lead to a significant number of people having their identity and circumstances entered in police records without any legitimate basis other than to get the flawed drunk and disorderly legislation to work. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.33 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the amendment. If the police have the power to move a person on and charge them and they return within a six-hour period it would seem unreasonable for police not to have the ability to require identification from them.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.33 p.m.]: The provision relating to the power to ask for a face covering to be removed was explicitly conferred in respect of enforcement of move-on powers so that a person may be clearly identified when that person is suspected of being in breach of a move-on direction. The Greens amendment would remove this power. It deletes new section 11 (2) regarding the power for police to request identification when they propose to give a move-on direction. Section 19A provides that an officer may require the removal of a face covering if the person has been lawfully required to identify himself or herself or provide photographic identification.
"Lawfully required" is defined as meaning, "lawfully required or requested under section 19A (6)". It would be absurd for police not to be able to confirm that a person, who was given a move-on direction and failed to comply, is the same person. The power to request identity and the removal of any face covering will assist police in determining whether a person they may see later is the same person who was issued with a move-on direction some hours before. It is not intended to inflame situations. It will mean that police can effectively and efficiently carry out their duties and get the right people off the streets at the right time.
To delete new section 11 (2) would be to delete the trigger section that enables the section 19A power to be exercised when police propose to issue a move-on direction. If the trigger were removed, as The Greens propose, all a drunk and offensive person would need to do to avoid any sanctions is to pull their hoodie right over their face and say they were not given a move-on direction previously. If the police see someone within a move-on area and officers believe they are in contravention of an order—for example, an hour ago they were asked to leave by the same officers—the police will be able to ask them to remove the face covering.
As we saw to our horror during the London riots recently people use face coverings to hide their identity and evade detection when committing a crime or being antisocial, abusive and/or violent. There is a sensible and obvious nexus between asking for a person's identity, including removing face coverings, and then knowing who they are if they fail to comply. Police already had a wide discretion to request a person's identity, and they use that discretion well. The original amendment to the move-on direction to reduce the number of people who may be moved on from a group of three to an individual was a sensible response to the increasingly problematic behaviour of drinking in our streets.
At that time, there was no evidence—as their clearly is now, and not only from the London riots but in our own State—that people would deliberately use their facial coverings to avoid being identified or to evade the consequences of their criminal behaviour. Those who argue against the provisions imply that they impose some sort of restriction on proper law-abiding New South Wales residents. That is wrong. These provisions ensure that when a person is doing the wrong or an offensive thing they can be asked to stop the behaviour and/or leave the place, and in doing so they must obviously identify themselves, including visually, by removing any facial coverings.
I notice a trend emerging and I urge Mr David Shoebridge to observe the way in which the shadow Attorney General has conducted himself, particularly recently. He has spoken directly to the Attorney General about his concerns; he has not raised them in the media and suggested that the legislation contains a fundamental weakness and that he is in some way cleaning it up. The legislation contains no mistakes and the member should speak to the Attorney General and learn from the shadow Attorney General about how to conduct himself when dealing with an issue as sensitive as this.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [5.41 p.m.]: For the edification of the Minister, I sent the amendments to the Attorney General some days ago and I received a two-word response. I do not intend to be churlish about that because I am sure he is very busy. That response was, "Thank you." 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5771
Question—That The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2011-082] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.
The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2011-082] negatived.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [5.42 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 2 on sheet C2001-082:
No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [5], proposed section 19A (6), lines 30–33. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
lawfully required means lawfully required to provide the identification or information concerned in circumstances where a failure or refusal to comply with a requirement of that kind constitutes an offence.
The nub of the power being given to police officers to require the removal of face coverings should be clearly and specifically limited only to those circumstances in which a person is lawfully required to provide their identification or information to police. This amendment dispenses with the expanded definition, which includes not only "required" but also "requested". The police have unlimited power to request people to provide identification. However, people must provide identification only when they are lawfully required to do so. To avoid the ambiguity in the bill, which contains the words "required" and "requested", this amendment limits it to those circumstances where a person is lawfully required to do so.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.43 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support this amendment.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.43 p.m.]: This amendment leaves the definition of "lawfully required" as "lawfully required". The words "required" and "requested" are used interchangeably in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act—the legislation on which this bill is based. The bill makes it clear that a lawful requirement is one where failure to comply constitutes an offence. The Greens amendment does not change the substance of the definition. However, it will not achieve the clarity which is sought by inserting this provision in the bill.
It is also important for the Committee to note that this power is not required to be exercised every time a move-on direction is issued. The provision clearly contains the word "may". With all due respect, it is typical of those who have no confidence in the police to say that that power will be used on every possible occasion; that is not true. Those who wish to cast aspersions say that it causes conflict between police officers and people on the street. That is clearly an ill-informed and incorrect statement. Generally people on the street are people like us; everyone in this House is a person on the street.
In nearly every case when a police officer asks a person whose face is obscured to remove the covering for legitimate identification purposes there is no problem and the request is promptly complied with. However, if people refuse, police officers must have the power to insist on compliance. It may cause conflict between police officers and a very drunk, disorderly, antisocial and potentially violent person, who is the only person who can be moved on, but that person is likely to be creating so-called conflict with the police, their friends, the venue operators and innocent passersby in any case. One need only stand on George Street on a Saturday night to know what sort of conflict occurs. One is exposed to loud, obnoxious, intoxicated, abusive and threatening people.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [5.45 p.m.]: The Minister is fighting a straw man. They are not the arguments put by The Greens in support of this amendment. It is true that the bill uses tortured language. It uses the word "request", which could be read, and I would read it, as a requirement because if one does not comply one is guilty of an offence. This is an opportunity to correct that infelicitous language in the Act. If it is intended to be "required", the language should be clear and the word "required" should be used. This amendment is one small step towards tidying up the untidy language in the Act.
