LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday, 17th October, 1991

______

The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m

The President offered the Prayers.

PETITION

Stray Dogs

Petition praying that the Premier fulfil his promise to ban the sending of stray dogs to laboratories in New South Wales, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Precedence of Business

Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to:

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would preclude Government Business taking precedence of General Business after 5.15 p.m. on Thursday 17 October 1991.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice- President of the Executive Council) [10.36]: I seek the leave of the House to move a motion to suspend so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders as would preclude an amendment of the order of the House made yesterday regarding precedence of business for the "take note" debate on the Report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues on Medically Acquired HIV and the Order of the Day on the Procurement of Miscarriage Limitation Bill.

Leave granted.

Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to:

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would preclude the consideration forthwith of the following motion:

That the Order of the House made on Wednesday 16th October 1991 regarding precedence of Business on Thursday 17th October 1991 be amended by substituting paragraphs (1) and (2) as follows:

Page 2337 (1) the resumption of the "take note" debate on the Report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues on Medically Acquired HIV taking precedence until 3.30 p.m. (except for Questions), unless earlier concluded; and

(2) the Order of the Day on the Procurement of Miscarriage Limitation Bill next taking precedence until 5.15 p.m., unless earlier concluded.

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to:

That the Order of the House made on Wednesday 16th October 1991 for precedence of Business on Thursday 17th October 1991 be amended by substituting paragraphs (1) and (2) as follows:

(1) the resumption of the "take note" debate on the Report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues on Medically Acquired HIV taking precedence until 3.30 p.m. (except for Questions), unless earlier concluded; and

(2) the Order of the Day or the Procurement of Miscarriage Limitation Bill next taking precedence until 5.15 p.m., unless earlier concluded.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES

Report

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [10.39]: The report on medically acquired human immunodeficiency virus is the culmination of an inquiry that began with the referral to the committee in October last year of a motion from this House.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is far too much background conversation. When the House is being addressed by a member who does not have a stentorian voice it is extraordinarily difficult for me to hear.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: In the revised terms of reference, dating from when the inquiry was re-established after the election in May this year, a reference to financial assistance replaced an earlier reference to compensation. The committee had come to the conclusion that the concept of compensation, with its implication of legal negligence, was a very complex one. A number of court cases have resulted in very different decisions. In New South Wales the cases so far have been resolved against the plaintiffs, though in Victoria there has been one victory and one out-of-court settlement in favour of plaintiffs. With all the resources of the legal system, the situation remains unresolved. In these circumstances the committee took the view that replacement of the term "compensation" by the less judgmental "financial assistance" would allow a greater opportunity to consider providing assistance to the medically acquired AIDS community. Had this change not been made, I am convinced that a majority of the Page 2338 committee would not have supported any special assistance at all to people with medically acquired AIDS and their families.

In brief, the committee makes 28 separate recommendations in its report, 20 of which refer to the area of services, and these recommendations were supported unanimously by the committee, though Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile would have preferred to see all of these recommendations restricted to people with medically acquired HIV. However, the symptoms of AIDS are the same, regardless of the mode of transmission of the virus. A person with transfusion AIDS may need three changes of bed linen in a night; so might the person who acquired AIDS from drug use or sexual activity. HIV does not discriminate. When gaps in services were identified by the committee it was felt that many such services were needed by the whole HIV community, and for the committee to say that one sick person was more deserving of treatment than another would be a denial of the humane ethos that infuses our community, for we are a humane society. This inquiry may have identified some service gaps, but by and large we, as a State, have much to be proud of in taking care of people with AIDS.

The report lists a wide range of services provided for the HIV community - a range that shows not only our commitment to helping in this area but also our capacity to meet needs at comparatively short notice, given that AIDS is an illness that has been known in this country for less than 10 years. Indeed, it is undoubtedly because of its newness that some service needs remain to be met. The committee was given profoundly moving testimony by two witnesses who had cared for one young man with AIDS-related dementia. Neither our hospitals nor our mental institutions were equipped to deal with such a case, and as a result the suffering of the victim and his family was intensified. As a result of this and similar testimony, the committee recommended that a special unit be established for people with AIDS-related neurological problems. The committee was given information that some 20 per cent of AIDS patients will develop such problems. As more people with HIV move into the later stages of AIDS, the need for this service can only increase. The service is clearly required for all of the affected 20 per cent, regardless of mode of transmission.

Indeed, the HIV community as a whole has reason to be grateful to the people with medically-acquired HIV. Because they were all infected more than six years ago, this group and their carers have been able to provide information to the committee about the needs of people with AIDS; needs that may in future be better met for the HIV community as a whole. The early victims of AIDS have suffered greatly because of ignorance, prejudice and lack of services, and all of the medically-acquired HIV community were infected early. Their suffering has been particularly traumatic. Other service needs that the inquiry revealed included pharmaceuticals, home care, home nursing, transport and access to nursing homes. These needs and others are addressed in the committee's recommendations. Eight of the recommendations of the report addressed the issue of financial assistance. Of these, six were supported by a majority of the committee, and two unanimously. In brief, Page 2339 the report recommends providing financial assistance in annual instalments to people in the later stages of AIDS. For people with dependants the annual payment is $8,000 in stage 3 and $12,000 in stage 4, up to a maximum of $50,000. For people without dependants the payments are halved.

In no way is this financial assistance to be considered as compensation. Any such sum clearly would be far larger, as evidenced by the sorts of payments attainable in court cases in which negligence is proven. The weight of the evidence before the committee was that, by and large, court cases in New South Wales would not succeed in establishing negligence and that, in consequence, there would be no legally provided compensation. However, there is the broader issue of the community's moral as opposed to legal responsibility. When an individual contracts the human immunodeficiency virus from a public institution, even though there may have been no negligence involved, the question must be asked whether public authorities have a moral obligation to that individual. A majority of the committee took the view that in a humane society there was such an obligation. AIDS is such a cruel and costly illness - in terms of physical suffering, financial expense, social stigma and family stress - that we believed it to be unique, and therefore particularly deserving of unique treatment above and beyond any other medically-acquired illnesses.

In brief, the majority of the committee found a total of nine factors which, when taken together, separated medically-acquired HIV from both non-medically-acquired HIV and other medically-acquired illnesses. These factors are: the fact that the source of the infection was a government instrumentality; the extreme and long-term physical trauma that is the nature of HIV; the substantial costs involved in caring for someone with HIV; the urgency of the needs of the medically-acquired HIV community in that they have all been infected for a substantial period and are in the latter stages of the illness; the double trauma for those who have haemophilia; the stigma that members of the medically-acquired HIV community suffers as a result of incorrect assumptions about their sexual orientation or drug use; the fact that many have dependent children and or spouses; the adequate precedents for the granting of such financial assistance; and the difficulties for people with medically-acquired HIV in pursuing litigation.

There are ample precedents for such special consideration. A number of other countries have provided financial assistance packages for people with medically-acquired HIV, including the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, France, Japan and Switzerland. The Australian Federal Government has an assistance package, the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust. Ironically, the information the inquiry was able to obtain from Federal authorities was that they were opposed to the State providing financial assistance, partly because of a desire not to single out medically-acquired AIDS patients for special treatment. Yet it was the Federal Government that created the precedent in Australia of singling out this group, through the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust. The committee found this inconsistency puzzling. The committee members were given testimony about the inadequacies of Page 2340 the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust, in particular its small payments, and the fact that most of its funding is accessible only after the death of the claimant. The recommendations of this inquiry, if implemented, would reverse that weighing, so that most or all funds could be used to meet needs for the person with AIDS while that person is still alive.

Though disappointment has been expressed about the size of the financial assistance package that the report recommends, it needs to be taken in the context of the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust to which all New South Wales medically-acquired AIDS people have access. The sum of the two packages, for a person with dependants, would be up to $100,000. Though this clearly is not compensation for such things as lost income, physical suffering or loss of life, it is by no means a trivial sum. There was another problem which weighed on the committee in following a model similar in some ways to the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust. We were given considerable information in Western Australia that with any package that attempted to compensate for lost income the Federal Government would remove social security and health benefits from the recipients. In other words, people with medically acquired HIV might, at the end of the line, be no better off at all because what the State Government gave would, in effect, be taken away by the Commonwealth. That was a situation the committee felt had to be avoided, although I personally was very disappointed about the apparent callousness and opportunism of Federal authorities in considering such a punitive approach to the Western Australian settlement.

In spite of the fact that the committee recommended a financial assistance package that could raise total assistance to $100,000 for people in New South Wales with medically acquired AIDS, I am aware that many of these people are disappointed about our recommendations. This is, perhaps, not surprising when the press produced banner front-page headlines such as "Greiner's $100 million payout" - headlines based on nothing more than speculation but nonetheless inordinately raising people's hopes. Later, the leak of an early draft of the report produced more headlines and more stories that were only partially accurate. Assertions about purported compensation were wrong, as were assertions about why the committee had recommended compensation. On the basis of such inaccurate material both the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph Mirror saw fit to lecture the committee on what we had done and why we had done it - in short, to lecture us on a report that at the time had not been completed.

As a politician I am aware of the exigencies of journalism, and to be treated unfairly because of a writer's slipshod research or desire for a scoop or headline is an occupational hazard. However, this particular issue concerned people who are sick with a virus that not only is fatal but, according to information provided to the committee, is adversely affected by stress. To pursue a big headline or a journalistic scoop at the expense of sick people is irresponsible and callous. At this point I should like to commend the majority of the members of the Social Issues Committee for their responsible behaviour in trying circumstances. They refrained from adding Page 2341 fuel to the flames of media speculation, in spite of considerable media pressure. As the committee comprises members of five different political parties, including the parliamentary leaders of two of the parties, the forbearance and sensitivity of members were particularly appreciated.

The recommendations on financial assistance were not supported unanimously. While a minority of the committee dissented entirely, some members who supported the major position believed that the recommendations did not go far enough. In my view such a result was not surprising. Members of Parliament represent their community, and the issue of medically- acquired AIDS is a deeply divisive one in the New South Wales community - this was reflected in the evidence submitted to the inquiry. The differing views on the issue are far too fundamental to be resolved by any parliamentary inquiry. However, I am confident that the majority recommendations of this report represent the best solution that the committee could find with all the evidence that was available to it. At this point I must correct a typographical error in the chairman's foreword to the report. Line 15 should read "the majority recommendations", not "the majority of recommendations". The views of the minority will be explained by those members of the committee who held those views. However, I must emphasise that the majority does not accept the criticisms that have been levelled against it.

To the assertion that assistance should be based on need we respond that our proposal is indeed based on need. People with medically-acquired HIV have had their infection since at least 1985, and some for considerably longer. Consequently they are in the later stages of the illness, when need is greatest. Any provisions for all people with HIV would take longer to implement and thus would specifically disadvantage the medically-acquired group. In addition, this group is more likely to have dependents and to be widely dispersed throughout the State away from services - further factors of need. To the assertion that this scheme will reinforce community assumptions of innocence and guilt, we respond that the proposed scheme is not a moral judgment of guilt on the part of HIV positive people. Babies who have acquired the virus from HIV positive parents are just one of a number of categories not covered by the scheme. To the assertion that we are creating a dangerous precedent we respond that the catastrophic nature of HIV separates it from other medically-acquired illnesses, while the moral obligation of the public health system and the factors of need I have already described separate medically- acquired HIV from HIV acquired by other means. In short, the majority remain firmly convinced that we have produced the best possible result, and one that is, moreover, feasible in terms of implementation. For us to have recommended a much larger sum would have been politically cynical given that, with up to 350 medically-acquired HIV people in this State, the Government would not have the resources to implement the recommendation.

I cannot conclude speaking about the issue of divisiveness without a few personal observations. The fear has been expressed that special assistance for medically-acquired AIDS would be taken from the overall AIDS budget. We have Page 2342 addressed that fear specifically in recommendation 7. Overall spending on AIDS can only increase as more people reach the later stages of the illness. The response I saw from some individuals and organisations, however, was much more than concern about overall funding. It was an implacable opposition - indeed, on occasion, hostility - towards a group of people suffering terminal and painful illness. Such hostility even extended to attempts to intimidate committee members - unconscionable behaviour under any circumstances. Indeed, the contrast between, say, the AIDS Council of New South Wales and the Western Australian AIDS Council was quite striking. The latter group did not oppose the Western Australian settlement for medically-acquired HIV even though the settlement carefully avoided any admission of legal liability. The Western Australian AIDS Council, in its discussion with the committee, showed compassion and concern for medically-acquired AIDS victims. ACON, however, is totally opposed to any special assistance for medically-acquired AIDS victims in New South Wales and seems concerned principally about avoiding even the possibility that people might falsely interpret assistance for the medically acquired as a condemnation of the non-medically acquired, particularly homosexuals. Although founded by the homosexual community, ACON claims to be a broad-based AIDS organisation. However, it clearly did not represent the interests of the medically-acquired AIDS community in its evidence to our inquiry. This is in no way a criticism of the work that ACON is doing in many areas to meet the needs of people with AIDS.

Apart from the work of ACON, the actions of a few extremists in trying to disrupt committee hearings and threatening public figures while purporting to be opposing social prejudices against homosexuality can only reinforce in reality such community perceptions. The vast majority of reasonable, caring, compassionate gay men are not well served by such behaviour. At this point I should like to pay particular tribute to the Hon. P. F. O'Grady. Although he was not a member of the Standing Committee on Social Issues, he was most articulate in drawing a clear distinction between the behaviour of these extremists and the rules of civilised discourse in a democratic society. Before concluding, there are two particular recommendations of the report that, because of their importance, l should like to bring specifically to the attention of honourable members. The first of these is recommendation 8, which states:

That the State initiate discussions with the Commonwealth Government to examine the feasibility of a National no-fault insurance system for people who contract disease or injury which long-term debilitating consequences, through the health care system.

The history of litigation in the area of HIV reveals a number of problems. For one thing, access to litigation is only available to a few: those who are wealthy enough for six-figure and even seven-figure costs to be no problem and those who are poor enough to qualify for legal aid. For the great majority of those with small nest eggs, litigation is either not accessible or it is likely to swallow all of their resources and leave them much worse off than had they refrained from legal action. For another thing, the nature of the litigation process is not suitable for people with HIV or other Page 2343 terminal illnesses, who may not survive the lengthy period that legal processes may take. There is even an incentive for the defence to prolong cases deliberately in such circumstances. Furthermore, the committee has been given information that people with HIV are adversely affected by stress, so the litigation process itself may in fact shorten their lifespan. Third, there is the gamble involved. If you win the litigation lottery, you may get a multimillion dollar payout. If you lose, you get nothing. And if you are paying your own costs, you may lose everything you have. For people who are suffering from terminal illness that seems less than just.

Fourth, there are particular problems with establishing legal culpability with regard to medically-acquired HIV. To establish liability, infection must be traceable to a blood transfusion within a time period when authorities might be reasonably expected to have known of the risks and to have taken precautions. However, because haemophiliacs in particular require many transfusions, the establishment of infection time is not always possible. Finally, there is the appalling problem for haemophiliacs that, if they pursue legal action, they will have to attack in the courts the very doctors who may have taken care of them all their lives, their own specialist haematologists and haematology services. Damage to the morale and functioning of such medical services in these circumstances is also considerable, we were informed. Because of all of these factors, and the huge financial and social costs involved for the community and individuals in the litigation process, the committee is unanimously of the view that a national no- fault medical insurance scheme would be an infinitely more humane way of providing for major illness contracted in the public health system. A passenger in a motor vehicle is covered against injury; a patient injured in a hospital must gamble on the litigation lottery. As a committee, we believe that such discrepancies are unjust. Had there been a no-fault scheme in place, people with medically-acquired AIDS would have been covered without having to resort to either litigation or a parliamentary inquiry. The second recommendation which needs to be addressed is recommendation No. 28:

That the NSW Department of Health should provide additional funds to develop an education program to promote community awareness about the needs of people with HIV and this should be designed to reduce public fears and prejudices about the virus.

Some of the most moving evidence given to the committee concerned appalling prejudice towards people with HIV. These prejudices took two forms. There was unwarranted fear of contracting the virus because of ignorance about how it was transmitted. In one instance, this resulted in food trays being left outside the door of a hospital patient's room. Although this was some time ago, the committee remains concerned about community cruelty to AIDS people resulting from irrational and ill-informed fear. The second form of prejudice consists of assumptions and value judgments about how an HIV person contracted the virus. For medically-acquired people, it can be particularly painful to have false assumptions made about sexuality or illegal drug abuse. It is even possible that the current AIDS education campaign actually fuels such prejudices, by emphasising sex and drugs specifically and safe sex and safe drug use as the way to avoid AIDS. This campaign has Page 2344 undoubtedly been very successful in controlling and preventing the spread of AIDS, but the committee believes there is a need for a broader campaign as well to counter irrational and inaccurate prejudices.

When people acquire a virus that is not only a long and painful death sentence but one which they are, in many cases we examined, forced to keep a shameful secret for fear of losing their jobs or being socially stigmatised, then we are in very real terms dealing with an illness that is the twentieth century equivalent of leprosy, with all the ignorant cruelty such a label implies. This must change. A broad education program is essential if the cruelty is to be ended. In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute to the committee staff for their professionalism and support through a very difficult task. Peter Gacs, Tony Pooley and Sarah Evans were crucial to the shape and production of this report, and Heather Crichton and Andrea Mann provided invaluable support. Committee members, too, deserve my gratitude. To maintain the calmness, rationality and objectivity demanded of a member of Parliament in the sometimes difficult circumstances of this inquiry has not been easy. I appreciate the efforts of members in this regard. Most of all, I would like to thank those who made submissions and gave us testimony. Living through the harrowing circumstances many of these people described must have been unimaginably painful. To re-live and recount these experiences before a parliamentary inquiry must have required nothing less than heroism. This inquiry has been a learning experience for all of us. For me in particular it has been a testament to the beauty, courage and devotion of the human spirit in tragic circumstances. I am very pleased to present this report to the House on behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Issues and to commend it to the Minister for Health and Community Services.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [11.5]: Mr President, as chairman of the committee when it began its inquiry, no doubt you are attending to the debate on this report with some intensity of interest. I was more than distressed to hear the reiteration of the present chairman's arguments in speaking to the report. Quoting precedent and example having faulty bases in rational thought does not satisfy the intellectual argument in support of the majority decision. The AIDS disease is a tragedy of epic proportions and is devastating to the sufferer and his or her family regardless of how the disease was acquired. In Australia about 15,000 people are human immunodeficiency virus positive and 2,500 have already died. To illustrate the extent of the tragedy that we face in this country, more people have died in New South Wales alone from AIDS than the entire number of Australians who died in the Korean and Vietnam wars. Everyone's first response to medically-acquired HIV sufferers is the same. The response is sympathy for those who have contracted the disease through a medical procedure. The assumption is made that someone was negligent and therefore compensation is in order. That was my response. On 11th October, 1990, I placed on record my congratulations to the Hon. Franca Arena for proposing this reference to the Standing Committee on Social Issues. I said:

I am sure honourable members would agree that this additional reference is extremely urgent and that the community is anxious that this difficult and sensitive matter of compassionate response to these people should be undertaken as quickly as possible.