Question—That The Greens amendment No. 2 [C2011-082] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.
The Greens amendment No. 2 [C2011-082] negatived.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [5.46 p.m.], by leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 3 to 7 on sheet C2011-082 in globo:
No. 3 Page 6, schedule 1 [7], proposed section 242B, line 3. Insert "section 11 (2) and" after "operation of".
5772 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
No. 4 Page 6, schedule 1 [7], proposed section 242B (1), line 7. Omit "that Division". Insert instead "section 11 (2) and Division 4 of Part 3".
No. 5 Page 6, schedule 1 [7], proposed section 242B (4), line 18. Insert "section 11 (2) and" after "be made to".
No. 6 Page 6, schedule 1 [7], proposed section 242B (4), line 20. Omit "that Division". Insert instead "section 11 (2) and Division 4 of Part 3".
No. 7 Page 6, schedule 1 [7], proposed section 242B (5), line 22. Insert "section 11 (2) and" after "operation of".
These amendments simply expand the scope of the Ombudsman's review of the legislation and the powers in it to include those expanded powers proposed to be given to police in proposed new subsection 11 (2), which are the expanded powers to require the production of a person's identification when the police intend to issue a move-on order. There are circumstances in which there is likely to be conflict between police officers and citizens on the street when move-on directions are issued to intoxicated and disorderly people. It is likely that there would be some benefits from a review of those powers and their operation in practice. The appropriate person to undertake such a review is the Ombudsman, who will be reviewing other aspects of this legislation, specifically the provisions dealing with face coverings. The Greens believe it would be entirely appropriate— indeed, it would be best practice—for the reference to the Ombudsman to be expanded to include the powers referred to in new subsection 11 (2). For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.48 p.m.]: The Opposition supports this cluster of amendments. It is clearly intended that the operation of this legislation will be reviewed by the Ombudsman. The referral to the Ombudsman does not cover all the issues that should be reviewed, including new subsection 11 (2). We support the amendments to ensure that the Ombudsman can review the operation of the new parts of this legislation.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.49 p.m.]: The effect of these amendments is to require the Ombudsman to review the power to request proof of identity when it is proposed to issue a move-on direction. The bill requires the Ombudsman to review the new face covering power under division 4, part 3. These amendments are not necessary. Complaint and reporting mechanisms are in place that will allow concerned individuals to raise issues about the exercise of the powers without unnecessarily burdening the police with an administrative requirement to report to the Ombudsman on every use of the power.
Complaints may be made against individual police officers to the Commissioner of Police or the Ombudsman under existing provisions. In addition, the Ombudsman will have a role to play in respect of the recent amendments to move-on directions. That is, after 12 months he will monitor the new offence provision of continuing to behave in an intoxicated and disorderly manner under section 9 of the Summary Offences Act. Section 11 (2) will not be used by police as they walk the beat down a local suburban street. They will have access to these powers, which are the same as their existing broad discretionary powers to require identity when patrolling an entertainment precinct filled with drunks and hooligans.
It is clear that this furphy, which suggests that police will suddenly be running around demanding everyone's identity left, right and centre, is detracting from the main issue. If a person is doing the wrong thing or suspected of doing the wrong thing and the person's face is covered, that person will be politely requested to remove the face covering. As any police officer would say, confrontations with police are most likely to occur when a person is drugged or alcohol affected, belligerent or out of control. They do not generally occur when they are talking to a civil, sober, polite person.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [5.53 p.m.]: Again, unfortunately, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is attacking the straw man because these amendments were not moved on the basis of wide-scale abuse of this power by police in New South Wales. The Greens have not made that assertion. The Ombudsman's review of section 9 would be a further basis to expand the review of the power under section 11 (2). The power under section 11 (2) is not, as the Minister suggested, the power to demand the removal of a face covering. The power under section 11 (2) is to request proof of identity. It is unfortunate that the Minister's briefing notes muddy those two powers. They are quite separate. The power under section 11 (2) is the power to require the production of identity. The power to demand the removal of a face covering comes under a different section of the Act. I again commend the amendments.
Question—That The Greens amendments Nos 3 to 7 [C2011-082] be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided. 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5773
Ayes, 13
Ms Barham Mr Moselmane Mr Whan Mr Buckingham Mr Searle Ms Cotsis Mr Secord Tellers, Mr Donnelly Mr Veitch Mr Shoebridge Ms Faehrmann Ms Westwood Ms Voltz
Noes, 16
Mr Blair Mr Gay Mrs Maclaren-Jones Mr Borsak Mr Green Mrs Mitchell Mr Brown Mr Harwin Mr Clarke Mr Khan Tellers, Ms Ficarra Mr Lynn Mr Colless Mr Gallacher Mr MacDonald Dr Phelps
Pairs
Ms Fazio Mr Ajaka Mr Foley Ms Cusack Mr Primrose Mr Mason-Cox Mr Roozendaal Mrs Pavey Ms Sharpe Mr Pearce
Question resolved in the negative.