Page 2345

A strong response of concern and sympathy and a desire to comfort this group has infused our community because of a perception that it is unique. In fact, the majority recommendation rests on the claim or perception that never has there been such a class of seriously ill people in the history of medicine. When the inquiry began our first struggle was to get resources to pursue the inquiry as we all agreed that it was a matter of urgency. At that time we were fortunate enough to engage by contract the services of Sarah Evans, who as a professional had worked in the medical and helping professions and in particular with a variety of people suffering from the AIDS disease. I would like to commend Sarah Evans for the way in which she thoroughly, professionally and sensitively handled all of the inquiry as it proceeded. She gave us excellent service and results though it was a most stressful and difficult task for a young person to pursue. In New South Wales 10,000 people are HIV positive and 1,600 people have already died. In New South Wales, of 224 medically-acquired HIV people, 95 are haemophiliacs, 125 are transfusion related, and four are artificial insemination related. We believe that 100 additional people are still to be identified. The committee received 92 submissions, heard evidence from 53 witnesses and had formal discussions with 26 people in Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia.

Finally, the report came down that recommended financial compensation or financial assistance - the terms seem to be interchangeable - based on the nine points to which the chairman has referred. None of those points distinguished the medically-acquired HIV group for me. After evidence, and in an effort to deal with the complexity of the issues, I concluded that the principles upon which the committee's response to its terms of reference must be based are, first, compassion for the suffering and, second, democratic formal law. I believe the committee had to uphold both of those in a rational way. The fact that five committee members decided to make the medically-acquired HIV group a special group to be treated outside the democratic formal law created a serious problem for me, because the function of the democratic formal law is being bypassed when financial assistance and favoured treatment are given to one group with a particular disease and not even all the people with that disease, but a further distinct category within the group. The distinction rests on the basis of the mode of infection with the disease.

The majority opinion in the report justifies the granting of financial assistance to people suffering with medically-acquired HIV on the basis of their special status. That has never been proved. Since there are no medical grounds for differentiating between people suffering from medically-acquired AIDS and those suffering from other medically-acquired diseases, the committee is seeking to compensate people suffering from medically-acquired HIV because of the social stigma attached to the disease, primarily because it is associated with homosexuals and the intravenous drug using community. The reputation of the disease was a key factor in the decision-making, I believe. It is a key factor in the claims that the witnesses brought to our attention, and honourable members can understand the constancy of the campaign in drawing that difference by some members in this Chamber, both within the Chamber and in the general community. I am referring, of course, to Reverend the Hon. Page 2346 F. J. Nile. However, granting compensation on these grounds merely reinforces the social stigma and prejudices associated with AIDS, since the majority recommendation can be seen only as assisting people who have contracted the virus through a particular mode of infection, thus reinforcing the division, the prejudice and the stigma.

The medical response to the needs of people with medically-acquired HIV has been dramatic. No other disease in the last decade has attracted the amount of interest, research and money that AIDS has. So far, $250 million has been spent. Health and welfare services have been developed. Professor Carmel of the Australian National Council on AIDS has said that $200 million each year is now spent on AIDS. In addition to the money, there has been improved sensitivity in the care of AIDS patients. In Australia everyone is entitled to income security and free health care - or they were - and it is not equitable to give extra benefits to one particular group. Some people may argue that those with the human immunodeficiency virus already receive a disproportionate amount of the health care budget. I dissociate myself from the fact that there is this constant comparison between the gay community and other AIDS sufferers. I wish to record that I believe it is not a question of homosexuality but of gender.

Men, I believe, have always been strong advocates of services for themselves. The following figures for deaths in 1989 in New South Wales and the budget allocation for care would demonstrate that. In 1989, 870 women died of breast cancer; four men died of breast cancer. In the same year 4,454 men died of acute myocardial infarction, and 3,550 women; 1,985 men died of cerebrovascular disease, and 3,039 women. Figures published by the New South Wales Department of Health show that for inpatient services cardiology services received $182.5 million for approximately 69,000 patients, with 4,327 deaths. In that year AIDS patients totalled 2,342. There were 182 deaths from AIDS, and $15 million to $20 million, with other services to the value of $30 million, was provided in funding. Breast cancer killed five times the number of people who died from AIDS, yet the funding for services in that area is very much less than is spent on AIDS. Funds are also more plentiful for coronary artery bypass surgery, an expensive procedure that is used far more by men than by women.

In comparing the resources spent on heart disease with those spent on breast cancer, a gender bias is evident in the allocation of medical resources. Evidence was presented to the committee that even the response of women to the HIV drugs already developed has not been properly considered. If the attack on gay men could be dispensed with in this debate and honourable members were to focus on the difference between the gender management and response to the disease, our community responses might have been more appropriate. But to return to the report, all committee members had to ask themselves whether there are a set of needs, criteria and circumstances that separate this group or groups of people within the broader HIV community from other groups with medically-acquired diseases and, for that matter, the people of New South Wales. I had to conclude that it is not possible Page 2347 to single out people with medically-acquired HIV for special treatment when there are other people with HIV, with terminal illnesses and other medically-acquired illnesses.

If compensation is to be paid to people with medically-acquired HIV, other people, such as the Chelmsford hospital victims, people who become ill following immunisation, people with other medically-acquired conditions such as hepatitis B and hepatitis C, those who suffer adverse drug reactions and are infected with golden staphylococcus, all have a case for financial assistance. Other medically-acquired diseases, such as infection of aortic grafts and golden staph infection in babies, lead to death. Daughters of women given stilboestrol have developed horrendous carcinomas of the vagina. I sympathise with the sense of outrage in relation to the acquisition of the virus through a medical procedure, but death or serious injury following medical treatment is widely acknowledged. Up to four out of 10 long-term patients develop medically-acquired conditions in hospitals. Blood transfusion recipients have contracted hepatitis B and hepatitis C, which is a hundred times more infectious than the human immunodeficiency virus. A significant number of those people will die of liver cancer.

Though I acknowledge that to date the human immunodeficiency virus has been the only virus that is always terminal, it would be little consolation to the families of people who have died from other diseases to be told that their son, their daughter, their husband or their wife might have lived so they are ineligible for financial assistance after contracting a disease via the Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service. After vigorous scrutiny of the blood bank no case for negligence has yet been made out in New South Wales courts. The blood bank and other health authorities in Australia dealt promptly with the AIDS epidemic. Their response has served as a model for the rest of the world. The universal screening test that began in Australia in May 1985 was the first in the world. In 1983, when the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus by blood was first questioned but not proved, the Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service was faced with the problem of screening while maintaining the supply of blood.

The donation of blood by gay men was encouraged because of the high titre of antibodies. Dr Archer at that time faced difficult decisions, and he has been adjudged to have taken the best possible measures at that time according to the evidence available to him by supplying the screening system while maintaining the supply. The committee is unaware of anyone contracting the disease after May 1985, when universal testing of tissues and blood began. As to the issue of choice that has been raised, Professor Dwyer said that the vast majority of people who have become infected with the human immunodeficiency virus, either medically-acquired or otherwise, were infected before they or anyone else knew there was a virus that could cause the disease. When it became known, members of the homosexual community and the drug community changed their behaviour significantly. Indeed, they took enormously courageous measures to act in the best interests of the community at large.

Page 2348

Death, stress and ongoing doctor-patient relationships are not relevant merely to AIDS victims. Litigation stress applies in all litigation and may lead and has led to death, for example in some criminal cases. Should all litigation therefore be settled by government funding to avoid stress? I agree such an approach would be humanitarian, as is argued by the majority report. However, it would totally destroy the legal structures and mechanisms and distort the use of the State's resources dramatically. It has been claimed, among other things, that those suffering from medically-acquired HIV do not have the time to go through the court processes. Urgent cases are expedited by the courts. Once a precedent was established, out of court settlements would be made with the group as a whole. That would be the most proper and humane process and would fulfil the two principles which ought to apply to this whole procedure. To begin the report by discussing possible negligence and then to talk about negligence per se was offensive and unacceptable to me. Breaches of the duty of care should be determined by the courts, and, if negligence is proved, substantial compensation must be awarded. If no negligence is proved, public health policy must be the committee's prime consideration. Surely that is the point.

If the legal issue of negligence cannot be decided by governments but only by the courts, the majority decision of the committee admits negligence where there might be none and gives favoured treatment to one group over the many others who have instituted negligence actions against public institutions. The committee certainly heard plenty of evidence and argument in that respect from a key witness, Mr Bates. That approach is simply undemocratic; that is, it is against the principle of equality before law and government. Either all plaintiffs in negligence cases against government instrumentalities should have access to claiming for direct extra-legal funds or none should.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: That avenue was specifically rejected as a basis for justifying non-financial assistance, was it not?

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: I am sure the Hon. D. F. Moppett will have an opportunity to develop that claim. If he reads the nine reasons for the establishment of the special cases, he will find that is not the case. That argument was used in a specific way and was referred to by the chairman of the committee in her contribution. The argument about doctor-patient relationships is obviously weak. It could apply to many medically-acquired conditions. Close special relationships exist in a variety of legal circumstances, for example employer-employee cases. The Family Court deals with husband and wife litigation. Should these cases be reconsidered as beyond the law when special close, even life supporting, relationships can be established? I think not. I appreciated the evidence given by Mr Garling, Q.C., who said:

As a society we have traditionally provided a level of social benefit to all people who have, for whatever cause or reason, been afflicted by some sickness. The Commonwealth provides the sickness benefits and associated benefits. We can all argue about whether the level of that is adequate, however, that's a different question to the question of principle.

Page 2349

The second basis upon which we have compensated people is if one can establish fault, be it a motor car driver's fault, a fault in the workplace, a fault in a professional relationship, a fault arising in a public liability sense. We have said, "If you can establish fault then the law either in accordance with its common law position or in accordance with its statutorily amended common law position has provided damages for it", and I cannot see that there is any special basis for separating the group of medically acquired HIV victims - separating compensation for those from any other group of innocently afflicted people in our society. I think that if this committee was to recommend that there be, in effect, a special legislative package dealing with this particular group, that it would be very hard logically to resist such a package in respect of a very large number of other groups.

The judgment of Mr Justice Wilcox is constantly referred to and has created difficulties for the entire community. He raised the question of what the moral response of society should be. In doing so, he said:

In some other areas of activity in which individuals are sacrificed for the wider public good, the community recognises an obligation to provide some recompense; e.g. under war veterans legislation. Perhaps the same attitude ought to be taken towards those people who contracted AIDS.

Those who die fighting for their country have clearly been sacrificed for the common good. However, it is difficult to understand how undergoing treatment is for the common good; it is clearly for the good of the individual. At some stage the natural disaster argument was introduced but rejected by the committee. The issue of family responsibilities has been raised as a distinguishing feature of those suffering from medically-acquired HIV. It has been suggested that those suffering from medically-acquired HIV deserve large-scale financial assistance because of the family responsibilities of some of those in that group and, conversely, the self-contained responsibilities of gay men. Most young unmarried haemophiliacs and the majority of the homosexual HIV population have no children. However, it is patently absurd to suggest that gay men do not have families or that their families feel less for their sons and brothers. The argument about family responsibilities completely ignores those bisexual family members who have been infected with HIV or who have died from AIDS.

AIDS sufferers with dependent families include people in the medically-acquired category, women who became HIV positive as a result of heterosexual intercourse with an infected partner, bisexual men, and men who were infected with the disease from prostitutes overseas. I oppose financial assistance to a select number of carers and dependent family members because the argument was not based on family responsibilities but on the mode of transmission of the disease. Another attempt was made during the consideration of this serious issue to reintroduce the debate on homosexuality. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has a history in that respect and in many debates about homosexuality in this Chamber has rejected the rights of that section of the community to pursue what the rest of us regard as a perfectly proper choice of lifestyle. In his irrational way of proceeding, it makes no impact on him -

Page 2350

The Hon. Elaine Nile: Their unhealthy lifestyle has given these people AIDS.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: I thought the Hon. Elaine Nile might say that. Clearly we will all die.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: But the Hon. Ann Symonds will not die from AIDS, she will not die the way they are.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: How does the Hon. Elaine Nile know? The point I wish to make is that the debate about a serious illness which requires a compassionate response is constantly confused with the debate about sexuality. So long as violence and exploitation are not involved, it does not matter to you, to me or to the State whether one pursues a heterosexual, homosexual or celibate lifestyle. This debate is about disease.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: How can you say that after the AIDS virus?

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile in a previous debate actually blamed a World Health Organisation program to eradicate smallpox for the spread of AIDS in Africa. That program has eradicated smallpox from the face of the earth. That opponent of the United Nations and approximately 50 per cent of the community -

The Hon. Elaine Nile: They re-used the needles.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Actually, that is not correct. Otherwise there would be a high incidence among eight to 13 year olds.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: I thank the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti for the medical evidence. We have had this debate before. Here we are back to blaming gays. This irrational response is usually based on a false representation of the authority of religion and the Bible which bars the way of reason, obviously, and presents little basis for rational discussion.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: I think it proves the Bible.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Then the Bible must be horrible.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: I think it is used selectively. The problem with the group of people represented by Call to Australia is that they have never accepted the New Testament; it has bypassed them entirely. They have never caught up with the teaching that we should love one another.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Romans chapter 1, verse 26: you pay a penalty in your own body if you break God's law.

Page 2351

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: I am trying to conclude.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! The House should return to the committee report.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: You mean everyone who is sick has done -

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: I rest my case. It might also be asked why some of the greatest cultural periods had an easy acceptance of homosexuality. For example, in Renaissance Italy Michelangelo was engaged by Pope Julius to paint the Sistine Chapel. His sexuality was not an issue.

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: On a point of order. Michelangelo, the Sistine Chapel and people's sexual orientations have nothing to do with the committee report. They are not canvassed in the report; they were not canvassed in my speech. I respectfully request that you call the honourable member to order on the ground of relevance.

The Hon. P. F. O'Grady: On the point of order. I find it an extraordinary abuse of this debate. Such debates traditionally have been very broad. Whether it was a report of the Standing Committee on State Development on coastal development or a report by the Standing Committee on Social Issues on HIV, all debates in this House on committee reports have been very broad. The Hon. Ann Symonds was demonstrating the historical context, which must be considered and debated. I ask you to reject the point of order raised by the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: On the point of order. Mr Deputy-President, I draw your attention to the fact that discussion of homosexuality was one of the key factors in the report in that people were concerned that they not be identified with the homosexual community. So I believe it is entirely relevant to comment on the matter. I had concluded my comments on that point, anyway.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! I do not uphold the point of order. However, I remind the Hon. Ann Symonds that seven members wish to speak in the debate. All have valid points that they wish to put. I ask her to confine her remarks to the report as much as possible.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: I was drawing my remarks to a conclusion when I was provoked by the interjections. The payment of compensation perpetuates the idea that this disease is different. One consequence of payment being made is that the homosexual community will be further isolated, medically and socially. Both of these responses will be immeasurably destructive to the health and well-being Page 2352 of the whole of our society. The real horror of this tragedy is that AIDS has brought community division, fear and prejudice unknown since the cure for leprosy was found. It is not appropriate to single out a small group of people for financial assistance based on the way they acquired the disease while ignoring the very real needs of people with HIV and other people with medically-acquired, life-threatening diseases. I was deeply moved by the tragic stories of personal and family pain that were presented as evidence, but I could not bring myself to distinguish between deserving and undeserving classes of suffering people, both of which gave evidence to the committee, both of which suffered from the same disease.

Whatever the arguments in support of financial assistance, awarding one group and denying other groups reinforces false notions of innocence and guilt and in fact is self- defeating. Whatever the reasons or intentions, the effect will be to strengthen the idea of guilt and innocence: any AIDS patient might still be associated with the guilty and given pariah treatment. Although one of the nine points seeks to pursue this as an argument in defence of the majority position, the recommendations of the majority would proceed against its intentions. The perceived community difficulties will persist and will be enhanced by the majority view. AIDS is not selective. I am sure that all honourable members know people who have died or who are ill with the disease. I could not bear to be party to creating further division in the community by providing financial assistance to one group on the basis of the mode of transmission. Furthermore, the committee has made no attempt to compare the relative merits of this group with those of other groups who are also suffering from life threatening disease and injury.

The only acceptable medical compensation scheme would be a no fault scheme such as that which is accessed in New Zealand by AIDS sufferers. Such a scheme falls correctly into the sphere of national government responsibility as it is a revenue raising and distribution issue. We are frequently told that there are overseas precedents for the recommendations - in Canada, Great Britain and Japan. If the precedents are based on discriminatory and false arguments, I do not think our society will benefit from compounding them by imitation. Also I believe that parliament is the wrong forum in which to consider the issue of compensation or financial assistance, and implementation of the report will establish a precedent for other groups of people who, whatever their circumstances, may pursue the same means to seek redress for what they believe are conditions acquired because of failure in the duty of care by persons, authorities or agents of the State.

Bearing in mind that it is not the role of the committee to establish negligence, bypassing the role of the courts in establishing whether negligence can be proved and consequently damages awarded is an unacceptable response to this group of ill and suffering people. I believe the majority decision to grant financial assistance denies a compassionate response to all others outside that group. Pursuing the acquiring of disease via medical institutions or services to its logical conclusion would lead to chaos. An example of the faulty basis of the decision-making by the majority group concerns the arguments about the blood supply. It can never be said Page 2353 to be 100 per cent safe. We all know that. The new strain of hepatitis C is already being overtaken by hepatitis D and hepatitis E. Everyone involved in the lifesaving procedure of blood transfusion takes a risk.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: But they are warned about it.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: Even the Pope got a disease from blood transfusions required after his unfortunate attempted assassination. In dealing with AIDS, comfort is what is needed. The mode of acquisition is irrelevant. Isolation of the disease is wrong. My decision to reject the financial package for people with medically-acquired AIDS does not in any way diminish my sympathy for those suffering people and their families.

[Interruption]

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: I have had that charge levelled at me before. I know they do not understand my point of view, they do not understand the sympathy that I feel for them, and they do not accept it. I believe that the minority group has made a principled decision and the majority group, such as the Western Australian Government, has made a pragmatic decision. This report is a pragmatic response that satisfies no one. If there is a valid floodgate argument, it applies to the floodgates of anger, pain and suffering that will follow as the consequence of the majority decision of this committee. The real measure of a democratic society is the extent to which it pursues the goal of equality. To give equal status and justice to those of whom we approve is no measure of success. We must grant equal status to those with whom we disagree or of whom we disapprove. The true test is that we recognise the human dignity of and afford equality to those whose beliefs we may reject and whose behaviour we may despise.

This inquiry has caused a great deal of anguish to committee members, not because of the difficulty of coming to a decision on financial assistance - I would suggest that for most of us, that decision, sooner or later, became self-evident. The difficulty for us was the insight that we gained into this tragedy: AIDS is a tragedy that is so terribly personal. It is a nightmare that conquers the strongest individuals and engulfs whole families. The majority decision to grant financial assistance to a tiny percentage of the people affected by this dreadful disease is, in my opinion, simply the wrong response. In fact, it has not even satisfied the people it was intended to help. It is appropriate to point out to the House that only two of the nine committee members - certainly a minority - supported the sort of package the medically-acquired AIDS group was seeking. However, it is my fervent hope that amid all the division and disagreement that categorises this debate in the community, which was reflected in the committee's deliberations and has been expressed this morning on the floor of the House, the Government will see fit to examine quickly and closely the 20 recommendations relating to services that the committee unanimously supported. The solution to this dilemma lies in the development of adequate, flexible and accessible services for all people with HIV - and for that Page 2354 matter for all people with debilitating illnesses of any kind - regardless of how they acquired the disease.

It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that the State's limited health and welfare resources are allocated to those for whom the need is greatest. Those resources need to be utilised carefully to ensure that all people who are disadvantaged or suffering are provided with the means to alleviate their personal pain. Piecemeal payments to identifiable groups within an entire community that is suffering are inappropriate and incompatible with the principles of social justice. As I have stated many times, what has happened to the people with medically-acquired HIV is a tragedy. If the Government wishes to compensate them because a public utility was integral to that tragedy, I will support it, but only when the Government compensates all people who have any medically-acquired illness. Until that time I will not be party to any lottery that selectively decides who receives assistance and who does not, particularly when such decisions are based on dubious conclusions yet to be proved in court that will inevitably reinforce in the minds of some people the incorrect assumption that some people are guilty and some are innocent. My opposition to the majority report is not concerned with the members who made that decision but with what it represents. Our enemy is the disease and the prejudice and bigotry that would divide the community. My compassion goes to all who are struggling with illnesses, and my support goes to any government agency that indiscriminately seeks to alleviate that suffering.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [11.45]: The issues raised by the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquiry into medically-acquired HIV infection have resulted in highly emotive responses by the public and the media. This is completely understandable, given the nature of the disease and its tragic impact on the sufferers and their families. As the Hon. Ann Symonds said, in Australia more than 15,000 people are HIV positive and already 2,500 have died from the disease. Clearly it is a disease that cannot be ignored and the people who suffer the debilitating and painful effects of AIDS cannot be forgotten. The committee of which I was a member was asked to report whether the Government should provide financial assistance for those who have acquired HIV through medical means, such as blood transfusions. At the inquiry it was often said that those with medically-acquired HIV are innocent victims. The resulting unavoidable connotation is that others with AIDS are guilty. That is not something I agree with - attaching blame to the victims themselves. The Hon. Ann Symonds has thoroughly canvassed this topic.

Separating those with medically-acquired HIV from others and giving them special treatment is discrimination. Those who contracted AIDS in any other way are left out. In effect, this reinforces the stigma attached to the disease, with its deprecatory judgment of homosexuals and drug users. I feel that granting financial assistance based on the mode of transmission rather than on need, is unjust, inappropriate, and discrimination of the worst kind. Because of my dissenting view on giving special financial assistance to people with medically- acquired HIV, I was personally abused at a meeting by some people with medically-acquired HIV. I was Page 2355 accused of having no heart and it was said that I do not understand. I assure those people that I would rather bear that unwarranted abuse than support a view with which I disagree. I do have a heart, I do understand, and I feel for those people who have acquired illnesses through no fault of their own.

The Hon. Franca Arena: But you are not willing to do anything about it.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: That is not true. I support improved services for all HIV sufferers. Furthermore, the committee did not receive any evidence that it is possible to differentiate adequately between medically-acquired HIV and other medically-acquired illnesses. In no way could it be suggested that medically-acquired HIV is a special case. For example, medically-acquired hepatitis B and hepatitis C are also fatal diseases that may be transmitted through blood transfusions. In considering medically-acquired HIV people as a special group, one necessarily excludes all other groups suffering from medically-acquired illnesses, who are victims of ordinary risks. I am sure that the pain, suffering and the grief of people with other medically-acquired illnesses are as great as for those with medically-acquired HIV.

Financial assistance of any sort should be based on need and compassion rather than the inherent moral judgment that medically-acquired HIV people are in a unique situation. Support should be provided for all those suffering the pain and personal tragedy of HIV, not just a discrete group. Although I dissent from the recommendation to provide financial assistance, I wholeheartedly support the recommendation to increase health care services and access to them. The lack of support, the need for 24-hour nursing, the financial costs involved with care, and the discrimination experienced with HIV, are not unique to those who have acquired the disease medically. Therefore, we should concern ourselves with providing the best possible health care to all and not just to one group. More importantly, the Government must consider the financial costs and the legal ramifications of a decision to provide financial assistance to one specific group. It should be noted that those with medically-acquired HIV stand apart from others with HIV in that they have a capacity to litigate; they can take their claims to the courts to try to prove negligence and receive compensation.

The question of innocence or guilt does not attach to the victims but to the institutions; that is, hospitals and blood banks. In this respect I believe that the committee is in no position to determine culpability or to quantify damages. Only the courts should do this. Specific evidence about the health sector's initial knowledge of HIV suggests that in some individual cases litigants may prove negligence. Therefore, by proving fault in the courts they receive compensation. If negligence cannot be proved, no action for damages can be taken. However, many suffer injustices for which they remain uncompensated, including people with other medically-acquired illnesses. Therefore, how can we, by making a special case for those with medically-acquired HIV, deny all other victims of tragedy in our society?

Page 2356

The Hon. Franca Arena: Because they are different.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I am saying that they are not different. I acknowledge that the litigation process is lengthy, expensive and stressful. For someone suffering from the debilitating effects of AIDS the experience of having to go through the courts would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. The emotional and physical strain might be too much for them to endure. In addition, patients may be reticent to litigate against doctors with whom they have shared a close professional relationship - who have provided the utmost care and vital treatment. To sue one's personal physician may not only threaten the relationship but also may bring great stress upon both parties. Important human costs are involved not to mention the financial cost of court action. Given that one might ask why I did not support the recommendation for financial assistance. I argue that if we are to provide compensation, it should be to all HIV sufferers and any assistance should be of an adequate level. But who is able to determine what is adequate to persuade people to waive their rights to legal claims for compensation? New Zealand has a comprehensive no-fault scheme for all accidents that abolishes the right of victims to sue. However, as at 1989 the maximum amount available for permanent disability was $NZ17,000 - a completely inadequate amount, which illustrates the inequity of such a scheme.

With regard to medically-acquired HIV we must be concerned not to set a costly precedent by creating a special legislative package for a particular case, which may result in future governments being asked to set up special schemes for every identifiable group that has suffered misfortune. The Government cannot afford to sign a blank cheque, especially in cases where it is not necessarily clear that government agencies are at fault. The health system in New South Wales is designed to promote and protect the health of its citizens. In doing so it should take all reasonable care to protect patients. When this does not occur, for example in the case of medically-acquired illness, the health system should be subject and accountable to the law. This is an appropriate way of determining liability and judging the level of damages. As honourable members may be aware the committee agonised over the decision to provide financial assistance - and understandably so.

The issues raised in the inquiry were controversial and challenged members of the committee to consider carefully their decisions. The final majority decision to provide financial assistance to medically-acquired HIV sufferers has failed to please anyone. Those seeking compensation are not satisfied with the amount proposed. The wider HIV community feels that it has been discriminated against. For that reason I believe that money would be better spent on providing better health services, on increasing access to those services, and on supporting all victims of AIDS. HIV does not discriminate on the basis of how it was acquired. The pain, suffering, and profound personal losses are shared by all those with HIV regardless of its mode of transmission. Money should be made available to help all those with AIDS. The community will be divided because of discrimination of this sort. I make no apology for dissenting against the five-four majority view to provide Page 2357 financial assistance to medically-acquired HIV patients. I must say though that I am pleased that the committee unanimously supported the widespread improvement of services for those with AIDS.

Debate adjourned to a later hour.

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT: I have the honour to announce to members the presence in my gallery of Dr Adamu Fika, Director-General and Clerk-Designate of the National Assembly of Nigeria.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

ELECTRICAL CABLE INSULATION

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I direct a question without notice to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy. In view of reports that some of yesterday's fires were sparked by the touching of overhead electrical cables will the Minister direct county councils and Sydney Electricity to undertake a program of installing spacers between electric wires or replacing uninsulated overhead wires with insulated bunched cables until such time as cables are placed underground in high-risk fire areas?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I would view with great concern any evidence which suggested that the tragic fires which took place yesterday could have been caused by any negligence or any failure to take proper precautions on behalf of any of the electricity supply authorities. I will investigate fully the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition. If appropriate action such as he has suggested or other action is warranted, he can be assured that it will take place.

VOLUNTEER POLICE

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is the Minister yet in a position to say whether or not his proposal for volunteer police will receive a trial in New South Wales?

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I am pleased to be in a position to advise the Hon. J. M. Samios and the House that the answer to his question is, yes. Recently I received advice that both the Commissioner for Police, Mr Tony Lauer, Page 2358 and the Chairman of the New South Wales Police Board, Judge Thorley, agreed to my decision that a suitably developed scheme for volunteer police should be given a trial in New South Wales following a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. I assure honourable members that I do not in any way underestimate the difficulties of implementation of such a scheme. Indeed, any major new proposal which will bring about dramatic change in any hierarchy will never be implemented without problems. One of the biggest problems will be the very predictable and natural opposition from within the organisation itself. It will come as no surprise to honourable members to learn that the Police Association has sworn its opposition to any proposal to introduce volunteer police in New South Wales.

It has been my experience, however, when discussing this concept with working police during my visits to police stations, that they are curious about it but are certainly not opposed outright to it. The reason they do not oppose it is that they realise that volunteers will be in a position to relieve them of many of the duties that they consider to be non-policing work such as traffic control, liaising with Neighbourhood Watch groups, and other clerical and office duties. The role of the Police Association in this matter has been in some way discreditable. Two senior officers of the association went overseas at the expense of the department to examine the matter. When they returned they wrote an excellent report which acknowledged the merits of the scheme and then attacked it for a variety of promotional and specious reasons. The main reason that the Police Association gave for rejecting the proposal was that it would demean the Police Service - whatever that means.

Volunteer police have not demeaned the London Bobbies. At present 16,000 volunteer police are working in the United Kingdom and they have been an institution there for more than 130 years. The Police Association argued also that the Government is doing it only to get policing done on the cheap. That is absolute nonsense. The reason the Government wants volunteers is to release existing police - who are now at a record level numerically - from non- policing duties to get on with the real work of policing and in appropriate circumstances to assist police with their normal duties. Another superficial argument advanced by the association in opposition to volunteers is that they will all be Rambos. That is plain nonsense. I have every confidence in the capacity of the recruitment and training section of the Police Service to sort out any potential Rambo before he hits the streets. I have no doubt that some people in the Rambo category would apply but since they would be used on a voluntary basis without any tenure they would simply be told not to return the next day when this was discovered.

It can be done; it is being done in many parts of the world. There is no reason why it should not happen in New South Wales. Other States of Australia are examining the proposal, which will come to Australia some time or other in some form or other. Why should not New South Wales lead the field. A special working party set up by the commissioner is considering in detail how, when and in what form the trial for volunteers in New South Wales should be introduced. I know that one location being considered for a trial is the Dubbo patrol. There may well be Page 2359 other locations where trials will be held. The department is giving detailed consideration to the content and structure of a training course for volunteers which will be most comprehensive. One model being considered is similar to that used for regular police - a period of in-house training at the Police Academy in Goulburn followed by field and on-the-job training to gain practical experience. It is incomprehensible that any individual or organisation should be seriously opposed to the concept of a trial. I am happy to go on record in this House as saying that, after a fair trial, if it is obvious that the scheme is not appropriate to our form of policing and will not work to the benefit of the community, I would be the first to happily acknowledge that and drop the idea.

I am sure that all honourable members will agree that community based policing including beat patrols has been a great innovation for both the community and our Police Service. Community based policing has served to bring both the community and the police together. There is greater communication, much greater trust and more reporting of crime. Generally the police, as a consequence of that, are being held in much higher regard by the community than ever before. I am convinced that the use of properly selected and properly trained volunteers, who will be just another form of community based policing, will greatly enhance the community's perception of the Police Service as a whole and make police more effective. Unquestionably it is well worth a trial. Anyone who opposes that suggestion is acting beyond the bounds of reason.

BALMAIN PENINSULA DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy. I refer to a letter received by the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy from the mayor of Leichhardt. Will the Minister assure the House, in view of the contents of that letter dated 16th October, 1991, which refers to the Balmain peninsula rezonings, that the consultations that the mayor of Leichhardt demanded on behalf of Leichhardt council will be given to him and that the Minister will agree to the timetable that the mayor has made out in his correspondence.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: It is true that I received a letter from the mayor of Leichhardt on 16th October. I have responded to that letter. Consideration of and debate on the development of the five sites at Balmain date back to 1989. Resolution of this issue, which is the crux of the letter referred to by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, has proved too difficult for the council. In that time a good deal of work has been done by council planning staff and an enormous amount of assistance has been provided by the Department of Planning, together with an exhibition of draft local environmental plan and a complete review and report by a commission of inquiry. Council has been formally asked to consider the commissioners' report and make an early decision. As yet there has been no resolution. Those five industrial sites, four of them vacant, add absolutely nothing Page 2360 to the environment or the amenities of the Balmain peninsular. The vacant sites are ugly blots on the landscape and in their current state are useless to the local community, the State and the owners of the property.

The essential problem that has beset Leichhardt council is a lack of resolution and a total inability to make a decision despite a good deal of advice and assistance. In particular I refer to the report by the commissioners, Mr Bill Simpson and Dr Mark Carleton, who have provided an eminently sensible summary and list of recommendations. The new council at Leichhardt still expresses a divergence of views on future use of the sites. Despite all the discussion and debate that has so far taken place, the new council is set on a process that will further delay the type of sensible urban consolidation that should take place on those five sites in Balmain. On Tuesday night council decided on a further process to deal with the sites which, allowing for the divergence of views on the council, would rework almost all of the ground already covered and would prolong a decision on the sites indefinitely.

As Minister I am not willing to allow that to happen and to allow the Leichhardt council to go back to square one. Honourable members of this House are aware of the widespread support for a co-ordinated and serious program of urban consolidation in the major cities of Australia, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne. There are serious implications in economic, environmental and social costs if urban consolidation is not tackled on a statewide basis by the community. One simple statistic - that Sydney motorists use two and a half times the amount of petrol that the average European city motorist uses - indicates to me just how urgent it is that the Government takes action on urban consolidation. Consider the economic and environmental implications of Sydney motorists using two and a half times more petrol per head of population.

Professional, architectural and planning organisations, Federal parliamentarians from major parties, and both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales have publicly advocated the need for urban consolidation. Indeed, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, in a question addressed to me yesterday, by implication suggested that there should be little or no further expansion of the Sydney metropolitan area. That is the very reason why I have made the decisions I have announced today in relation to Balmain and urban consolidation. Two of the strongest proponents of urban consolidation have been the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Brian Howe, and the former Treasurer, Mr Paul Keating. In giving the annual Sir Albert Jennings lecture recently Mr Howe pointed out that about 1.2 million additional dwellings will be needed in Australia over the next decade. That is equivalent to a city the size of Sydney. It is completely unacceptable as additional urban sprawl in economic, environmental or social terms.

Mr Howe also made the point that the existing housing densities in Sydney are only half to two-thirds of that required to ensure efficient public transport networks - which, again, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has advocated to me in questions she has asked in this House. At the recent conference of Australian planning Page 2361 Ministers in Melbourne Mr Howe made urban consolidation the theme for his comments on almost every agenda item. He emphasised the difficulties for local government in dealing with urban consolidation and the responsibility of both State and Federal governments in taking the lead. The case for urban consolidation is so blindingly obvious that there is no serious general objection. The only objections come from individuals and interest groups who argue a special case of exemption for their local area while embracing the general principle - in other words, the NIMBY syndrome - not in my backyard, but okay in someone else's.

Urban consolidation has an application whether the suburb is Turramurra, Kogarah, Liverpool or Balmain. In simple terms, these arguments against urban consolidation are isolated and, clearly, as I said before, in the area of self-interest - the not in my backyard syndrome. In that situation it is the role of government, and more specifically myself as Minister for Planning, to assess the balance and to make decisions that are to the benefit of the total community. In those circumstances I have decided to introduce a series of measures to break the urban consolidation deadlock. These measures will include a State environmental planning policy and a regional environmental plan. I have decided also to amend State policy 25 to enable separate titling of dual occupancies. The new State environmental planning policy will set out clear guiding principles for urban consolidation. It will also enable the Minister for Planning to rezone sites of State or regional significance for urban consolidation, as in the five sites in Balmain, and to determine development applications for major urban consolidation - in other words for the Minister to be the consent authority.

The regional environmental plan that will apply to the Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong metropolitan areas will have the capacity to rezone prime sites for urban consolidation as they become available. I refer specifically to redundant industrial sites such as those in Balmain. I have consulted with the Premier and relevant Cabinet colleagues, as prescribed under the Act, and the formal process for the introduction of this policy is in train. Obviously, the Balmain situation will come into that policy. As I have said before, I shall deal with those five Balmain sites - Monsanto, Ampol, Unilever, the Balmain power station and Caltex - under that policy. There are a number of points that should be made in relation to Balmain.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: How long is this speech going on for?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The Hon. P. F. O'Grady asked a question yesterday about it, and I gave him the right answer yesterday. I am giving honourable members a further answer today to the question asked by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. I am sure that the Hon. P. F. O'Grady is most interested in my answer. As I mentioned earlier, the debate has been so wide- ranging with so many conflicting interests that Leichhardt council conducted a public hearing under section 68 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act into the rezoning of the five sites. The council used the resources of the commissioners, Bill Simpson and Dr Mark Carlton, to conduct the hearing. Honourable members should remember that Page 2362 the council asked for the hearing by the commissioners. I am informed by a cross-section of petitioners to the hearing that the commissioners conducted themselves and the hearing in an exemplary manner. They are to be complimented on the manner in which they ensured that people could make submissions in a constructive but relatively informed manner.