The Greens amendments Nos 3 to 7 [C2011-082] negatived.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [6.00 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 8 on sheet C2011-082.
No. 8 Page 10, schedule 2.3 [3], proposed section 13A (1) (a), line 8. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead:
(a) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person is carrying a restricted item or offensive implement, or
For the reasons that I made clear in the substantive debate on this bill, this would limit the circumstances in which a security officer may require someone to remove a face covering to those where they have a legitimate reason to require the identity of a person. In simple words, it removes the ability that has been proposed in this bill for a security officer to demand that someone remove a face covering simply because they are entering a court. Courts should be public places. People, particularly women who wear face coverings for religious reasons, should not be subject to the potential ad hoc requirement by security officers to remove their face coverings simply because they wish to enter a public court. There is no rationale for this extended power being given to court security officers. Whilst The Greens can see a rationale for the power being given where there is a valid reason to determine someone's identity, there is not a valid rationale for this extended power. It will operate unfairly and, even if it only operates unfairly in a minority of cases, the fact that it could be exercised at any time while people enter public courts is of real concern. The Greens commend the amendment to the House.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.01 p.m.]: The Opposition will not support the amendment.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.02 p.m.]: The Greens amendment No. 8 removes the power of court security officers—sheriff's officers—to require that someone seeking to enter court premises remove a face covering to allow the officer to see that person's face. This amendment should not be supported. The bill allows court security officers to require the removal of a face covering if the person is seeking to enter court premises or if the officer arrests or has grounds to arrest the person. The Greens amendment No. 8 removes the power to require a person entering court premises to remove a face covering and replaces this with the right to require a person to remove a face covering if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person is carrying a restricted item or offensive implement. 5774 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
Court security officers are responsible for ensuring that people who are seeking entry to court premises are properly identified to ensure the safe and proper operation of the courts. The power to require people entering court premises to remove a face covering is appropriate and reasonable. There are appropriate safeguards, such as requiring the viewing of the face to be conducted as quickly as reasonably practicable and in a way that provides reasonable privacy if the person requests it, and for those reasons we do not support the amendment.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [6.03 p.m.], in reply: Court officers have no power to require people to identify themselves as they enter courts. This bill does not give that power to security officers at courts. It does not give them the power to require people to produce their identity simply because they are entering a court. If there were some rationale to give that power, I would be interested to hear it from the Minister, but the bill does not give security officers the power to request identity when people enter courts. The only power it is giving security officers is the power to remove face coverings of people who enter courts. There is no rationale for that. In fact it is the one element in this bill that operates in a discriminatory fashion against people with face coverings. The bill gives power to court officers in respect of those people that is not related to a legitimate basis to find identity and particulars of identification.
I am yet to hear a rationale from the Government for this expanded power other than the somewhat erroneous proposition being put by the police Minister that it is appropriate to give security officers the power to require identification. They do not have that power, they are not being given the power under this bill, and nor should they be given that power over people as they enter public courts. The only power is the power to remove a face covering. It is an inappropriate power and it is for that reason that The Greens move this amendment. It is noticeable that the Opposition has not and will not grapple with the rationale of extending this power. It has not sought to engage with this issue and that is a surprising lack from an Opposition whose job it should be to hold the Government to account on these matters.
Question—That The Greens amendment No. 8 [C2011-082] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.
The Greens amendment No. 8 [C2011-082] negatived.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [6.04 p.m.], by leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 9 and 10 in globo on sheet 2011-082:
No. 9 Pages 10 and 11, schedule 2.3 [3], proposed section 13A (3), line 34 on page 10 to line 15 on page 11. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(3) If a security officer makes a requirement of a person under subsection (1) and the person fails to comply with the requirement as soon as is reasonably practicable, the security officer may make the requirement again and, in that case, must:
(a) warn the person that a failure to comply with the requirement as soon as is reasonably practicable may be an offence, and
(b) provide the person with the information referred to in section 20 (2) (a)–(c).
No. 10 Page 11, schedule 2.3 [3], proposed section 13A (5), lines 22–27. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(5) If a security officer makes a requirement of a person in accordance with subsection (3), the person must comply with the requirement as soon as is reasonably practicable.
Maximum penalty (subsection (5)): 5 penalty units.
These say, in a very simple fashion, that when a person is the subject of a demand from a security officer at a court to remove a face covering, rather than having to do it immediately, they have to do it as soon as is reasonably practicable. For the reasons that the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane gave, it can be quite a significant process in some cases to remove face coverings. Therefore, the requirement to make it immediate seems to be unnecessary. There is no particular immediacy required in those circumstances for the removal of a face covering and amending it, which this amendment does, to make it simply the requirement to remove it as soon as is reasonably practicable is a significant improvement and would operate more fairly when or if those powers are exercised.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.06 p.m.]: The Opposition will not support the amendments. In relation to some comments made on the previous amendment by Mr David Shoebridge— 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5775
The Hon. Trevor Khan: It's all your fault.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: It is all my fault, says the Hon. Trevor Khan. I doubt that. The policy of the bill is to make sure that various persons—police officers and court officials—have the power to ascertain the identity of persons. Although I understand the amendments are put forward on the basis of removing any discriminatory effect, with great respect, that is not how the Opposition sees it. We think that if the amendments were enacted, the consequences, or the unintended consequences—I will give the honourable member the benefit of the doubt—would be to undermine the central public policy embedded in the bill, that is, to make absolutely clear that court officers, and of course in other circumstances the police, have the ability to ascertain or take the necessary steps to ascertain the identity of persons. Making the changes proposed by Mr Shoebridge would undermine that, and therefore the Opposition does not accept the rationale.