As the Minister for Planning, I have not received one complaint about the manner in which the inquiry was conducted. The report and recommendations brought down by the commissioners represent a positive attempt to enable the council to resolve the outstanding issues. It is illuminating to compare the commissioners' recommendations with those of the various residents groups, the owners of the sites, the planning administrator appointed by the former Minister, and the council itself. The commissioners brought down recommendations to exceed the open space requirements of all the groups, including the residents. They specifically sought to maximise foreshore locations, public foreshore access, used to gain access to and from the waterway, and to ensure landscape softening of buildings.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: Who asked this question, anyway?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. The commissioners' specific recommendations range from 31.5 per cent open space for the Caltex site to 39.5 per cent open space for the Unilever site. The five sites have a total area of just over 20 hectares. The commissioners have recommended that 6.9 hectares - almost seven hectares - or more than one-third of the total sites, be public open space with foreshore access. It is also significant that the commissioners estimate a population of 2,904 people on the five sites compared with the developer's submissions, which were for 3,557 people. Again, the commissioners have cut the number of housing units that the developers requested from 1,258 to 1,027. In both cases they have come up with recommendations well below those suggested by the planning administrator appointed by the former Minister and only slightly above the recommendations of the council's own planning staff.

The commissioners dealt with the projected traffic needs for the five sites. They noted traffic management measures, including the two-way vehicle underpass at Iron Cove Bridge Road, public transport improvements proposed in the City West strategy and traffic calming measures to satisfy future residents' needs. In that regard it is significant that almost two-thirds - that is, 1,759 people - of the population would be accommodated on the two sites adjacent to the Iron Cove Bridge, the Balmain power station and the Monsanto site. Overall, the commissioners' report is consistent with the attitude of the council's own planning staff. The fact that it satisfies completely the requirements of neither the local residents nor the developers is an indication that all points of view have been considered in seeking practical solutions in the middle ground. Notwithstanding that the council set up the public hearing, it has not been willing to accept the commissioners' recommendations. The issue or urban consolidation at Balmain has proved too difficult for Leichhardt Council. It is now necessary to apply good and Page 2363 sound planning principles. That will occur under the auspices of the new State environmental planning policy and regional environmental plan. The commissioners' report is based on good planning principles and will form the basis of my decision about Balmain.

BALMAIN PENINSULA DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the Minister's very long and detailed answer and in view of the fact that he has stated that sound planning principles will be followed, will he assure the House that when the industrial sites are redeveloped for housing, particularly the site previously occupied by Monsanto, any possible contamination and contaminated soil will be removed? Is the Minister not aware that in parts of New South Wales where houses have been built on previous industrial sites, and I refer particularly to Armidale, severe contamination of residents has occurred and those housing enclaves have had to be closed down? Will the Minister assure the House that that will not happen anywhere in Balmain?

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: Yes.

ST VINCENT'S HOSPITAL BEDS

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Health and Community Services. Has the Minister noted a nursing sister's allegation that at St Vincent's Public Hospital, a schedule 3 hospital, bed numbers have been reduced from approximately 600 to 340 but the number of accountants in that place has increased from two to 40 in the same period? Is this trend endemic in the public hospital system throughout this State?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I note that the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition related to St Vincent's Private Hospital, which is a schedule 3 hospital. It is not administered by the Government.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: It is a public hospital.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: It is a public and private hospital.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: It is a public hospital.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: It is a public schedule 3 hospital administered by a private organisation. It is a matter for the management of the hospital as to how the beds there are managed.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: This is St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney?

Page 2364

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Yes, St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be aware, all hospitals in the eastern Sydney area have been significantly overbedded. He will recall that during the term in office of the previous Government, Minister Brereton identified the level of overbedding in the eastern Sydney area, though it had been identified some 15 years previously and various governments had sought to move beds away from the eastern Sydney and inner city areas. Health authorities have identified the need to rationalise and deal appropriately with bed numbers in all hospitals. All hospitals in eastern Sydney have had some beds relocated. I would be surprised if St Vincent's Hospital was not in the same category as all of the other hospitals in that area which had to examine their servicing levels.

St Vincent's Hospital is an outstanding hospital and is part of the network of teaching hospitals in the eastern Sydney area. Over the years it has attracted patients from all over New South Wales including, significantly, the western Sydney area. If my recollection of the figures is correct, a significant number of patients were moved into hospitals in the eastern Sydney area, including St Vincent's Hospital, from south-west metropolitan Sydney and the Wollongong area. During the period referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his question, Westmead hospital has come on line, significant services have been introduced into Nepean Hospital, Liverpool Hospital has been upgraded to a teaching hospital, and significant funds have been allocated to Wollongong Hospital to make it almost self-sufficient in the region. As a consequence, patients are now receiving services at those hospitals. Demand has thus been reduced on a number of the inner-city hospitals, including St Vincent's Hospital. If the number of beds in the eastern Sydney area has been reduced, the policies have been working.

I am unaware of the alleged numbers of accountants referred to. However, St Vincent's Hospital has recently introduced a new accounting system to facilitate better management. It is breaking new ground in this country by adopting a costing system called case mix. The hospital is now able to better identify the cost to each of the wards of delivering cost-effective services. The hospital is able also to maximise its resources and ensure that patients receive optimum care. That system was commented on with approval in the Macklin report to the Federal Government. Though the generic term "accountants" may have been used in the question, the hospital is now moving towards a system of unit and appropriate case mix management. Patients will be able to go to a particular ward knowing the cost of delivery of service and that the best clinical managers are on hand. Resources will not be wasted. I wish to say two things in relation to the criticism made by the nursing sister at St Vincent's Hospital. First, St Vincent's Hospital is well managed. It is breaking new ground by the introduction of new management measures. It is moving towards unit management, which is now universally embraced as the right direction to take. Such a system ensures that more patients are dealt with. St Vincent's Hospital is to be commended for the introduction of these excellent management measures.

Page 2365 ST VINCENT'S HOSPITAL BEDS

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: I wish to ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to confirm or deny that the trend in the public hospital system in New South Wales is fewer beds and more administrators.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: In answer to the first part of the question, which is to confirm or deny whether the trend is towards fewer beds, I adopt the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, Brian Howe. If I may paraphrase, he said that Australia is medically overbedded and therefore there will be a move to fewer beds. They are Brian Howe's words and I will accept his views. Those views were confirmed by the Macklin inquiry, the most comprehensive inquiry ever undertaken in regard to the future direction of health. The answer to the part of the question relating to more administrators is no. The number of health administrators right across the State has been significantly reduced. The Government is to be commended for that.

POLICE DETAINEE HIV-AIDS NOTIFICATION

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Are police officers required to ask people who are held in police custody if they are HIV-AIDS positive? If so, is this information recorded for the benefit of the relieving officer who takes over the shift? If not, why not?

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: The short answer to the question is no. A police officer is certainly not required by a police instruction to ask whether people incarcerated in police cells are HIV positive. Therefore, the second part of the question is not applicable. In relation to the third part of the question, why this is not so, it is my understanding that the Public Health Act protects the identity of persons who may be suffering from AIDS or HIV. Under the law unless the sufferer gives consent police do not have access to the person's medical record or test results. Consequently, if the person concerned does not advise the member of the Police Service that he or she has HIV or is an AIDS carrier, that member of the Police Service would not normally know whether the person is so affected. I am advised by the Acting Police Commissioner, Mr Stirton, that existing Police Service policies deal with the prevention and management of the exchange of body fluids.

These policies provide for early interventions, first aid procedures and the debriefing of police officers involved in an incident in which body fluids are exchanged. However, these policies are silent in relation to the disclosure of information on the health status of persons in police custody. They operate on the basis of the information having been given voluntarily. Mr Stirton has also advised me that at the direction of the Commissioner, Mr Lauer, a total review is currently Page 2366 under way of the procedures dealing with AIDS and other contagious or communicable diseases. It is my intention to ask Mr Stirton to ensure that circumstances similar to the hypothetical situation raised by the honourable member - that is, where someone has volunteered this information to police - are examined in the course of the review. I trust that information assists the honourable member.

BUSH FIRE SERVICES FUNDING

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is it a fact that under the present Government funding for bushfire services has increased? Did the Leader of the Opposition today attempt to suggest that this Government had not done enough in this area?

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: Earlier today when listening to question time in another House, I as the responsible Minister was incensed at the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition by way of question to the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs that in some way the funding of the volunteer bushfire brigade movement in this State had been deficient under this administration. Before dealing with the detail of that suggestion, Mr President, might I be permitted to report to the House that yesterday New South Wales experienced what was described by the head of the bushfire department as the worst first day experience of the fire season in living memory. It is now a matter of tragic record that many homes - beautiful homes at that - were destroyed and, unfortunately, two females were killed as a result of the bushfire storm.

I take the opportunity to express on behalf of the Chamber our gratitude to all the persons who yesterday were involved in assisting the community in fighting that fire. Foremost in our minds are the actions of the volunteer bushfire brigades. Some 70,000 people in New South Wales train throughout the year and take part in hazard reduction programs, and when fire storms arrive they are prepared to fight tooth and nail to save property. Yesterday the weather in New South Wales contributed to extremely difficult conditions in which to fight bushfires. Bushfire fighters dealt with fires which, frankly, they should not have approached. They fought house by house to save property. Many firefighters were injured in that process. I also acknowledge the help of all the other voluntary organisations and the professionals in the emergency services - police, ambulance officers, State Emergency Services personnel and those in the relief agencies administered by the Minister for Health and Community Services - the Salvation Army and so on. Myriad organisations rally to the cause on such occasions. One of the real pleasures in my job as Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice- President of the Executive Council is to be associated with - I can only be associated - the volunteer Page 2367 bushfire brigades. I have the most compelling respect for every one of the men and women who freely, without any benefit or payment -

The Hon. R. J. Webster: That includes me.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: If the honourable gentleman is a member, I pass my congratulations on to him. I have the utmost admiration for the way in which these people provide an enormous service to the community, whether in training, in fire reduction activities or, more importantly, in fire fighting. As the Minister I am in awe of their work and do every single thing I can to support them, and I have done so. In order to set the record straight, so that the Leader of the Opposition in the other Chamber is not so willing next time to take a free kick at such an organisation, I shall give the facts on funding for bushfire services. In the very first Budget of this Government the allocation to the fire brigade organisation was increased by 19 per cent. That was an indication of what I thought of the volunteer bushfire brigades. Since then budget increases have been provided at or about the consumer price index rate. A massive boost of 19 per cent was given at the beginning and the increase has been more than maintained in real terms.

It is nothing less than despicable for anyone opposite to suggest that the Government has not backed those volunteers in a real way. Considering what those volunteers are doing today, and no doubt will continue to do all through this summer, those people are entitled to know that the Government and the community are backing them. They should not be misled by the lying sorts of statements that we have become used to from the Leader of the Opposition. The figures are a matter of public record. If he had looked at the Budget Papers, he would not have had such a cheap shot. Yesterday when I was being briefed on the extent of the fires I asked whether the current crisis would be over shortly. In rather dramatic language a senior officer turned to me and said, "Minister, you ain't seen nothing yet". I think what he wanted to convey in those abrupt words was that while yesterday might have been a bad day, the summer that is coming will be nothing less than horrific. As a community we must realise that we face probably the worst fire season in living memory. In recognition of that we brought the fire season forward a month. It is to be hoped that the volunteers and the normal fire services that so promptly helped the community of New South Wales will continue to serve with high morale and not be adversely affected by some lying statement made by someone in another place.

FEMALE MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE STUDENTS

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I direct my question to the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs. Are "girls rating a poor second to boys when it comes to year 12 maths and science" and "clever girls being shunned by schools" as quoted by the Federal Education Minister, John Dawkins, in the Daily Telegraph Mirror of 4th October?

Page 2368

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the Hon. Patricia Forsythe for her very important question. I too read with some amazement and disquiet the comments attributed to the Federal Education Minister, Mr John Dawkins, in the Daily Telegraph Mirror of 4th October. I was attracted to the article by the headline with the attributed quote: "Smart girls don't count". Not only from a personal point of view but as Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs in New South Wales I am pleased to inform the House that this year a record number of young women are sitting for the Higher School Certificate examination. In fact, 52 per cent of this year's candidature of our 57,500 students are women - the highest number ever in this State.

Mr Dawkins' comments again show, as is often the case, that the Federal Minister for Education does not administer a single school anywhere in Australia and that he is clearly out of touch with what is happening in schools. He would be well advised to check with State Ministers who have responsibility for the administration of schools before he makes foolish, inaccurate and denigrating comments such as those attributed to him recently. I am happy to say that of that record number of young women sitting for the Higher School Certificate this year, many are studying subjects that would be regarded as non-traditional subjects; 3 and 4 unit mathematics, science, physics and chemistry. Thanks to the implementation by the Greiner Government of the girls education strategy in New South Wales, 47 per cent of students sitting for 4 unit science this year are women, compared with the maximum of 32 per cent achieved by the former Labor Government. Of the students studying 4 unit mathematics, 35 per cent are women compared with 26 per cent in 1986. More girls than ever before are studying non-traditional subjects and I am hopeful that those numbers will continue to increase, though I would be the first to concede - not just as Minister for School Education but as a woman - much more needs to be done in that area.

Mr Dawkins' suggestion that schools are shunning clever girls is an insult to many fine teachers in New South Wales and I totally reject his suggestion. It is misleading and absolutely out of touch with reality, especially reality in New South Wales. I am also pleased to say that figures released yesterday by me and the Board of Studies reveal that this year's HSC candidature has a record number of enrolments - more than 57,000 - and a record number of subjects to be examined, 112 courses. Since the inception of the HSC in 1967, the number of candidates has more than trebled and the number of subjects has doubled. This reflects the increasing retention rates, which for year 12 students in New South Wales this year is 61 per cent. That is good and welcome news, especially as this year is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the HSC in New South Wales. A generation has now been through the HSC in New South Wales. Many of the students who sat for the first HSC in 1967 are now awaiting their own sons and daughters sitting for this year's exams. I know I speak for all honourable members when I extend good wishes to them all.

Page 2369

All honourable members, regardless of their political position, should be proud of the credibility and stature of the New South Wales HSC, which is clearly Australia's most prestigious school credential and has increasing prestige throughout the Pacific and South-East Asia regions. I hope it will continue to provide the strongest school credential in this country for many years to come, reflecting well on the excellence of the New South Wales public education system. On the eve of a Commonwealth and State education Ministers meeting I felt it appropriate and timely to put on record my rejection on the part of New South Wales of the erroneous assertions of Mr Dawkins.

HOSPITAL CLOSURES

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I ask the Minister for Health and Community Services a question without notice. Will the Minister confirm that his department, in its radical plan "Strategic Issues for Acute Hospital Services" recommends that about 50 hospitals be closed by the end of the century? Does this represent about 20 per cent of the 254 public hospitals in New South Wales? Will the Minister inform the House which hospitals are to be closed?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Government does not have any plans for the closure of hospitals. As I have said to honourable members many times before, hospitals open and hospitals close. I have listed all the hospitals that were closed during the former Labor Government's administration. When that Government was in office it closed hospitals without considering the total direction of health care services. This Government has sought to prepare an overall program for the direction of health care services. That is why a number of discussion papers have been circulated. If a discussion document has identified issues for discussion, that is no more and no less than what the Federal health Minister, Brian Howe, has done with the Macklin inquiry papers which dealt with health issues for the future.

As I said in answer to a question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Brian Howe has indicated, as has his department, that the trend is towards fewer beds. At present the average bed stay per patient is about seven days. About 10 years ago the average bed stay in hospital was about 12 days. In the United States at present the average bed stay is about three days. With the new technology available, patients do not have to remain in hospital as long and thus there is a lesser need for the vast number of available beds. At present in some hospitals in this country patients undergoing a certain procedure may be in hospital for eight to 10 days and may be unable to return to work for three to six months. With a new procedure being trialled in the United States, it is hoped that patients will be in hospital for two days at most and be able to return to work within eight days. That is one result of new technology. As a consequence fewer hospital beds will be required for the current population levels. That trend will have to be balanced against increasing population.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: And an ageing population.

Page 2370

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: And a massive ageing population, which is an issue I have had to address on several occasions since becoming a Minister. Until now the trend has been for many of the ageing population to be kept in hospitals. That is not a desirable situation. The whole purpose of the Federal and State HAT program, which came into place during the administration of the Hon. Virginia Chadwick as Minister for Youth and Community Services, is to keep people in their own homes, being supported in their own homes.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: People with acute illnesses need to be in hospital.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Those people will be treated in hospital, but the question is whether they are kept in hospital for unnecessary periods.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Age is not an illness.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: As the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs said, age is not an illness. What we should be doing is looking after patients in hospital during the acute stage of their illness. There may be a need to concentrate resources into significant hospitals, putting many of the costly services into those hospitals so that hospitals will be used for different purposes and different specialties. The Government is aiming at assisting people in the various nursing and medical categories to be looked after in their own homes. More consideration must be given to the total continuum of care and better targeting of health resources to ensure that the maximum number of people are able to be nursed in acute care hospitals.

With that approach, support and the appropriate level of care will be provided to people in their own homes. The honourable member knows full well that it is misleading to run with the line that hospitals are going to close. Concentration must be given to the provision of care for those who need it. That is the target of this Government and will continue to be the target of future governments. It is not known whether hospitals will maintain their present roles. In some instances hospitals will not continue their existing roles. Some roles may be enhanced and some may be altered to more appropriate levels of care. When it is necessary for such decisions to be made they will be made. No one knows what will happen during the next 10 years. One thing certain is that governments must ensure that patients in need are given the appropriate level of care.

POLICE INTERNAL SECURITY UNIT

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I direct a question without notice to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council. I refer the Minister to a question I asked of him yesterday and ask him whether he is yet in a position to provide the House with details concerning investigations under way at present in relation to the internal police security unit.

Page 2371

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his forbearance yesterday when I left the Chamber without dealing with this matter appropriately. I thank him for asking the question again today. The answer to this question is somewhat lengthy. May I suggest that I give a brief overview of the answer and then seek leave to have the answers incorporated in Hansard rather than take up the time of the House reading them. The detailed information is important from a public point of view. It is obvious that for some time, for a variety of reasons, questions have been raised publicly about the efficacy, as it were, of the investigative skills of the internal police security unit. That unit was, quite properly, established by the previous Labor Government to deal with what might be described as the tough end of police corruption; if you like, the untouchables who were called upon to identify and deal with some of the more difficult elements of police corruption. I am sure all honourable members agree that there ought to be a tough squad that has the responsibility of dealing with police corruption. Corruption exists in all police forces throughout the world, as it exists in every form of life of which I am aware. Sometimes even ministers of religion are arrested and put in gaol.

Three matters have been the subject of public comment of late. Recently the Commissioner of Police asked for a review of the IPSU as it exists at the moment with regard to whether the unit has operated effectively. That review is now under way. I have in my possession documentation relating to that review which I shall make available for the public record. A further matter arises as a result of complaints made publicly by police officers Mr Caroutas and Mr Pentland arising out of an investigation conducted by the internal police security unit into the activities of some police officers stationed at Kings Cross police station - an operation code named "Hawkesbury". That matter has been raised publicly by Mr Caroutas in particular. Detailed explanations of the background and the present situation with regard to those matters are contained in another set of documents in my possession, which I will also make available for the public record. In more recent times there was an exposition over a number of programs of "The 7.30 Report" about a series of operations referred to as Operations Raindrop I, II and III. I shall make available also the response from the department with regard to that matter. It is worthy also of being placed on the record. I seek the leave of the House to have those documents, which do not have any co-relation but which provide some logical explanations, incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted. ______

Q. What is the nature and scope of the internal inquiry being carried out into the internal police security unit?

A. The Commissioner has presented material to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman relating to investigations conducted by the Internal Security Branch and the Internal Affairs Branch. this material details proposals which will reduce, as much as is reasonably possible, the time involved in investigations. The Page 2372 material presented also examines the task force approach to investigations and the use of intelligence within the internal police security branch.

At this time a number of internal security branch investigations, including some which have received recent publicity, are being reviewed by a senior officer from a separate command area.

Every internal investigation conducted by the police service is now conducted by way of a "Task Force" approach with set aims and incorporates regular reviews of the investigation.

Q. Who are the senior police conducting the inquiry and what are the terms of reference?

A. The Assistant Commissioner, Professional Responsibility, Mr Cole is conducting this inquiry and he will be assisted by the Commander of the internal police security branch when that person is appointed.

No formal terms of reference have been developed. Instead, as mentioned above, the review will focus on investitive and administrative procedures and the use of task forcing and intelligence.

Q. When will the inquiry report and will the report be tabled in the Parliament?

A. The review has commenced and the Assistant Commissioner, Professional Responsibility, will be reporting to the commissioner as to the progress of this review during their regular meetings.

The new commander of the internal police security unit, once appointed, will also be reviewing the functions and operational methods of that branch as an integral part of his or her formally documented duties and accountabilities.

It is not anticipated that a formal report will be prepared for tabling in the Parliament. Instead, any changes to the structure or function of the internal security branch will be made as soon as the need is identified.

______

For the information of honourable members generally, I can confirm that a complaint has been made by plainclothes Constable S. M Pentland concerning his treatment by a member of the internal police security branch, Detective Chief Inspector J. B. Murray.

As background to that complaint, I can advise honourable members that in about November 1988, acting on information received that members of the Police Service attached to the detectives office at Kings Cross police station were acting corruptly, members of the internal police security branch commenced a surveillance operation, code-named "Collector".

The operation was maintained in low key until about mid-January 1989, when further information was received concerning the conduct of the police in question. As a result, surveillance was intensified in a new operation code-named "Hawkesbury". Considerable evidence was gathered from the observations made and, of course, from other inquiries conducted by the investigating team.

In time, a number of police were arrested and charged, with departmental proceedings being instituted against several other members. The members arrested and charged were former Page 2373 Detective Sergeant Churchill who was subsequently convicted and sentenced to twelve years hard labour; plainclothes Constable "Meni" Caroutas who, as many of you would no doubt be aware, successfully defended the charges preferred against him; former Constable Irwin who pleaded guilty to four counts of "Obtain benefit by deception" and resigned from the service; Detective Senior Constable Wells and Detective Constable 1st Class Hazell both of whom are still awaiting trial and are presently suspended from duty; and, of course, Constable Pentland.

Those members charged departmentally include Detective Senior Sergeant Fowler against whom four matters were found proved and for which he was fined; Detective Sergeant D. K. Thompson who eventually received the benefit of caution; and Detective Sergeant G. Hunt who tendered his resignation before matters against him could be finalised. The question of departmental action against a number of other members of the service is still to be resolved.

In the particular case of Constable Pentland, I am advised that on 22 November last, he appeared before the central local court where the charges against him were dismissed. It is worthy to note, according to the commissioner of Police, Mr Lauer, that the officer having carriage of those proceedings, Detective Chief Inspector Murray, recommended only a charge of "Misconduct as a public officer" against the constable. It was the decision of the Director for Public Prosecutions that he should also be charged with "Supply prohibited drug", a decision the Director adhered to, notwithstanding representations by Inspector Murray, supported by his commanding officer, that he did not believe the available evidence sufficient to substantiate that particular offence.

I am further advised that Inspector Murray's views in relation to that matter and his representations to the Director of Public Prosecutions were acknowledged by the presiding magistrate.

Be that as it may, the proceedings were dismissed and Constable Pentland was immediately reinstated to duty. He had, during the period of his suspension, been in receipt of pay less, of course, allowances such as his plain clothes allowance, special spending allowance, etc.

In a report dated 25 May 1991, Constable Pentland formally complained of the actions of Inspector Murray towards him. The Constable has accused the Inspector of being deceitful, of making threats and other inducements, of intimidation, and other like behaviour during the course of his investigation. I am advised by the Commissioner that copies of Constable Pentland's allegations have been forwarded to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Ombudsman.

The last advice receive however, is that neither authority has yet determined to conduct an investigation, although in the case of the Ombudsman, he has undertaken preliminary inquiries pursuant to sections 51 and 52 of the Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act in order to determine whether formal investigation of all or part of Constable Pentland's claims should be investigated.

In relation to those inquiries,and quite rightly I believe, the Ombudsman has sought, amongst other things, an explanation from the Constable as to his reasons for waiting so long before lodging formal complaint given that the majority of events are said to have occurred in 1989. He has also inquired of the Constable whether he contested admissibility of his records-of-interview with Inspector Murray or complained to the court that they were made under duress. However, regardless of the decisions to be made by the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Ombudsman, the fact of the matter is that the Commissioner, Mr Lauer, has directed a comprehensive investigation of all of Constable Pentland's allegations. I am sure that honourable members will agree that is a most reasonable and responsible action in the circumstances.

Page 2374

Although Detective Chief Inspector Murray was medically discharged from the police service on 3rd October 1991, given his former position with the internal police security branch and notional membership of the police internal affairs branch, the commissioner made arrangements with the State Commander for Detective Superintendent Harvey, of the Drug Enforcement Agency, to conduct inquiries rather than a member of the professional responsibility command as would normally be the case. I understand that Superintendent Harvey spoke with Constable Pentland as recent as the 2nd October, 1991, with a view to arranging an interview where a formal statement of complaint might be obtained. Constable Pentland indicated that he was in the process of transcribing his contemporaneous notes of events and would be shortly available for such interview. Superintendent Harvey anticipates further contact with the constable within the next two to three weeks. Following his conversation with Constable Pentland, Superintendent Harvey was contacted the following day by Constable Caroutas who indicated that he too had similar grievances against the Internal Police Security Branch and former detective Chief Inspector Murray in particular. He requested the Detective Superintendent to undertake an examination of his claims as well as Pentland's allegations.

It is mentioned at this point that up until the present time and despite ongoing criticism in various media appearances, Constable Caroutas is yet to lodge a formal complaint in terms of the Police Regulations (Allegations of Misconduct) Act. It is understood however, that Assistance Commissioner Cole has indicated that should such a complaint be forthcoming, he will endeavour to have the Commissioner approve of Detective Superintendent Harvey conducting the necessary inquiries, as requested by the constable, in conjunction with the superintendent's examination of the Pentland allegations. Given the investigation currently being undertaken by Detective Superintendent Harvey and the likelihood of additional inquiries upon the receipt of a written complaint from Constable Caroutas, I am sure honourable members will understand that it would be inappropriate to further canvass the matter at this time. I trust however, that the advice I have been able to provide puts the matter in perspective.

______

I welcome this as an opportunity of providing some balance to recent media reports concerning investigations conducted by the Internal Police Security Branch. I should indicate however, that I do not intend to elaborate on the specific detail of operation "Raindrop" or, for that matter, any of the internal police security branch investigations that have been criticised of late. In the matter of "Raindrop", there are still appeals to be determined. Honourable members, suffice to say that some time ago now, in 1985, to be precise, police attached to the Internal Police Security Branch received information that a then inmate of Long Bay gaol, one Francis George Walters, was in possession of information of widespread police corruption. Walters was subsequently interviewed, as was his wife and other nominated witnesses, and their various allegations extensively investigated. In that regard, their allegations formed three distinct inquiries referred to as "Raindrop One", "Raindrop Two" and of course, "Raindrop Three".

At the completion of each inquiry, a "Brief of Evidence" was submitted to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for independent assessment and advice as to what action, if any, should be taken against any of the parties involved. The advisings that were subsequently received indicated that sufficient evidence existed to prefer various criminal chargers against a total of ten (10) members of the service. That advice was duly accepted, in good faith I might add, and the prosecutions launched. It is of course history now that with two exceptions, all of the police concerned were either acquitted or had the proceedings against them "no billed" after committal. The two exceptions relate to those members already mentioned as having appeals before the Court. Notwithstanding the outcome of the court proceedings and despite the dubious character of the complainant, Walters, the fact remains that member os the internal police security branch were duty bound to inquire into the claim that he was in possession of information of police corruption. To do otherwise would have been corrupt behaviour on their part.

Page 2375

When their inquires were finalised, it then became a matter for consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was not, as suggested in some media accounts, a simple matter of "throwing the police involved before the Court". The preferment of charges was not a matter reached lightly but only after very careful deliberation of all aspects including of course, the independent assessment and advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is of course, a most unfortunate aspect of the matter that proceedings took so long to finalise. However, I am sure that honourable members will appreciate that is not an aspect over which the police service and the internal police security branch in particular, has any control. For its part, the police service can only include in its submissions to the public prosecutions office a request for priority of attention in determining whether proceedings should be instituted and the possible assistance of senior and experienced counsel in that regard. That, of course, will continue to be done, although I might indicate that the Commissioner has directed a review of branch administrative procedures with a view to improving the system. Additionally, investigative processes are to be considered as part of a total professional responsibility command review.

I should mention, in the "Raindrop" matters, that the defence strongly resisted committal proceedings and it was about two years before they were actually commenced. Significantly, with the one exception, all were committed for trial. I believe it fair to also mention that the plight of those concerned could have been far worse had it not been for this Government's decision to on taking office to see, unless exceptional circumstances prevailed, that police suspended from duty continued to receive salary whilst proceedings against them were determined. Be that as it may, honourable members will no doubt be interested to learn that the screening of the recent "7.30 Report" story concerning Operation "Raindrop" has not encouraged any of the police concerned to lodge a formal complaint of any kind against any of the investigating police. In that regard, I can assure honourable members, that it was a very genuine invitation extended by Assistant Commissioner Cole when interviewed on that program for any person with any complaint to come forward so as the matter might be investigated, and investigated I might add, with independent oversight from the Ombudsman's office. Not even the producers or presenters of the program have seen fit to press their claims with any material of substance.

ARSON PENALITIES

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask a question without notice of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Given that we are facing a season of extreme fire danger and that a number of bushfires are deliberately started by irresponsible persons, does the Minister plan to increase penalties for arson? What other plans does the Minister have to combat the actions of such irresponsible persons?

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: At the beginning of every summer the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is asked the same question. Unfortunately, a number of fires in bushland in New South Wales are deliberately lit. Generally speaking they are started by one of two groups of people: young children who do not fully appreciate the significance of their irresponsible actions; and arsonists - those who take a signal from a notification that a particular day is a high-risk fire day. The Police Service and the New South Wales Fire Brigades believe that many of the fires that were started in New South Wales yesterday were lit by such people. The Crimes Act provides severe penalties for those who commit these types of offences. The penalties range up to a term of imprisonment for 15 years. That is an appropriate penalty in anyone's language. People convicted of Page 2376 murder often spend fewer years in prison. I believe that people convicted of murder are imprisoned for an average of eight years. A maximum of 15 years for offences relating to the deliberate lighting of fires seems to me to be an appropriate penalty. However, there is not necessarily contained in that penalty a complete deterrent, which is always a factor in the imposition of a penalty and the likelihood of one's being caught. It would seem self-evident from the nature of the crime that a person who slinks off into the bush with the intention of lighting a fire quietly and out of public vision does not expect to get caught. How the level of deterrent can be raised in this regard I am at a loss to know.

Another problem arises when children are involved. No doubt many fires are deliberately lit by children who play with matches. They do not realise that small fires can suddenly become large fires that destroy suburbs. Last Saturday the Volunteer Bushfire Brigade asked me to launch for it, at the Penrith Museum of Fire, a splendid training video tape for New South Wales schools. The West Side Players played the roles of various bush animals in that film. The tape was designed to teach young children not to light or cause fires and what to do if they become involved in a fire. It is an excellent product. I have no doubt that it will assist to reduce the problem of fires being started by children. I do not believe it is necessary to increase the penalties provided already in the Crimes Act. A year or two ago the penalties were increased, and I doubt that little impact would be felt if an additional five years' imprisonment were imposed. The community must be vigilant; it must keep an eye on bushland and report to police people acting suspiciously in bushland. It is a sad fact of life that as soon as the alarm goes out that a specific day is a high-fire risk day, ignorant so and so's in our community, for reasons that I cannot comprehend, go out into the bush and light fires. ______

[The President left the chair at 1 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

STANDING COMMITTEES ON SOCIAL ISSUES

Report

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [2.30]: I wish to speak on the tabling of this report to explain to the House and the community my position on this important issue. I was the person who moved the original motion in this House which referred the issue of compensation or, as it was later amended, financial assistance to people who had medically acquired HIV-AIDS. How did it come about? When the Greiner-Murray Government came to office in 1988 the former Minister for Health, Peter Collins, set up a bipartisan committee on AIDS to ensure that members of Parliament from both Houses would be knowlegeable in the area of AIDS, understand all its implications and present a bipartisan approach to this issue. The Page 2377 committee was chaired by Ron Phillips and I was deputy chairperson. We visited AIDS organisations such as ACON, hospitals and their AIDS units, hospices and the needle exchange program. All sorts of visits were organised and discussion with doctors and professionals took place.

We, the parliamentarians involved, all realised the terrible tragedy of AIDS and the terrible suffering of individuals and their families. I should point out, however, that the issue of medically-acquired HIV was not dealt with in any depth by our parliamentary group. When the issue was raised by individual members we received vague answers from the AIDS unit of the Department of Health. It appeared even at that time that the medically-acquired HIV community was invisible, or, as it was put to me, that "there was a conspiracy of silence to keep us as invisible as possible". People did not want to know about them. Some members of the gay community especially wanted them to go away. They must have felt a special responsibility to this group. I suppose the first case we all heard about through the media was that of Eve Van Grafhorst, the little girl who had to move to New Zealand with her parents to avoid the rampant discrimination in those days.

My personal experience and knowledge of the medically-acquired HIV group came when some of the HIV sufferers got in touch with me to tell me their story, to ask for some justice for their tragic circumstances - such as a family with two haemophiliac boys, both with AIDS; a mother of three children with AIDS contracted through blood transfusions; and other tragic cases. They felt that the gay community had organised itself rather well and they felt they had been forgotten. Whether it was true or not, that was their perception, and some of them felt pretty strongly about it. Their plight was pointed out in an article published on 29th June, 1989, in the Sydney Morning Herald, under the heading "AIDS: The Forgotten Ones", which read:

They feel forgotten. People who became HIV-infected through blood transfusions believe they have been left to languish. Overlooked by authorities in the provision of services and resources, and carrying the stigma of infection, they retreated into hiding. Compared with other HIV-infected groups, which are cohesive and have strong advocates for their cause, they have no political muscle and no political voice. They will not even publicly identify themselves for fear of being shunned.

Some of these people had also been in contact with Andrew Refshauge, Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for health, who called me into his office to discuss the issue. It was apparent to both of us that the medically acquired AIDS people had a claim to be considered under a special category and that such claim had at least to be investigated. A motion was prepared to refer the issue to the Standing Committee on Social Issues, which I moved in the House on 11th October, 1990. The Standing Committee on Social Issues had its first meeting in December 1990. Since then we have had numerous public hearings in Sydney, with visits to Canberra, Melbourne and Perth. Unfortunately, the inquiry was delayed by the State election in May. We heard evidence from all sorts of groups and people. I started this inquiry as I started previous inquiries - and I am sure my colleagues adopt the Page 2378 same approach - without preconceived ideas. I applied myself, as did all members of the committee, to the task before us - a sad task indeed.

One cannot be involved in an inquiry like this without being personally involved. Mr President, you were a very able chairman of the committee until recently and I know that you were very moved by the evidence you heard. AIDS is a tragedy and a terrible disease. Nobody deserves AIDS, no matter what their lifestyle is or what their circumstances are. All people with AIDS deserve proper services and support. I have concluded, however, after months of this inquiry that people with medically-acquired HIV-AIDS are a special category, and nothing and nobody will change my mind.

I believe that people who were having unsafe sex or were drug users knew they were running health risks. They took a risk and received a terrible terminal disease. They deserve our sympathy, our compassion and all the support we can give them. In the early 1980s they certainly did not know that unsafe sex or contaminated needles would give them a death sentence. But even at that time they knew they were running risks to their health. Syphilis, gonorrhoea and other venereal diseases were always risks for people who practised unsafe sex. Even in the days before the advent of HIV-AIDS dirty needles, especially when shared by intravenous drug users, contaminated their blood, causing generalised infection or septicaemia and consequent damage to vital organs and debilitated health, possibly even death. These people could definitely be categorised as engaging in high-risk behaviour.

But with medically acquired HIV cases we are talking about a category of people who went to a hospital, a public hospital, for a medical procedure which in many cases, especially in mild haemophiliacs, was not absolutely necessary - people who received a death sentence from a public hospital or the blood bank through blood transfusions, operations or by artificial insemination. It is only recently that some of these cases have come to light because there has been a conspiracy of silence so as not to give cause to people who are homophobic to become even more so. This is understandable and I can share the concern of the gay community that we should not give comfort to the bigots. These medically acquired AIDS victims have suffered a terrible injustice, yet we are supposed to keep it quiet; we are supposed not to recognise this fact or denounce this injustice so that bigoted people do not become more homophobic.

Two wrongs added together cannot possibly result in a right. A conspiracy of silence should not be allowed to obstruct the working of justice. I am sorry if my support of medically- acquired HIV sufferers gives comfort to any bigots in our community, but I want to state clearly my position. Medically-acquired HIV sufferers are a special category. They are entitled to financial assistance from this Government. That is why I supported the majority report. I formed that opinion after listening for months to evidence, reading dozens of submissions and transcripts from various courts and listening to medical experts and many others. Medically Page 2379 acquired HIV sufferers have been recognised as a special category by the Government of the United Kingdom, where the Macfarlane Trust was set up, similar in nature to the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust. They were recognised as a special category in Japan, Austria, France, Switzerland and other countries. Those countries cannot all be wrong.