Question—That The Greens amendments Nos 9 and 10 [C2011-082] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.
The Greens amendments Nos 9 and 10 negatived.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [6.08 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 11 on sheet 2011-082.
No. 11 Page 14, schedule 2.6, proposed section 34 (1) (a), line 9. Insert "unless the authorised witness is satisfied that he or she knows the person without the need to see the person's face" after "affidavit".
This amendment is to the proposed changes to the Oaths Act. Currently, the proposed new section 34 (1) would provide that:
(1) A person who takes and receives a statutory declaration or affidavit in this State ...
(a) must see the face of the person making the declaration or affidavit, and
(b) must know the person who makes the declaration or affidavit or confirm the person's identity in accordance with the regulations, and
(c) must certify on the declaration or affidavit in accordance with the regulations that this section has been complied with.
As I said in my substantive contribution on the bill, The Greens are concerned that this is a cumbersome and unnecessary additional set of paperwork for literally millions of documents being executed across the State. In particular, new section 34 (1) (a) states:
… providing an absolute requirement in all circumstances for the person to have seen the face of the person making the declaration or affidavit.
It would make it an unnecessary mechanical requirement to have witnesses or deponents remove face coverings in every circumstance, particularly where the witness or deponent is extraordinarily well known to the person taking the oath and where that person would have, through knowing the person's speech, demeanour, shape and mannerisms, an absolute comfort that they know the identity of the person opposite them. For that reason The Greens propose to insert the additional words "unless the authorised witness is satisfied that he or she knows the person without the need to see the person's face" after "affidavit". That would be a substantial improvement in the practical day-to-day operation of this bill and The Greens commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.10 p.m.]: With the greatest respect, we simply cannot accept the rationale of this amendment. The unfortunate case that gave rise to this legislation—the matter involving Carnita Matthews—arose, at least in part, because of a lack of integrity around a declaration. Without delving into the particular circumstances that led to that most unfortunate situation, this particular part of the bill places a not unreasonable requirement on a person who takes and receives a statutory declaration or an affidavit to see the face of the person making the declaration. I understand what Mr Shoebridge has said, that this is overly cumbersome and creates paperwork, but the amendment he proposes states, "unless the authorised witness is satisfied that he or she knows the person".
If the person's face is covered, in the ordinary course, perhaps in nine times out of 10 identification by shape, demeanour or speech will be accurate. But when a person is swearing an oath or witnessing a matter that is being executed under the Oaths Act it is necessary to maintain or, indeed, improve the integrity of that process, because these are official documents—in many cases they will be court documents. If the document is 5776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
an affidavit or a statutory declaration to be used for serious purposes it is not an overly cumbersome proposition or an unreasonable or onerous requirement to require the authorised witness to see the face of the person who is executing the document.
It is not additionally cumbersome, it would not take any real additional time, but the amendment would, again giving Mr Shoebridge the benefit of the doubt, undermine one of the public policies embedded in the legislation. Without wishing to cast any aspersions on people, authorised witnesses might well and truly believe that a person is who they say they are, but there might be some circumstances—such as occurred in the case of Carnita Matthews—where they might get it wrong, perhaps deliberately or otherwise. It seems to be a needless risk to take of undermining this part of the legislation. The Opposition cannot accept the amendment.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.13 p.m.]: From time to time we pass legislation that has unidentified consequences, but we do so having the faith that things will work. From time to time we have the opportunity to fix any problems that may arise. This amendment creates an identified consequence. This amendment would put in place an identified weakness in the process. I think the expression the honourable member used was "if they are well known". We would end up having an argument about what constitutes "well known": Is the person well known because someone knew them for a day or two, a fortnight, a month or a year? How could you know them if they were covering their face, perhaps wearing a balaclava, when they gave a statement? It really is a silly amendment. It is sad to be finishing such an important piece of legislation with such a silly amendment, but given the performance of The Greens today nothing would surprise me. The Government opposes the amendment.
Question—That The Greens amendment No. 11 [C2011-082] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.
The Greens amendment No. 11 [C2011-082] negatived.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee without amendment.
Adoption of Report
Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:
That the report be adopted.
Report adopted.
Third Reading
Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.17 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
BRAVEHEARTS INC.
The Hon. PAUL GREEN [6.17 p.m.]: Recently I had the privilege of attending the Bravehearts Inc. dinner held in Parliament House. It was a fantastic night and members of different parties took a great bipartisan 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5777
approach, with about 59 different members of Parliament attending the dinner. It reinforced the message of Bravehearts, which is "Break the Silence" and childhood protection from sexual abuse. The evening was emceed by one of our Shoalhaven colleagues, the member for Kiama, Gareth Ward, and Evgeny, who gave us some wonderful renditions on the piano, did a wonderful job entertaining people as they came in for refreshments. Throughout the night we heard from a variety of speakers. One of those speakers was Sasha, who gave a chilling story of surviving child molestation. Apparently his story was on the television program Australian Story. It was incredible how a young man had made good after such devastating things had happened in his life.
Bravehearts Inc. has been operating in New South Wales for more than two years with its proven range of prevention and early intervention programs and activities relating specifically and holistically to the prevention and early intervention of child sexual assault. According to Commonwealth Government research, one in five children in Australia will be sexually assaulted before the age of 18; less than 70 per cent of the perpetrators will live in the same household as the victim; and more than 80 per cent of the time the offence will be committed by someone known and trusted by the child and their family. The crime crosses all socio-cultural demographics, with the well-documented symptomatic effects and co-morbidities reaching far into the lifespan of those affected. High correlations are found within the mental health system and the crime continuum, with incidences often occurring inter-generationally.
Statistically, today 325,063 children in New South Wales will be or have been sexually assaulted. That is more than 19,000 children every year, just in New South Wales. As the only registered charity in the nation specifically and holistically dedicated to addressing this issue, Bravehearts is well placed to provide effective education for children from three to eight years, and it dramatically reduces the incidents of child sexual assault in New South Wales. New South Wales is a signatory to the Council of Australian Governments agreement entitled "Protecting Children is Everyone's Business—National Framework for Protecting Australian Children 2009 to 2020". Bravehearts was involved in the development of the agreement's framework and was successful in debating that child sexual assault must be dealt with separately and distinctly from child abuse and neglect— domestic and family violence—if ever we are going to reduce its incidence. Outcome Six of that national framework sets out the reason why it is both a policy and Treasury imperative for the States and Territories to now identify and provide for child sexual assault services distinctly and specifically.
Bravehearts has always had difficulty fitting into the funding allocations currently set by State governments. I was extremely disappointed with the Coalition Government's first budget. I unwrapped the budget papers as if they were a Christmas present, searching for one word, "Bravehearts". I then looked for the words "Ditto's", "Keep" and "Safe" but those words were not to be found either, and the Bravehearts program is not funded at this time. This is a tragedy, given that 59,000 children across Australia will be sexually assaulted this year. I, like many of the members who attended the dinner, am aiming to make New South Wales the safest place in Australia in which kids grow up. I seek the continued support of this House to find the money for the "Ditto's Keep Safe Adventure" school-based personal safety program to be implemented in every school in New South Wales. By the time we have reached the halfway point in our political term, 236,000 children will have been affected by child sexual abuse across Australia. That is not good enough. Prevention is better than cure.
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DEMOCRACY
The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES [6.21 p.m.]: Today is the International Day of Democracy. Watching the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center is as clear in my memory today as it was 10 years ago. We will never forget those who lost their lives or the heroism of the civilians on United Airlines flight 93 who gave their lives. Although the orchestrators of the terrible attacks on September 11 are either dead or behind bars, we must remember that the threat of terrorism remains real. We must never forget those currently fighting abroad who defend our freedom and democracy and those who are closer to home.
I take this opportunity to thank the hardworking Federal and State Police for their efforts in preventing several planned terrorist attacks on our country over the past few years. Make no mistake, there are those in this world who resent our way of life and who seek to destroy the very values we hold so dear. As defenders of democracy and freedom we must continue to be vigilant against those who threaten us. I am proud of the strength of defiance by Australians in refusing to cower in the face of terrorist threats and in refusing to surrender our freedom to the hatred espoused by Osama bin Laden and others. The fundamental strength of our country lies is in our traditions, our institutions and our values. All Australians have freedoms and rights, but never without responsibilities. Government must support and encourage the individual, those who aspire to improve themselves, while also supporting those who cannot provide for themselves. 5778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
Australia is one of the oldest democracies in the world. Even though we are a relatively young country, we are the sixth oldest democracy in the world. Our constitutional monarchy has played a very important role in the foundation of our society. It has guaranteed our freedom, stability and way of life that many other nations simply envy. It is critical for all of us to play a role in developing and fostering freedom and democracy at all levels of government—the same democratic electoral process that enables ordinary Australians to become members of this great House and of our nation. Australians have perhaps become complacent about how our electoral system operates, but we must always be vigilant against those who would attempt to erode democracy in Australia.
The Australian people went to the Federal election last year to decide who would govern the nation. Both the Coalition and the Labor Party campaigned on a no carbon tax policy. We all remember the mantra of Julia Gillard, "There will be no carbon tax under any Government I lead." It is now clear that she intended to mislead the Australian people to cling onto power. Let me be very clear: Julia Gillard did not win the last Federal election. She simply stitched up a deal with The Greens and some independents to maintain control and power. Australia now has a Government with no legitimacy and The Greens are holding the nation to ransom.
As a board member of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy I have fought, and I will continue to fight, to maintain our current system of government and our democratic rights. That system of government has stood the test of time in serving this great nation and its people, and the Australian people strongly supported that system in the 1999 referendum. While democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy. The message for this year's International Day of Democracy is simple: Democracy cannot be exported or imposed; it must be generated by the will and passion of the people, particularly the young, and it must be nurtured by a strong and active society. The people of Australia have been betrayed. They have a right to an election on the issue of a carbon tax. It is clear that for Prime Minister Gillard and Labor, holding onto power is more important than respecting our historic democratic rights.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
The Hon. WALT SECORD [6.25 p.m.]: Members will be aware of my longstanding opposition to the death penalty. The death penalty is abhorrent. It was last imposed in Australia in February 1967 and it has not been exercised since August 1939 in New South Wales. The death penalty is both inhumane and ineffectual as a deterrent, yet it is still practised in many countries in our region, including China, Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand. It is a brutal and violent form of punishment that confuses vengeance with justice. It annuls the most basic human right to life. It is degrading, inhumane and wrong in any jurisdiction. Defenders of the death penalty frequently jump to the value of deterrence, claiming this ultimate punishment is therefore the ultimate deterrent. But the facts simply do not support this.