The Canadian Government has granted $Can120,000 per person for the 1,250 Canadian medically-acquired HIV sufferers. The Canadian Minister for Health and Welfare, Perrin Beatty, in granting the financial assistance, said, "I sincerely hope that this assistance from the people of Canada will bring a significant measure of peace of mind and hope to those who will receive it". What a compassionate and humane attitude. How different it is from the attitude of the Australian Government. The Western Australian Government has spent roughly $250,000 a person, and I am led to believe that the South Australian Government will settle claims out of court in the near future. New South Wales has been able to identify only 224 medically-acquired HIV sufferers, but the Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service estimates that up to a further 100 people may have medically-acquired HIV. It would seem from those figures that we are talking about a minimum of 260 and a maximum of 340 sufferers. For the purposes of the inquiry it was agreed that an average figure of 300 people might be the best estimate.

What has been the attitude of our Federal Government on this important issue? It has had a schizophrenic attitude to the matter and has failed miserably in giving leadership. It has behaved in a disgraceful way. After years of lobbying by the Haemophilia Society the Australian Government set up the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust with a grant of $13 million for the whole of Australia. The strict guidelines of the trust enable people to receive only a few thousand dollars a year, plus $25,000 after they die. Dr Neal Blewett is responsible for that scandal. It was he as Minister for Health who insisted that all people be treated the same because, according to him, they are the same. Dr Blewett failed or did not want to understand that people do not wish to be lumped together. The mode of acquiring the disease is important to them, and whether one likes it or not they are not the same. Non-homosexuals do not want to be put into the same category as homosexuals. It might be prejudiced and unfair, but it is a reality. Even Dr Blewett must agree because when his sexuality was questioned by a well- known doctor, he sued him and the matter was settled out of court. Why did Dr Blewett sue the doctor if the imputation he made did not matter? After all, Dr Blewett had said, "Everybody is the same".

One of the members of this Parliament tells everyone, whether they are interested or not, that he is a homosexual. If that member was told that he was a heterosexual, what would be his response? He would probably say, "No, I am not heterosexual; I am homosexual". If that goes for him, it goes also in the reverse. People who are heterosexual do not want to be called homosexual. I can assure honourable members that it matters to the medically-acquired HIV people that they not be called homosexuals; it matters that their sexuality not be linked with their disease. They want people to know that they have acquired AIDS through medical Page 2380 procedures. They do not want to be taken to be drug users. They are not drug users, and they want the whole world to know that. What is wrong with their wanting the truth to be known? Why should they be denied that right after they have received a death sentence through a public utility? These people are angry, and they have reason to be.

In the early 1980s many people in the gay community used the blood bank as an anonymous testing place for syphilis and hepatitis B. Mr Adam Carr of the Victorian AIDS Council admitted that on "The 7.30 Report" on Australian Broadcasting Corporation television. In 1983 and 1984 well documented evidence was produced - and I could go through it in great detail if I had the time - that there was knowledge of the dangers of blood transfusion in transmitting AIDS. I invite honourable members to read a document prepared by Robert and Lynette Hatch, dated 22nd February, which gives an accurate chronology of the knowledge of the disease from the Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta. The document is entitled "AIDS medically-acquired death sentence", and I should be happy to supply a copy to any honourable member who wishes to read it. All the evidence presented to Justice Wilcox in the HKS trial definitely shows knowledge of the dangers of blood transfusions. It is true that there were no tests available, but there was overwhelming evidence that some high-risk groups should not give blood.

In April 1983 Dr Archer of the blood bank was well aware from evidence from overseas that there was a serious problem with the blood supply because of AIDS. As there was no way of screening blood because of the lack of a suitable test he decided that the blood bank could screen the donors. In May 1983 "at risk" donors were requested by the blood bank to self- exclude. That brought down upon Dr Archer the wrath of the people in the homosexual community. The blood bank in Clarence Street was picketed for a time. A pamphlet entitled "Ban the Bigots and not the Blood" was distributed. Later the ban was withdrawn. After consultation with the Federal Government, the AIDS Council, and the privacy committee the ban was reintroduced, but this time only homosexuals who had multiple partners were to self- exclude. The term multiple partners was left to individuals to judge. Did it mean two, three, 20 or 100 partners? Even homosexuals were confused about what multiple partners really meant. It was another year and a half before all homosexuals were banned from donating blood. I wonder how many people became infected in that period. Does anyone feel responsible for what happened, for the injustice, the negligence and the pandering to the gay groups?

I realise it is easy to be wise in hindsight, but I should like to know how many people were given a death sentence because of the insensitivity of some members of the gay community. Let it be a lesson to us all that it is always better to err on the side of caution. I have brought this matter to the attention of the House because it is important to learn these lessons. We have to learn from such mistakes, otherwise we are condemned to repeat them in the future. One would think after all the events I have just described that the spokespeople of the gay community would support, or at least not oppose, the giving of financial assistance to people suffering Page 2381 from medically-acquired human immunodeficiency virus, but the spokespeople of the gay community, and those in ACON especially, do not support financial assistance. They refuse to believe that the medically-acquired group represents a special case. However, I have received letters from gay people who have given me comfort and assured me that they support financial assistance. As often happens, spokespeople speak only for themselves.

In short, the spokespeople of the gay community, the ACON people, believe that to emphasise that those suffering from medically-acquired HIV are a special case would reflect badly on the gay community as a whole. That is true of the militant members of the gay community in New South Wales. Yet in Western Australian the president of the local AIDS council, as the chairperson, the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith mentioned earlier, told the committee that members of the council did not oppose financial assistance and had words of affection and sympathy for the medically-acquired HIV community. The gay lobby is a powerful, well-organised, vocal and forceful lobby. Earlier the House heard a nonsense argument that the power of the gay lobby is due to gender. The overwhelming number of haemophiliacs who are dying of AIDS are male. That does not make them a peaceful group. That is one of the silly arguments that is put forward sometimes when people have not thought their proposition through. It is legitimate that the gay community should have a lobby group and I do not criticise them for that. As I said, the gay lobby is a powerful one. I am not here to criticise the gay lobby but I mention it so that a comparison may be made with a small, relatively unheard of and unsupported group of medically-acquired HIV sufferers.

On the one hand we have a large and powerful lobby group. On the other hand we have approximately 300 people who are not well organised or vocal, and who do not live together in one or two suburbs of Sydney but are dispersed all around New South Wales. They have not marched through the streets of Sydney or held demonstrations outside Parliament House. For the most part they have suffered in silence, unheard and unknown. This small group of sufferers should also have the right to demand the justice that they should rightly have received in the courts of this land. Let us examine the possibility of these cases being heard in court. If only 10 per cent of the cases went to court, it would still take years before they were heard. I remind the House that these people do not have years of life left to them in which to wait for their verdicts to be handed down by our unwieldy and slow court system. They need help right now while they are still alive. I ask honourable members to look at the constant headlines in the newspapers. I do not want to take too much time so I merely refer to two of them - "Some Cannot Afford to Plead Not Guilty" and "The Price of Justice". Each day spent in court costs thousands of dollars. Today's Sydney Morning Herald contained an article headlined "The High Cost of Lawyers". One Queen's Counsel in this State has made more than $1,500,000 from presiding over one case. As I said, these cases will involve millions and millions of dollars spent on lawyers and expert witnesses.

For that reason the majority of the committee believed that a settlement out of court and a reasonable ex gratia payment would avoid the costs and trauma of a court case. This settlement presented to Parliament will not avoid these legal Page 2382 actions. I am sure a more generous settlement would have been acceptable to all. I pushed for such a settlement but I was defeated by the majority.

If there is one thing to be learned from the inquiry, it is that there are no black and white issues. There are many complex issues. As members of Parliament, the committee members had to decide whether those with medically-acquired HIV were a special case and had a special entitlement to Government funds. Other speakers have referred to other special cases deserving of financial assistance from the Government. That may be the case and I can certainly think of one group, the Chelmsford people. Indeed, there are other special cases and other innocent victims. When I say that, I do not mean to imply that some people are guilty. Innocent sufferers of medically-acquired HIV cannot be granted financial assistance without people jumping up and down and saying, "So some people are guilty". I do not believe anyone is guilty of contracting AIDS or other illnesses. It is a stupid assumption for people to make.

I have concluded that we as a community have a special obligation to this group. I believe also that we have an obligation to provide appropriate and adequate services to all HIV- AIDS sufferers, no matter how they contracted this terrible disease. All people with this terrible illness should receive appropriate and suitable services and I support the recommendation of the committee in that regard. I repeat that we certainly have an obligation to provide financial assistance to this group who acquired AIDS through public instrumentalities. I cannot help thinking of a case of a male haeomophiliac who contracted AIDS and is now dying. He has been unable to obtain life insurance or superannuation because of the disease. When he dies his wife and children will be destitute except for a small grant from the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust and the financial assistance offered by the committee if, and I repeat if, the recommendations of the committee are accepted by the Government.

Financial assistance is given for all sorts of tragedies. As a community we rally round people who survive such tragedies. For example, after the recent Strathfield massacre an appeal was launched by Paul Zammit, the honourable member for Strathfield. I have his press release, which I will not take the trouble to read in full but which says the community and the Government will assist. Yesterday the Leader of the Government in this House spoke about bushfires and the Minister for Health and Community Services jumped up straight away and said there would be assistance and support for the victims of the fires. But there is nothing for the victims of AIDS.

The medically-acquired HIV group has suffered a catastrophe of immense proportions which will take their lives. All the committee was able to do for these people was to offer paltry financial assistance. I have supported the package, even though it is grossly inadequate, because I believed it was all that could be achieved with majority support of the committee. I apologise to the medically-acquired HIV community for the paltry sums but, as I said, that is all we could achieve with majority support. I should have liked a more just and generous package for these Page 2383 people, a package they would have accepted in lieu of going to court. The Government will now have to face not only the legal costs of court cases but also the operational cost of forcing these people to go to court to receive justice. It was explained to the committee during the inquiry that haematologists and other specialists, nurses and hospital professionals are leaving this area of medicine in droves because they do not want to face their patients in court. They do not want to be tied up in legal proceedings which will last for years. I again apologise to the medically-acquired HIV community for not having been able to do better for them. I hope they will receive justice through the legal system, though when one looks at headlines such as one which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald last August - "Courts in Crisis, Says Senior Judge" - one wonders how long it will be before they receive justice.

These people have been threatened with the withdrawal of legal aid. One wonders how many of them will still be alive when their cases get to court. People in the Government will say, "We could not afford more generous assistance", but this usual cry from governments, Federal and State, "Where is the Money to Come From?" is put to rest by some of the figures I should like to quote. The Federal Government expended $91 million on an embassy in China. That figure was a blowout from the $50 million quoted in 1984. The embassy includes a pool, squash courts and recreational facilities. Australia's annual aid to Papua New Guinea amounts to $325 million. That figure is contained in Neal Bluett's Budget Papers. The State Government paid $60 million as compensation to the egg farmers and spent $36 million on an abandoned casino project at Darling Harbour, which it now wants to build after all. The financial commitment to the Eastern Creek raceway is $82 million, or is it $91 million? One never knows, the figure keeps increasing. The money can be found if the will is there to find it. The medically-acquired HIV community has not asked for financial gain, as was put to the committee by a witness hostile to financial assistance. I hope she reads the committee transcript and feels ashamed of herself. The medically-acquired HIV community asks only for justice.

One of the great ethics of this country that I have taken a real liking to - to me it is very important - is giving a person a fair go. As Australians we feel very proud of this. I submit that the medically acquired HIV people in this State have not been given a fair go in the past and have not received a fair go from this inquiry. We can only hope that they will receive a fair go from the courts of this land. This seems to be the only avenue open to them. However, the Government could disregard the paltry amount suggested by the committee and liaise with the people themselves to settle on a reasonable amount without going to court. Above all, I suggest to the Minister that the amount agreed be paid in a lump sum and not by instalments, creating another costly bureaucracy. I wish this small community well. I have come to know many of them personally and I admire them for their courage and fortitude. I appeal to the Minister for Health and Community Services, the Premier and the Cabinet to ensure that the Government gives a prompt response to the report. These people deserve at least that. I shall conclude by quoting what was said by Mr and Mrs Hatch at the end of their their document:

Page 2384

My wife has just made a comment which I believe is interesting:

"Is that all you have got?"

I commented, "Yes, that's it."

She replied, "You haven't got much on Australia!"

I replied, "That's right, nothing happened in Australia until May 1985, and by then it was all too late. I don't expect the standing committee's enquiry in Medically Acquired AIDS will change anything, to me it's just a charade, so the Government can say, `We did all we could'."

Let us prove them wrong. For heaven's sake, let us prove that they can trust the parliamentary committee and the Government. Their comments may appear cynical to some but Mr and Mrs Hatch have suffered a lot. They lost a young son, Martin. It must have been a terrible time. I extend to them all my sympathy and understanding. I hope that Mr and Mrs Hatch, Lorraine Cibilic, Doug Johnson, Kevin Foster and all my other friends will be proved wrong by the Government and that justice will be done to them and to the medically-acquired HIV community.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [3.3]: I support the motion and register my support for the majority decision reached by the committee after long and, at times, painful deliberation. I commend the chairman of the committee Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith for her patience and perseverance in trying to come to a satisfactory solution of difficult issues. I add my commendations to the staff - Miss Evans and Mr Pooley - who I think has been listening to the debate this afternoon, and to other members of the committee who may at times have seemed to debate the issues very fiercely yet were putting forth views which they held very deeply and seriously. If I could say only one thing in the debate this afternoon I would join with the Hon. Franca Arena in calling on the Minister for Health and Community Services to consider the report with the urgency which is appropriate in all the circumstances surrounding the inquiry and in the circumstances of the people considered in the inquiry.

Mr President, as you and other members of the House are aware, I was appointed to the committee only after the election in May this year. Therefore, I might well be said to have come late to the deliberations of the committee. I thought that was a tremendous disadvantage because the other members had been exposed to the evidence brought forward and had direct contact with witnesses, which is an important part of any committee deliberation. Yet there were some advantages. I hope that I have been able to overcome the disadvantages of starting late. I certainly put a lot of effort into studying all the submissions available to me and consulting with the staff of the committee and my colleagues to ensure that my perspective could take advantage of the earlier evidence. The advantage I spoke of was in being able for a moment at least to poise above the obvious conflict of views evident in the committee and to try to reach a judgment on the issues before us. I do not say this in any pejorative way but I think the views of the members of the committee were Page 2385 polarised. They were subjective in many ways. Again, I do not say that in any derogatory way. As I said earlier, those views were deeply and very sincerely held by those on both sides of the spectrum.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: I think it is improper of you to deduce the basis for our decisions on the matter.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: Those who very strongly advocated substantial compensation -

The Hon. Ann Symonds: On what basis do you say they were subjective? You made a broad statement.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I think they were subjective and I do not think there is anything that any member should take umbrage about in that statement. There is nothing wrong with people coming on to a committee having a preconceived view and looking at the evidence with natural emotions and personal senses of what is believed to be just and proper. After all, this is a committee of the Parliament, in which widely diverse views are represented. As I said, I think the views were sincerely held and subjective.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: It is improper of you to talk about preconceived notions.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I will try to continue with the theme because time is short and it is most important that we hear from as many as possible on the gravamen of the subject. In concluding on that point I concede to the Hon. Ann Symonds and to others who have spoken and to those who will speak that I respect the sincerity with which they approached the subject although I have described their views as on occasions being subjective. It caused me great anguish and soul searching to go through the evidence to come to my conclusion. Without fear of contradiction I say that I sought with utmost diligence a proposal that satisfied a number of essential criteria: equity and justice; a rational justification for the recommendations; a relationship to social mores; and compatibility with public policies as we perceive them. Most particularly, our recommendations should reflect true compassion at least equal to that given to other examples considered by the committee.

It is a shame that in debating the report today some members have tried to have a rerun of the views that were expressed in the committee decisions rather than concentrating on the present situation. Considerations have taken place; the report has been tabled and is on the public record. Those who dissent from the report have given their reasons. All we need to do now is to combine to urge the Government to give the matter urgent consideration to resolve it. Even extension of the debate beyond today would be a sad outcome because many people in the community, to whom other speakers have referred, have built up expectations and are entitled at Page 2386 least to some finality in this matter because of the extreme significance of the time factor.

I respect the fact that the Hon. Ann Symonds held her views so strongly and felt moved today to justify the position she took, which is set out in the report, but regrettably some of the arguments she put forward this morning, I believe, were erroneous and deserve some mention. Once again it was sad to hear the argument about trying to equate the financial assistance to those affected with medically-acquired AIDS to some sort of compensation. I am sure that honourable members are aware of the occasion during a media interview when I, unaware of a decision by the committee not to speak to the media, said that the committee at that stage was particularly anxious not to supplant the courts in the determination of such matters as compensation or to be in any way judgmental about whether one group of HIV sufferers were right or wrong. That was the point I made then, and as I said, I am sorry that was not an appropriate occasion, but it certainly guided me throughout all our considerations.

To suggest that the report - and by inference those who supported the majority decision - was an attack on homosexual males, that in some way it was judgmental in its nature about people's sexual preferences, is absolute rubbish and has no basis in fact. The Hon. Ann Symonds suggested that the committee tried to reach some sort of a legal settlement, that it set aside all considerations and merely tried to find some economically efficient deal to prevent further litigation. I should like to place on record that that proposal was firmly rejected by the majority of the committee and it was not a consideration in determining the financial assistance package. It was suggested also that in some way the committee or committee members were motivated by some sort of furtive view that negligence on the part of hospital authorities and the blood bank was a factor. Again I reject that concept out of hand and I challenge the Hon. Ann Symonds, who said that was contained in the reasons annexed to the report, to read these again.

The Hon. Ann Symonds said that the consideration of equating the experience of those unfortunate people to a natural catastrophe - which finally brought the majority decision into being - was rejected by the committee. Again I refute that claim. The system of payment that was discussed and which often goes hand-in-hand with calamity responses by the Government was rejected. I believe if one were to try to tie together the matters that finally persuaded the majority to recommend this financial assistance, one would reach the conclusion that it was because they recognised that these people had experienced what would be fairly judged by most people in the community as an incredibly deep and quite awful catastrophe in their lives and the lives of people around them. I challenge those who are now so self-righteous about the idea that this is discriminatory to state why this issue was not brought up at the time the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust was established by the Federal Government. Why are they not banner waving and carrying flags in Western Australia against the settlement? Why are they not trying to incite people in the Page 2387 United Kingdom and other countries that have been mentioned to overturn what they see as an oppressive and unconscionable decision?

A suggestion was made that in some way committee members were admitting that the blood supply in New South Wales was guaranteed to be 100 per cent safe and that we recognised that this degree of safety had been breached. I reject that suggestion entirely. All the dangers inherent in the blood supply were acknowledged by the committee and I am sure that committee members accepted that the operations of the blood bank and the Department of Health had been carefully considered by courts. In the judgment that was quoted this morning there was never any suggestion that the response should be based on neglect or failure in duty, but that it was merely a response to common humanity, looking after people who were suffering during their lifetime when coping with a very difficult disease. It cannot be reinforced often enough that the questions of guilt and innocence were not considered by the committee.

On another side of the spectrum honourable members heard a powerful evocation from the Hon. Franca Arena, as did the committee from the many witnesses who gave evidence. They are to be commended for the way in which they have advocated what they so solemnly believe. In considering this report we need to remember that our responsibility in this case does not arise from a breach of duty of care. The majority of the committee rejected firmly the solution that was reached in Western Australia as being an inappropriate basis for responding to these people, that is, some cynical way of avoiding further litigation. If there is to be a payment, it must be based on other factors and we believe they were identified. I would be willing to debate whether or not the amount of money was adequate. I believe that falls into a different area. I hope the Government will sympathetically consider that issue and perhaps augment what the committee recommended.

As I said, the committee considered carefully the evidence taken, and we recognise that it has been considered carefully by the courts. Committee members made a conscious decision not to attempt to determine the rights of those individuals to seek judicial determination. I am sorry, as are many other members, that the cost of justice in this State, in the Commonwealth, and in so many other countries, is so high but I do not believe the committee could deal with that issue. It is one of those sad facts of modern life. I wish court cases could be less costly. However, that was not the consideration of the committee. In all the circumstances the recommendations that we have brought forward should be endorsed by this House and, I hope, embraced and carefully considered by the Government.

The Hon. K. J. ENDERBURY [3.18]: By way of introduction I wish to quote the summary of the report. In part that summary reads:

The emergence and spread of the HIV virus into the world and Australian community has had devastating consequences at an international, national and personal level for many, many thousands of people. Committee Members, after some nine months of investigation, now Page 2388 have considerably greater understanding of the huge individual, social, emotional, administrative and indeed financial implications of this epidemic. It is a tragedy of epic proportions.

I think I speak for other committee members in saying that we were all moved by the many people in tragic circumstances who gave evidence - the victims and the close relatives and friends of those victims. They are indeed tragic cases. It was not an inquiry that committee members could say they enjoyed. It was a task that we had to perform, and it was a difficult task. I pay tribute to all members of the committee despite the fact that there are differences in the conclusions and the recommendations of individual committee members. I am satisfied that members of the committee reached their own conclusions according to their own conscience. We were certainly not motivated by political considerations. The report and its different recommendations crossed party lines. In the services section of the report it is stated:

The Committee also recognised that all people with HIV, and indeed, all people with terminal illnesses have many needs in common. The Committee was not able to address all these issues within its Terms of Reference, but in view of the considerable information received on these needs, felt that some recommendations were relevant to all people with HIV, not just the medically-acquired group.

The committee believes that all people with HIV should have access to comprehensive health and welfare services of a high quality.

The members of the committee were unanimously of the view that the quality of services to all HIV victims should be improved. I hope that the Government will implement expeditiously, if not all, certainly the majority of the committee's recommendations, which will improve the quality of health care and services to all AIDS victims. I and one or two other members of the committee had some difficulty with the terms of reference. Each reference begins with the word "whether" and contains the conclusion that medically-acquired HIV patients are a distinct group. I have difficulty with what I describe as loaded questions; that is, questions that contain a conclusion. My conscience would not allow me to accept terms that contain a conclusion I did not accept. Throughout my life and my political career I have been a strong advocate of anti-discrimination, whether it be in relation to age, sex, religion or race. The majority decision of the committee, is in my view, discriminatory. I say that with some misgivings because I acknowledge fully the suffering of those who gave evidence before the committee. The committee heard of the discrimination of AIDS victims generally when they are treated in hospitals; when medical and hospital staffs have shown discrimination in many ways. My heart goes out to those suffering people. They are suffering not only from a disease that in the majority of cases results in a death sentence for the victims but also from the effects of community discrimination generally as they go through life. That is an additional burden for them. All AIDS victims, however, are similarly burdened, not only those in the medically- acquired group.

The overwhelming majority of people with medically-acquired HIV have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep secret the fact that they are suffering from a disease. Though few have provided concrete evidence in this regard, there is a definite belief Page 2389 that, if they make their condition known publicly, they will be subjected to discrimination of one kind or another. I have often heard it said that the members of this group are innocent victims. I reject that claim because it implies that other victims are in some way guilty. Implicit in the claim that one group is innocent is the suggestion that another is not innocent, and I cannot accept that.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: No one has said that in your report.

The Hon. K. J. ENDERBURY: I did not say it was in my report. I said that it has been claimed publicly, and I stand by that.

The Hon. Franca Arena: By whom?

The Hon. K. J. ENDERBURY: I shall not name names. The honourable member is as capable of reading newspapers as I am. I reject the reference to innocent victims. So far as the financial assistance package is concerned the report states:

What can be stated with certainty is that the HIV virus itself does not discriminate on the basis of how it was acquired. The profound and long-term suffering is tragic for all HIV positive people, and as such the demands on the financial resources and personal support of the family are substantial regardless of the mode of transmission.

A woman in her evidence to the committee said that she had had a relationship over a period of 18 months with a man who did not know he had AIDS. The virus was passed on to her. Subsequently she married another man and had a child by that man. Their child has AIDS but it cannot receive compensation. Is that not discriminatory against the child? Another difficulty arises with regard to those who acquire the virus from other accidental means; for example, people coming into contact with AIDS-infected blood at the scene of a traffic accident. Under the recommendations of the majority view of the committee, those who acquire the virus in those circumstances would not be entitled to compensation. So far as I am concerned all victims of AIDS are innocent victims. The committee received evidence that in the years 1982 to 1985 the community did not have the benefit of the safe sex campaign. Though people are aware today of unsafe sex practices, they were not aware of them in that period. I cannot accept that because they were not aware of safe sex practices they are in any way guilty. The dissenting opinion states:

It is unacceptable to help one community with financial assistance to the exclusion of other medically acquired groups when all of these groups are "victims" of "ordinary risks" that cannot be avoided and where there is no action for damages because there is no negligence. Many people suffer injustice from actions for which they remain uncompensated . . . Ultimately, there can be no justification for the Government to treat people with medically acquired HIV differently from other people with HIV and people with other medically acquired diseases. Financial assistance should be based on compassion and need rather than on a moral judgment that these people are in a unique situation.

My personal wish is that financial assistance be made available to all AIDS sufferers and to those who accidentally contract deadly diseases, if that is at all possible. Page 2390 Alas, that is not possible. Therefore, I cannot discriminate in favour of one exclusive group. I close with the following words of Abraham Lincoln:

I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition but to assist in ameliorating mankind - I am for those means which will give the greatest good to the greatest number.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.27]: In the time that remains I wish to place on the public record the fact that I approached the terms of reference of the committee with an open mind. I pose the question: Should members who do not accept the terms of reference of their committee remain members of the committee? The House may have to decide on that matter on some future occasion should the need arise. As a member of the committee I was seeking justice for those absolutely innocent victims of AIDS. I am not frightened of using the word "innocent". These victims are innocent. When they decided to form themselves into an organisation they called themselves IDSIA - immune deficiency syndrome innocently acquired. They were not making any moral judgment; they knew they were innocent. If others say they are innocent, that is their business and they can make that claim if they wish. The organisation has changed its name to TRAIDS - transfusion related AIDS victims. They belong to a unique group. They were infected directly by the New South Wales public health system. The health service, Federal and State Ministers, the Federal and State health departments, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory and the New South Wales Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service were negligent.

The AIDS virus was allowed into the Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service because of the fear of upsetting and alienating the well-organised homosexual lobby in Sydney. The outrageous and irresponsible decision was made that homosexuals could continue to give blood if they declared that they did not have multiple partners. As a result, contaminated blood got into the transfusion service system. Though Dr Archer and others recognised the problem, they were intimidated by the anti-discrimination laws at that time and the well-organised vocal homosexual lobby. That is the final irony and injustice for the innocent AIDS victims. They deserve far more generous financial assistance than has been recommended by the committee. My dissenting opinion is printed in each chapter of the report. I support in principle, however, the approach of the Labor Government in Western Australia in showing true compassion, true generosity and true understanding of justice, and its truly adequate solution. I commend the Minister for Health and the Government in Western Australia for taking that courageous step.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to the resolution of the House, time has expired for debate of this matter this day.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by the Hon. J. P. Hannaford agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until tomorrow at 9 a.m.

Page 2391 PROCUREMENT OF MISCARRIAGE LIMITATION BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12th September.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [3.33]: I am pleased to conclude my second reading speech on the important pro-life Procurement of Miscarriage Limitation Bill, which will close the abortion clinics which provide thousands of abortions on demand. The bill will save thousands of unborn babies in New South Wales. I will give further evidence of the dangerous health procedures and irresponsible counselling policies in New South Wales abortion clinics such as Dr Brodie's abortion clinic at Randwick which went before the court in May 1990. Dr Brodie's counsellor, whom I will call Miss M, a police witness, under cross-examination volunteered that approximately 98 per cent of women who attended the clinic and undertook counselling had an abortion. She only counselled women for emotional well-being. She testified that anyone who she thinks is in physical danger will actually see the doctor and he then makes the decision. Miss M, a trained nurse, had done a three-month part-time counsellor's course at the Preterm Abortion Clinic. She had no other qualifications in counselling. She had previously worked at Preterm. She had also done a nurse practitioner course at the Family Planning Association and she still worked part-time for the FPA.

I will refer later to the incestuous relationship between the Family Planning Association and abortion clinics. Miss M was one of six part-time counsellors at Dr Brodie's abortion clinic. Only one of the counsellors had any formal qualification in psychology. Miss M claimed that the other abortion counsellors and herself seek neither to dissuade these women from abortion nor to persuade them to have an abortion. She said, "We leave it entirely up to them". She agreed it was her duty to come to a conclusion as to whether or not, if the pregnancy was to continue, the particular girl would suffer from an adverse psychological condition. Miss M emphasised that the decision to abort or to continue with the pregnancy was the woman's, not hers. It was her function to make the recommendation to the doctor. She claimed that based on her experience 98 per cent of women with unwanted or unplanned pregnancies had an emotional instability which justified an abortion. It was left to Miss M, the counsellor, not to the doctor, who simply acted as an abortionist. From this evidence it was clear that the test being applied by Miss M breaches the law summarised in the judgment of Mr Justice Mahoney in Grafton v. Smart and implicates her as an accomplice in abortion on demand, which is criminal, punishable in each case by up to 10 years' gaol.

Clearly Miss M's abortion counselling, using the training she has had at Preterm, is not directed at assisting a woman's long-term psychological state, which may be damaged by post- abortion syndrome, but merely acts as a buffer for the abortionists in effect rubber-stamping the decision the pregnant woman has already made to have an abortion, and not allowing the abortionist to have direct contact with Page 2392 the woman, except for the surgery, thus freeing him or her to use his or her time earning high fees aborting even more women, and protecting him or her from incrimination in the possible but unlikely circumstance of a police investigation or civil action if the woman is injured. Most honourable members would agree that there are far too many abortions in this State. By far the most lucrative service offered by abortion clinics is abortion. There is far more money in abortion than in providing contraceptives which patients can easily get from their own doctors or from the Family Planning Association.

The abortionist therefore relies on a high turnover of abortion patients for his or her income. To start rejecting patients would attract adverse publicity, so there is considerable pressure to breach the law by performing abortion on demand. Abortionists like Dr Brodie and Dr Dov Richter at Lane Cove have worked sessions at Preterm and also set up their own clinics to make more money from doing more abortions. It is nonsense to say that these so-called non-profit making companies are not geared for them to make lucrative incomes. Contrast this with visiting medical officers and registrars in public hospitals. Specialist gynaecologists and obstetricians carry out many surgical procedures. They make no more money from abortion than from any other services they perform. There is therefore no financial incentive to carry out abortion on demand in contrast to full-time abortionists. Visiting medical officers and registrars would normally consult directly with their patients. They would normally discuss their patients' symptoms and problems, informing them of the various options available. Hospital social workers would act similarly.

This is quite different from the practice of abortionists and their counsellors. Doctors normally act in what they see as the best interests of their patients. Most abortionists have little contact with their patient, except for the surgery. A woman does not need referral to a clinic - she can just walk in off the street. Consider pregnant women who travel for an abortion from the South Pacific, New Zealand, or even interstate. They spend a lot of money getting here. They would incur further expense with accommodation. To refuse them abortions would lead to upset patients and adverse publicity among potential clients and referral agencies in the future. With New South Wales doing more than 45 per cent of the total number of abortions the subject of Medicare benefits, the unavoidable inference is that New South Wales abortion clinics which perform the vast majority of abortions are practising illegal abortion on demand. Former Premier Barrie Unsworth once lamented that "Sydney is the abortion capital of the South Pacific". I urge honourable members to vote for the bill and remove that disgraceful reputation from our beautiful city.

As was recently confirmed by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in its judgment in a case called X and Y v. Powell delivered on 3rd May, 1991, any doctor with a pregnant woman as a patient really has two patients, the woman and her unborn baby. Highly-trained obstetrician gynaecologists managing expectant mothers are well aware of this responsibility. If they act negligently in their handling of either the mother or the unborn child and damage occurs, they know they may be Page 2393 liable for damages. Abortionists also have expectant mothers as patients - they kill the second patient, the unborn child. If they fail in their abortion and children are born deformed by their negligence, they too face an action for damages. So their inclination is to kill as efficiently as possible so as to remove this threat to them. Honourable members would have noticed that leading spokespersons for the retention of abortion clinics are directors of the New South Wales Family Planning Association. Margaret McDonald, the chief executive officer of the FPA, who has been an executive member of the Abortion Rights Coalition, refuses to recognise the clear conflict of interest. She stated in the 1989 FPA annual report that claims that the FPA was "an agent for abortion services were patently absurd as our whole history is one of prevention by advocating access to contraception and sexuality education".

Is there a clear distinction between the FPA and abortion services? Wearing one hat the FPA claims it promotes contraception to the exclusion of abortion, but wearing the other hat it argues passionately in favour of abortion clinics and abortion. Why are so many of the FPA directors and members of the FPA advisory boards and committees closely linked with abortion clinics? For example, Miss Sue King, the FPA treasurer since 1987 and a board member since 1984, is on the payroll of the Preterm Abortion Clinic and is one of the main apologists for abortion clinics. She was a founding member and past-president of the Abortion Rights Coalition. She has a vested interest in keeping abortion clinics open. She is financially supported by abortion. Dr Chris Harmston is the medical director of the Preterm Abortion Clinic and an abortionist. Dr Susan Hepburn, is a former medical director at the Preterm Abortion Clinic and is an abortionist. Dr Edith Weisberg, the medical director, is a former Director of the Preterm abortion Clinic. Dr Stefania Siedlecky, a founding staff member of Leichhardt Women's Centre which performed abortions, was employed by Preterm Abortion Clinic.

Other FPA staff members are directors of the Bessie Smyth Abortion Clinic at Homebush and the Westmed Abortion Clinic at Westmead. The New South Wales FPA showed its pro-abortion zeal by joining in a pro-abortion amicus curiae brief arranged by the American Civil Liberties Union in the highly publicised United States Supreme Court Webster case in 1989. Mrs McDonald, in an FPA staff bulletin, encouraged FPA staff to make their pro- abortion views known to Federal politicians to counter the anti-abortionists who are flooding the Parliament with letters. The March 1990 FPA staff bulletin carried a prominent advertisement for an abortionist to work one day a week at the Bessie Smyth Abortion Clinic, the work largely consisting of: "Performing suction curettage terminations under local anaesthetic up to 12 weeks LMP. Training in surgical technique is provided at the clinic over several weeks". The FPA is extremely sensitive to such attacks, but despite FPA president Jan Aitken's letter to honourable members earlier this year, the fact remains that the FPA, which is financed mainly by taxpayers' funds, is a strong ally of abortion clinics and unconvincing in its claim to have prevented more abortions than any other single group.

Despite substantial increases in government funding of the FPA, the number of abortions continues to increase. In 1989-90 the FPA in New South Wales Page 2394 received $3,442,010 for clinical services plus 6.9 per cent, and $273,230 plus 6.6 per cent for educational services from the Federal Government. The New South Wales Government contributed a total of $562,400 towards education and training in Sydney. In June FPA received initial funding of $142,000 from the New South Wales Government to set up a centre in Fairfield for women of non-English speaking background. I have mentioned the association between Sue King and Margaret McDonald with the Abortion Rights Coalition. The president of that body wrote to members of this House on 8th August in opposition to the bill. Among the inaccuracies contained in that letter was the claim that the New South Wales Government would be faced with huge additional expenditure if it were to provide the required abortion services. An attached document claimed that the cost of 40,000 abortions if carried out in public hospitals would be approximately $43 million. That outrageous statement is based on the fallacy that all women would incur a bed cost of 24 to 36 hours.

First, we expect that the bill will significantly reduce the number of women having abortions because doctors in hospitals would not be willing to flout the law - as, clinic, abortionists do - and practise abortion on demand. Second, most abortions are performed in the first trimester and do not require a bed cost of 24 to 36 hours. As in clinics, women having first trimester abortions would be required to stay for only about four hours in the hospital. If Miss Symons wants to argue that 24 to 36 hours' hospitalisation is required for the procedure, is that not an admission that clinics are depriving their patients of proper care? Miss Symons claims it would be blatant discrimination against poorer women as private patients would be given preference. There is no evidence that the poor are discriminated against in the New South Wales public hospital system for other services. Why should that change for abortion? Are abortion clinic supporters recommending abortion as a cure for poverty? Do only the rich love and raise children?

Miss Symons complains that the public hospitals would be required to make counselling services available to women to enable them to be aware of available options, including information on support services that may make it possible to continue a pregnancy to provide an opportunity for the woman to explore her options, and to provide, where required, information on contraceptive practices and services. Miss Symons claims also that freestanding abortion clinics at present provide counselling services at no cost to the Government. What about the $7.4 million in Medicare payments? For reasons I have given elsewhere in my speech I challenge the claim that abortion clinic counsellors give objective counselling to pregnant women on options other than abortion. If 98 per cent of women after counselling have an abortion, that shows clearly how unpersuasive such counselling is when actually given. Miss Symons attacked the South Australian system where abortion is restricted to public hospitals.