International research shows that abolition of the death penalty is not followed by an increase in crimes to which it applied. What then of the value of community safety? The death penalty removes a violent offender from the community but it cannot be logically argued that it does so any better than imprisonment. What then of the value of rehabilitation? This remains a pillar of our judicial system, but the death penalty smashes it and allows no prospect of rehabilitation. It also allows no prospect for the possibility of corrective action when a person has been mistakenly convicted. And we know of numerous overseas cases in which death penalty convictions subsequently have been found to be false or questionable in the light of new evidence. The death penalty has no greater effect as a deterrent and has no greater effect as a protector of the community, yet it destroys any prospect of rehabilitation and any hope of future appeal. What then is its value?
There is much anecdotal evidence to support the idea that the death penalty provides a value of vengeance, but our legal system is not a system of vengeance: it is a system of justice. If we uphold this principle then it is time for us to stop turning a blind eye to the fate of those who are subject to the death penalty, especially those in our region. At a Federal level we share bipartisan leadership on this issue. Under the Australian Extradition Act a person cannot be deported from Australia to face prosecution on a capital charge if there is the slightest chance they would face the death penalty. Further, Australia voted for the United Nations General Assembly's resolution calling for a global moratorium on the death penalty. That is why I am speaking today about the current fate of two New South Wales residents who were convicted of drug smuggling and who now face death by firing squad in Bali: Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.
Andrea Chan and Myuran Sukumaran grew up in Enfield and Auburn respectively, and both attended Homebush Boys High School. In 2005 they and seven others were arrested in Bali for attempting to traffic heroin into Australia. They were both tried and convicted and sentenced to death by firing squad for their 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5779
crimes. On 6 July 2001, they lost their final right of judicial review by the Indonesian Supreme Court. The court confirmed the death sentence for them. What is significant is that at that appeal the governor of the jail said they were well-behaved prisoners and that they were unlikely to re-offend—in other words, their prospects for rehabilitation were high—and he asked that they be spared execution. The governor of a major Indonesian prison is hardly a soft touch. With all legal avenues exhausted, Andrew and Myuran's last chance for survival now rests with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
As this Parliament has jurisdiction over the imposition of the death penalty in New South Wales, it is fitting that we would advocate against this inhumane punishment, which completely contradicts the principle that we hold out the prospect of rehabilitation, particularly to those that openly seek it. While the crimes are serious and they should be punished, can any of us truly argue that ripping away their right to seek redemption and their right to make good their lives—their right to live at all—is a just solution? Therefore today as an Australian parliamentarian, I respectfully ask the Indonesian President to grant them clemency. I do so with acknowledgement of the wrong these men have done, but also of their serious and proven will to lead better lives. I ask this with great respect to Indonesia's right to protect its community, but I also submit that the interest of all communities are better served by the prospect of lives redeemed than by the vengeance of lives lost forever.
TARGET SHOOTING IN SCHOOLS
The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK [6.30 p.m.]: Tonight I will discuss the reasons that the Shooters and Fishers Party's advocates target shooting as a school sport and its introduction into as many schools as are prepared to make the sport available to their students. While some uninformed critics railed against the idea when we first put it forward, it may come as a surprise to them that shooting is already available as an elective sport in a number of schools across the State, mainly in regional areas.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: And it's a good sport too.
The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: It is a good sport. Here in the city, Sydney Boys High School introduced shooting as a school sport in 1883 and it has continued ever since. The Shooters and Fishers Party also rejects the critics who imply that "children will be inculcated with an American gun culture". If we are successful in changing the administrative procedures that a school must follow when adopting target shooting as a sport, then nothing could be further from the truth. Shooting is a sport that inculcates responsibility and discipline and in fact teaches a culture of the safe use of firearms. The future of shooting sports—as with virtually all sports—depends on our ability to educate and encourage young people to participate. The Shooters and Fishers Party want to see as many junior programs running as possible.
At the moment schools that want to introduce target shooting as a sport face several hurdles, including the development of specific guidelines that must be approved by the principal of the school, the regional director and the Minister for Education. We think the best way to remove some of those hurdles is to include a set of guidelines for the conduct of target shooting as a school sport within the Department of Education's Guidelines for the Safe Conduct of Sport and Physical Activity in Schools. The guidelines are available on the department's website. They provide guidance for teachers and principals wishing to introduce a particular sport into their school. Target shooting would simply be another sport to offer.
The guidelines reduce the workload of the Department of Education by removing the need to liaise with each individual school wishing to introduce a new sport while at the same time ensuring that minimum standards are followed in each school. They set standards on such matters as supervision of students, provision of suitable equipment and its maintenance, and any other safety or legal issues relevant to that sport. Currently there are no guidelines for target shooting included in that document.
All schools wishing to offer target shooting as a sport are obliged to make specific application to the department's regional director. My colleague the Hon. Robert Brown and I have been approached by a number of shooting clubs in contact with schools that are interested in conducting target shooting as a sport. In 2008 my predecessor, the late Hon. Roy Smith, approached the then Minister for Education, Ms Verity Firth, regarding the inclusion of target shooting in the guidelines. It is a fact that draft guidelines for target shooting were negotiated with the department. It seemed that the way was being cleared to allow more schools to offer target shooting as a sport. However, last-minute political interference led to the insertion into the draft guidelines of requirements that did not apply to any other sport, and the proposal became mired in even more red tape than previously. 5780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
It seems that after initially supporting the thrust of our argument the previous Government suddenly lost the political will to introduce target shooting, and so the matter was dropped—but it has not been forgotten. Indeed, we have raised it again with the current Government. In the meantime we have a bill before the Legislative Council that proposes amendments to the Firearms Act to allow persons under 18 to shoot air rifles under supervision at approved ranges. The amendments would also remove the need to register air rifles owned by a person holding a category A firearms licence.
Air rifles are a good way of introducing youngsters to shooting. Parliament passing those amendments could make it easier for clubs to work with local schools to provide opportunities for shooting as a school sport. There are a number of schools—particularly in rural and regional areas—that already provide shooting as a sports option. There are many others that are keen to do so. We hope to negotiate a sensible set of guidelines to allow this Olympic and Commonwealth Games sport in schools so that we can continue to showcase the best of Australia's target shooters.
YOUNG PUBLIC SCHOOL SESQUICENTENARY
The Hon. MICK VEITCH [6.34 p.m.]: On Saturday 10 September 2011 I had the pleasure of attending Young Public School's Sesquicentennial Celebrations and the opening of a new classroom block funded by the Commonwealth Government's Building Education Revolution. At the outset I must say the weather certainly played a part in what was already a very cold day, which was made even colder by a breeze coming straight off the Snowy Mountains ski fields and in my view with a wind chill factor of minus 10. I am also a little biased about the standing and reputation of Young Public School as a provider of excellent public education: Three of my four children attended the school, as did my wife.
The students entertained all in attendance with outstanding performances. There was no way the students were going to allow the cold September weather to have any effect on their performances. The celebrations commenced with a formal ringing of the old school bell. This is significant to the school as it connects the current school site and buildings in Bruce Street to the former buildings in Campbell Street. The school moved sites in 1976. The bell was transferred to the current school site and it is quite loud. School counsellors who are rostered on to ring the bell are required to wear ear protection.
There were performances by all year groups. Kindergarten performed The Seven Steps. Year 2 performed a great rendition of River Deep–Mountain High. There was a combined performance of Born this Way by Years 1, 5 and 6. Years 1 and 5 also performed Paparazzi. Years 5 and 6 also performed Lean on Me. Year 4 performed a song and dance routine to Price Tag and Year 3 provided their own rendition of Sing. All of this was backed by the school's wonderful band that also provided the music for a very patriotic rendition of verses one and two of the national anthem—or should that be verses one and three? I must say I fully support the singing of both verses of our national anthem. There was of course a large cake iced in the school colours of green and gold. The official cake-cutting was conducted by Mrs Gwen Brown, who is the oldest known former student of the school at age 94 years. Mrs Brown provided a beautiful speech prior to cutting the cake with some reminiscences of her time as a student of Young Public.
I will provide a brief history of the school. In 1861 Young Public School was established and opened by the local Mayor, Mr Sharpe. Mr Thomas Weir was headmaster with an enrolment of 91 pupils. In 1864 a new timber building was erected on two acres of land in Lovell Street, with 101 pupils enrolled. In 1873 Henry Parkes laid the foundation stone of a new brick building alongside the old building. This was later to become the railway station—and it is a great railway station. In 1884 the new school opened in Campbell Street with Mr Teale as headmaster. It was built to accommodate 700 pupils. As I said, in 1976 Young Public School moved into its new premises located in Bruce Street. A plaque was unveiled by the Hon. Eric Belford, a former Minister for Education, on 21 October 1977.
I will provide a further historical context to the school's sesquicentenary. In 1860 the discovery of gold at Lambing Flat was the catalyst for what was at that time the newest gold rush. The 1861 census, conducted in April of that year, shows there were 11,526 people residing on the Burrangong Goldfields. The nationalities represented were predominantly Australian and British, but there were also British Americans, New Zealanders, Indians, Americans, Germans and French. Interestingly, there were also 496 Chinese—about 4 per cent of the population. The census shows there were 180 children attending the school and a further 138 were listed as scholars at home. In July 1861 the Young National School was opened with 19 students, with the school operating under control of the Board of National Education. 15 September 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5781
Another part of the celebration was the launch of a great book Young Public School—150 Years of Public Education, written and compiled by Andrew Ricketts. I have donated a copy to the Parliamentary Library. This book is a great read and contains wonderful anecdotes from former students, brilliant old photographs and some excellent contributions from current students. One of the more interesting photographs for me is on page nine of the book. It is a photograph of school students and teachers circa 1864. The first thing to notice is the age of the students; some are clearly well into their twenties. The second thing to note is the multicultural demographic of the students, which is amazing, considering that the photograph is supposed to have been taken only three years after the infamous Lambing Flat riots occurred in Young. Members would know that at the time of the birth of public education in Young in 1861, there was significant unrest on the goldfields that led to the Lambing Flat riots. That is why the 1864 photograph on page nine of the book is so interesting.
I extend my warm appreciation to the principal, Peter Blair, the school's Parents and Citizens Association, the teaching staff and students. It was a great day. I also congratulate the school captains, Henry Watson and Olivia Deighton, and vice-captains, Ignacio Bonsembiante and Tessa Long. They acted as masters of ceremonies for the day and were professional, regardless of the hardship they faced due to the very cold weather.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Is Mr Sharpe related to John Sharpe?
The Hon. MICK VEITCH: Probably. In particular, I congratulate Mr Andrew Ricketts on his book. I have drawn heavily on his work for this speech.
TRIBUTE TO JOHN "SPUD" MURPHY
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.39 p.m.]: I pay tribute to John "Spud" Murphy, who passed away on 3 August aged 71 years. Spud was a loyal custodian of the Cenotaph in Martin Place for the past 23 years. During this time commemoration services at the Cenotaph have ranged from significant Anzac Day dawn services, with thousands in attendance, to small sub-unit commemorations to mates lost in the field of battle. These services have been attended by Governors-General, State Governors, Prime Ministers, Premiers and just baggy-arse veterans. Standing proudly before them all at attention, in rain, hail and shine, was Spud Murphy.
Spud was born in 1940 and raised in Maroubra. He was made a life member of the Waverley District Baseball Club for his services as a player and administrator after several decades of loyal service to his beloved sport. However, it was Spud's strong ties with the Boy Scout movement from his days as an eight-year-old with the Coogee cub pack that saw him rise through the ranks over the next 40 years. Spud was instrumental in the scout movement and commenced scout duties at the Cenotaph back in the early 1980s with his long-term mate and former Rover Scout Commissioner, Wall Scott-Smith. They were both instrumental in setting up the Scout Cenotaph Guard in those early years and both served on the Dawn Service Trust Committee.
Spud would lead the local Coogee scout crew to wash down the Cenotaph no less than four times a year. At the Anzac Day dawn service the scout crew would work throughout the night to have the monument ready for the 4.00 a.m. service. The scouts became an instrumental part of the official set up. Many wreaths were laid from midnight to dawn by unofficial patrons before the dawn service commenced. They also then became part of the control and escort crew for many decades, with Spud at the forefront as a scout leader and eventually as an RSL Cenotaph Attendant in this very dedicated voluntary role. Spud was active in this role every year. On a very wet and cold morning on Anzac Day in April 2011 John "Spud" Murphy would unknowingly perform his last duty at the Cenotaph.
As a member of the Returned and Services League of Australia [RSL], Spud came by his military service time in a different way from many other military members. The Australian National Line cargo vessel MV Jeparit had been chartered by the Department of Shipping and Transport to carry supplies for the Australian forces engaged in the Vietnam war. After five voyages some seamen refused to man the vessel. To overcome this difficulty crew members who were prepared to continue to serve in Jeparit were supplemented by a Royal Australian Navy detachment. Accordingly, on 11 December 1969 the vessel was commissioned as HMAS Jeparit. Its master, Commander Philip, who was granted an instant commission to the Royal Australian Naval Volunteer Reserve, was the commanding officer.
Jeparit's first voyage under the White Ensign began on 19 December 1969 when she sailed from Sydney for Vietnam. She continued to be manned, however, by a mixed merchant navy-Royal Australian Navy 5782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15 September 2011
crew, of which Spud was a member. Spud joined HMAS Jeparit in 1970 as a shipwright and served for three tours to the Vietnam front over 18 months. For this period of service he was awarded the Vietnam Logistic and Support Medal and the Australian Active Service Medal. On completion of his seagoing life with the merchant navy, Spud set up a business in Coogee as a welder. Spud is an iconic figure on the Sydney Commemorative landscape. Known by name by Premiers, past and present, and always personally addressed by the New South Wales Governor, Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir, every time she visited the Cenotaph. I have attended a number of commemorative services at the Cenotaph since Spud's passing. It does not seem the same without his iconic figure on duty as the official custodian. On behalf of all members I extend our condolences to Spud's family, friends and colleagues. His service will never be forgotten. Lest we forget.
TRIBUTE TO PATERSON CLARENCE HUGHES
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [6.44 p.m.]: Today, 15 September, is Battle of Britain Day, which commemorates the day in 1940 when the largest German raid took place over London. It was the climax of the battle: although the battle would continue for another six weeks, it effectively turned around the course of that operation. Churchill remarked at the time that "never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few". I shall speak about one of those few. Paterson Clarence Hughes was born in Cooma. At the age of 12 he moved to Haberfield in Sydney, where he attended Fort Street Boys High School, as it then was. Flight Lieutenant Pat Hughes joined the Royal Australian Air Force and later went on to Royal Air Force 234 Squadron. He was one of the 24 Australians who died during the Battle of Britain. He was also the top scorer for Australia, with 14 confirmed kills and three half kills.
Paterson Hughes spent only two months in battle. His first operation commenced on 8 July and by 7 September, less than two months later, he was dead. Reports of his final mission indicate that he was attacking a Dornier 17 and he approached too close: a piece of the Dornier was seen to fly off and hit his aircraft. However, subsequent reports from the ground, specifically from the Hall brothers, who were a couple of young British schoolboys, contended that Hughes deliberately crashed his plane into the Dornier. Paterson Clarence Hughes is a remarkable example of a young man who, at the age of 22 years, gave his life to defend freedom.
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m. until Friday 16 September 2011 at 9.30 a.m.