The abortion rate among South Australian women is far lower than in New South Wales, despite the fact that the South Australian law is far more liberal. Miss Symons claimed that the complication rate for late-term abortions is 10 times greater Page 2395 than in New South Wales. That is a dishonest argument. Comparatively few late-term abortions are done in New South Wales hospitals; most are done in clinics. Clinics are uncontrolled and out of control. They hide, and sometimes bury, their mistakes. With occasional exceptions, public hospitals behave ethically and report their complications. Who finances the Abortion Rights Coalition? In the main, abortion clinics and abortionists. Who would be foolish enough to accept their claims about anything that might reduce their income? Miss Symons' letter makes no mention of the undesirability of abortion. It shows no concern for the unborn, nor does it give any encouragement to pregnant women in need to seek any solution other than abortion. The Abortion Rights Coalition has shown its true colours.

A major purpose of the bill is to improve the choice of medical care available to women by encouraging them to avoid the profiteering, mediocre and potentially dangerous services available to abortion clinics and to seek assistance from the highly-skilled visiting medical officers and registrars who work at public hospitals. With the vast majority of abortions being performed in the unregulated freestanding clinics, it is clear that section 83 of the Crimes Act, which prohibits abortions, is being totally ignored. The bill, if passed, will go a long way towards ensuring that abortions are only performed legally where the mother's life is threatened by imminent peril, which is the only time that the so-called defence of necessity validly operates to allow an abortion to be performed lawfully. The main purpose of section 82 is to protect the lives of unborn babies. Dr Robert Jones, the Adelaide abortionist, in the Good Weekend article of 6th April, written by Penelope Debelle entitled "Ethics in Embryo", conceded:

One has to start off with the attitude that you accept the fact that this (i.e. abortion) is murder. Abortion is murder - I agree with that. You're extinguishing life and if you don't face up to that you're not being honest with yourself. If you face the fact you're doing murder, and you know you're doing it for a good reason, then you can be relaxed about it. If it is justifiable murder, if there is such a thing, it's the lesser of two evils.

Though I could not agree with Dr Jones' justifications for performing abortions, I agree wholeheartedly with him that abortion is murder, with babies being killed because pregnancy is inconvenient. Though our laws have not kept up with developments in medical care and science in the areas of foetology and embryology, I draw the attention of honourable members to statements made by eminent judges on the protection the criminal law accords to the unborn. Mr Justice MacNaughton in the famous case of Rex v. Bourne said in 1938, when talking about the English abortion law based on the Offences Against the Persons Act upon which section 83 of the New South Wales Crimes Act is based:

With regard to any other operation on the human body, obviously no difficulty arises. The surgeon is justified in cutting off an arm or a leg or taking out an eye, if, in his honest opinion he thinks it is desirable to do so for the sake of the patient's health. The difficulty that arises in the case of abortion is that by the operation the potential life of the unborn child is destroyed. The law of this land has always held human life to be sacred, and the protection that the law gives to human life extends also to the unborn child in the womb. The unborn Page 2396 child in the womb must not be destroyed unless the destruction of that child is for the purpose of preserving the yet more precious life of the mother.

Powerful modern support for that principle was given by Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls and one of the greatest twentieth century judges, in Royal College of Nursing v. Department of Health and Social Security in 1981 when he said:

Throughout the discussion I am going to speak of the unborn child. The old common lawyers spoke of a en ventre sa mére. Doctors speak of it as the foetus. In simple English it is the unborn child inside the mother's womb. Such a child was protected by the criminal law almost to the same extent as a new-born baby. If anyone terminated a pregnancy, and thus destroyed the unborn child, he or she was guilty of a felony and was liable to be kept in penal servitude for life (see the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861) unless it was to save the life of the mother.

Lord Denning was talking about the position prior to the 1976 Abortion Act. New South Wales law is identical to the abortion provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act, which up to 1976 in the United Kingdom applied to doctors and which still applies to other persons. In the most recent Australian analysis of abortion law, as well as the most comprehensive to date, Judge McGuire of the Queensland District Court in a judgment in the trial of Peter John Bayliss and another, reported in 1986, 9 Queensland Law Reports, recognised the law's intention to protect the unborn. At page 45 he said:

The spirit of the Bourne doctrine has permeated the Commonwealth of the common law. Queensland, as I hold, is no exception. It is a humane doctrine devised for humanitarian purposes; but it cannot be made the excuse for every inconvenient conception. It would be wrong indeed to conclude that Bourne equated to carte blanche. It does not. On the contrary, it is only in exceptional circumstances that the doctrine can lawfully apply.

This must be clearly understood. His Honour continued:

The law in this State has not abolished its responsibility as guardian of the silent innocence of the unborn. It should rightly use its authority to see that abortion on whim or caprice does not insidiously filter into our society. There is no legal justification for abortion on demand.

This respect held by the law for unborn babies was clearly illustrated by Mr Justice Grove in his judgment in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 1st August in the case of Lynch v. Lynch, in which he held that a mother was liable to pay damages for occasioning injuries to her unborn child, her daughter, arising out of her negligent driving of a motor vehicle. The child was born with cerebral palsy as a result of trauma occurring prior to birth and a verdict was awarded in her favour in the sum of $2,850,000, which the insurer is liable to pay. In that case the defendant's lawyers argued that prior to birth, at the time the negligence occurred, there was unity of legal personality between mother and child; it was like a person suing herself. Mr Justice Grove rejected that argument, holding that an injury to an infant suffered during the stages of its journey through life between conception and parturition, birth, is not an injury to a person devoid of personality other than that Page 2397 of the mother-to-be. Nicole's personality was identifiable and recognisable. He said:

I find there is no inconsistency between that view and the requirement that birth occur in order for exercisable rights to accrue. Second, it does not seem to me to be contrary to any principle that in the class of unborn persons to whom a duty to take reasonable care is undoubtedly owed there should be included those children who will be born out of the mother's own body. As the test of liability for the consequences of negligent conduct includes foreseeing that injury might be caused to the unborn children of others I can see no reason for artificial exclusion of foreseeable injury to one's own unborn. The definition of class to whom injury is foreseeable could not naturally specify only the unborn of others in distinction from the unborn of a woman's own. I see no reason of principle or policy for creating a discriminate and restricted rule for the latter circumstances.

Doctors who perform surgery have a duty to inform their patients of the nature and consequences of the surgery and the alternatives available. In the case where abortion is being considered this should include telling the woman about the development of the child within her womb. As American law turns away from abortion on demand and increases protection for the unborn, several American States have legislated to make it obligatory that women contemplating abortion be counselled on the development of the unborn. A New South Wales voluntary counselling and educational organisation, the Foundation for Human Development, is producing an education kit for schools which includes plastic models showing the shape and size of the unborn at different stages of development. I am sure all honourable members will agree that it is most desirable that our youth be educated on these matters so as to realise the importance of the most fundamental of human rights, the right to life. For a woman to have been said to have given informed consent to an abortion, she should be made aware of the development of the child in the womb as well as the details of the methods used to abort the child and the risks to her physical health from the abortion. Again this is an important reason why abortions should be taken away from clinics to ensure proper medical care for women and real choice by the woman, away from the profit motive.

Abortion must be kept out of private hospitals also, otherwise the clinic abortionists would just change addresses. I guarantee that no abortionist, no counsellor employed at an abortion clinic or Family Planning Association centre, will tell the woman the truth about the developing baby in her womb: the fact that at conception the 23 chromosomes of the sperm from the father unite with the 23 chromosomes of the ovum of the mother, the nucleus of which ovum the sperm has penetrated, and that single living cell is created which contains all the genetically inherited characteristics of that new individual such as the colour of his or her eyes, hair and skin, facial and bodily features; that within a few days of conception the tiny unborn produces a hormone which stops the mother's next period; that the unborn child causes major changes to the mother's excretal, respiratory and circulatory systems; that he or she resists the mother's immunological system which would otherwise reject his or her body as separate tissue, not part of her own body; that the unborn child is not, as some of our dishonest opponents claim, a blob of Page 2398 cells. He or she is an active and complex human being of rapidly increasing sophistication as his or her development increases.

From very early he or she has recognisably human features and basic human organs. The heart is forming from the eighteenth day and begins to beat around 24 days after conception. The heart is pumping the child's blood by the thirty-first day. The child's blood develops from the eighteenth day and is often of a different blood type from the mother's. By 40 days the heart's energy output is already 20 per cent of an adult's and can be heard with modern medical equipment. Any honourable members who have given birth or witnessed a birth in recent years would probably have heard the baby's heartbeat amplified - I did that as our first grandchild was born - as a reassurance that the baby was well. That is something one never forgets, particularly if a beat is missed. By 20 days after conception the brain, spinal cord and nervous system are established. At 16 days the five primary regions found in an adult brain are distinguished. Electric brainwaves have been recorded as early as 40 days after conception. I recently heard a Sydney rabbi quoted as saying that the fact that electric brainwaves can be recorded from an unborn child is evidence of a living human being, remembering that the law recognises that a human being is dead when the brain stops functioning. I have experienced that when my father died. Can supporters of abortion clinics disprove these facts or do they rely on keeping the anxious and confused pregnant women ignorant of the development of their unborn babies? Post-abortion syndrome, a widespread and recognised psychiatric illness, is often activated when women realise that their babies were not just a blob of cells but a tiny living human being. At nine weeks the unborn baby sucks his or her thumb and will grasp an object, stroking his or her palm. Before reaching 12 weeks of age, almost the whole of the unborn is sensitive to touch.

Anyone who saw the brilliant video entitled "The Silent Scream" produced by former abortionist, now pro-life crusader, Dr Bernard Nathanson, will never forget the desperate but sadly unwinnable fight the unborn baby put up to avoid the tip of the suction curette which killed that baby, all shown in real time ultrasound. Pro-abortionists screamed loudly against this video, but their protests were totally demolished by its authenticity and drowned out by the haunting silent scream of the baby about to die. By three months, an age at which many babies are aborted by highly paid abortionists, the unborn child's movements flow smoothly and his or her reflexes are strong. He or she can wriggle and curl toes and fingers, make a fist, turn a head and open and close his or her mouth. By four months, that baby swims and somersaults in the womb. The mother first feels her baby at around four months. The babies aborted by Dr George Smart and Dr Geoffrey Davis in the cases to which I have referred earlier were well over four months. The baby Dr Smart tried to abort weighed 885 grams, nearly two pounds, and was 37 centimetres long. The baby, if delivered prematurely, had a greater than 60 per cent chance of survival. On 26th June, 1983, the Melbourne Age reported:

In a four-year period between January 1977 and December 1980 at the Queen Victoria Medical Centre, of 107 infants born weighing between 500 and 1000 grams, 44 per cent were Page 2399 considered to be developing within the normal range . . . The survival rate for infants weighing 500-700g was 42 per cent and those weighing 751-1000g was 61 per cent.

Do abortion clinics inform their patients of the methods they use to abort? These methods are set out in the excellent book by Anthony Fisher and Jane Buckingham entitled Abortion in Australia - The Answers and the Alternatives published by Dove Communications. These methods were included in the first half of this speech. I shall now discuss the very serious matter of the apparent efforts by a Uniting Church Minister, the Reverend Harry Herbert, to undermine this bill by a repeated personal attack on my leader and colleague Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. Unlike other Christian churches such as the Catholic, the Anglican, Presbyterian, Pentecostal and Brethren churches, there is no official policy of the Uniting Church on abortion. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 24th August it was inaccurately claimed that "the Uniting Church had strongly attacked this bill". The newspaper was merely quoting Reverend Harry Herbert. Mr Herbert cannot speak for the Uniting Church because the church as a whole has not adopted a policy on abortion, nor on this bill, and has referred the whole question of a policy on abortion to be decided at the next synod in 1992. Mr Herbert showed how ill-informed he was by talking about doctors serving time in our already overcrowded gaols. This bill does not contain a gaol sentence as a punishment; it contains a fine.

Mr Herbert recently sent a discussion paper on abortion to honourable members. This discussion paper is not, as said by Mr Alan Jones of 2UE, the official policy of the Uniting Church. It examines in a superficial way differing views that may be taken by church members. But, unlike documents issued by churches, it contains no reference to scripture or theology. Its analysis of the Levine ruling is unscholarly in that rather than referring to the major question of law decided by His Honour it refers to obiter dicta which were not followed by Judge Cameron Smith in the most recent abortion trial of Dr George Smart in 1981, or in the most recent Australian abortion case, the comprehensive analysis by Judge McGuire in the Queensland trial of Dr Peter Bayliss in 1986. The discussion paper fails to refer to the fact that Judge Levine found that abortion on demand was illegal, even if performed by a doctor. Mr Herbert refers to Dr Robert Weatherlake as the Uniting Church Minister and member of synod who requested the board "to undertake research and consultation on matters relevant to the abortion issue with a view to developing policy and action in the name of the Church". Honourable members will have received a copy of a letter from Reverend Dr Weatherlake addressed to ministers and parish secretaries of the Uniting Church. Dr Weatherlake expresses his concern that Mr Herbert has given the impression that he is voicing the agreed position of the Uniting Church on abortion, which he has no authority to give. Dr Weatherlake urges support for the bill and states, inter alia:

Abortion is an insidious social problem and of ghastly proportions. In 1990 Medicare payments financed over 70,000 abortions in Australia about half of which were in New South Wales. Medicare payments for those totalled $7.8 million in 1989- 90 which would be better used for counselling and care.

Page 2400

Dr Weatherlake went on to say:

As Christians we should be seeking to reduce resort to abortion by moral example, by challenging men to act responsibly towards women and to take responsibility for the children they initiate and their mothers and to care for women and girls in a dilemma over pregnancy. Church members should observe faithfulness in marriage and commend that way to others. It is reported that at least 70 per cent of babies aborted are conceived out of wedlock. A combination of immorality and murder brought God's judgment on King David. Such behaviour is indefensible in a Christian or any other moral context. Legislation is only part of the answer to such problems but the moral law of God still stands and must be allowed to have its educative and convicting effect in our lives and in the community.

I should like to read to the Chamber a reply that was sent to one of our supporters on the letterhead of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and dated 24th July, 1989. It reads:

Dear Mr and Mrs Christian -

That is their real name:

Thank you for your letter of 1989. The killing of ducks or other animals or plants which are fully independent parts of the working ecosystem cannot be compared with the abortion of foetuses which have no independent life of their own. It is false to believe that there can be any connection between these two independent issues.

The single greatest danger to the environment is excessive human population. Demographic studies have shown that countries which permit abortion have a slower rate of population increase than those which prohibit it. Therefore, legal access to abortion for all women not only prevents the great social harm which would come from lack of such a service but contributes significantly to preservation of the environment on which all our lives depend.

Someone has sent us a copy of an advertisement which shows a picture of a unborn orange bellied parrot and a picture of an unborn child. It is headed "Which is more valuable?" It states:

If you chose the unborn child, sorry you're wrong . . . at least according to the laws in Australia. You see, the penalty for taking or destroying an orange bellied parrot's egg is $2000.00 or six months in jail, but the penalty for taking an unborn child's life is nothing. In fact, people get paid a lot of money for doing it.

Does something seem wrong to you?

It sure does. The bill introduced by Guy Yeomans into the lower House in 1989 and this bill have received strong church and pro-life support because people understand that claims by some members that this legislation is a political stunt are false; it is a matter of life and death. In a joint statement in November 1989 His Eminence Cardinal Clancy of the Catholic Church and His Grace Archbishop Donald Robinson of the Anglican Church expressed their strong support for the bill, calling on the State Government to take action to limit abortion, which they rightly described as "unjust social evil". They were limited in their condemnation of the increase in abortions during the past few years and the high ratio of abortions to births: in this Page 2401 State there is one induced abortion for about every two live births. I repeat: a healthy baby conceived in this State has one chance in three of being killed by an abortionist before birth. The church leaders stated that abortions of convenience are irresponsible social behaviour and that abortions devalue human life and dehumanise the unborn child to the status of an object. They said that the Government has a responsibility at least to limit this unjust social evil. In conclusion I quote from the 1980 Australian Catholic Bishops Conference document entitled, "Greatest Human Rights Issue of the 1980s" in which it was stated, inter alia:

Statistically, the most dangerous place for an Australian in 1980 is in a mothers womb. Every human being has an inviolable right to life. Rich or poor, strong or weak, young or old, born or unborn, every human life is sacred. The directly intended killing of any innocent human being whatsoever is always wrong. Nothing can justify it.

The Lord Jesus Christ in Holy Scripture said, "I am come that they may have life and that they may have it more abundantly". I pray that honourable members will see the wisdom of these words and vote to support innocent human life by supporting this bill. Amen.

The Hon. DELCIA KITE [4.8]: Like the Hon. Elaine Nile I am a mother of four. I am also a grandmother of seven. I oppose the bill. If the legislation introduced by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is passed, it will deny a woman the right to have a legal, safe, affordable termination of pregnancy. This bill is about making terminations of pregnancy unavailable. Given the present state of our public hospitals under the Greiner-Phillips management policies, it is ludicrous to suggest that professional health care and counselling would be available to meet even the crisis needs of patients requiring a termination of pregnancy. Only last week the Minister for Health Services Management announced that he was closing three public hospitals in working class areas of Marrickville, Parramatta and Wallsend, and applying serious budget cuts to the Royal Women's Hospital and the Rachel Forster Hospital. There is also a serious threat to the continued operation of public hospitals at Balmain, Lidcombe, Auburn, in the western suburbs, and at Ryde, Kiama and South Sydney. In the best of all worlds pregnancy termination, after-care counselling, and links with ongoing support services emanating from the public health system would be the most desirable outcome for everyone concerned. However, the facts are that the Greiner Government is intent on diminishing the role of public hospitals in favour of the private hospital system. A massive injection of funds would be required at time when well-established and essential public hospitals are being closed.

I should expect that if Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is in any way serious about adding this critical service to the public hospital system, he would raise his voice in loud condemnation at the annihilation of public hospitals, and particularly those that historically were established for women, such as the Rachel Forster Hospital and the Royal Hospital for Women. On 26th August of this year the Royal Hospital for Women predicted a three-week to four-week wait for women seeking pregnancy terminations if the private clinics were closed. A wait of three or four Page 2402 weeks would force women into potentially dangerous, complicated second trimester terminations. In the face of this grim reality the existing women's clinics must continue. They provide the best possible service at the lowest cost. These specialist clinics provide a high quality service, which includes both pre-termination and post-termination counselling. The counselling also includes exploring alternatives and providing information and advice regarding contraception. Women in this stressful situation require the medically safe environment that such clinics offer, and the emphasis must be on unbiased, non-judgmental counselling, in a caring atmosphere. The clinics that presently exist do provide such counselling services and continuity of care.

Contrary to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile's statements, these services are provided at no charge to the State Government. In addition, the specialist nature of the clinics ensures that all staff, and in particular the medical staff, have developed vast expertise in carrying out the procedure, thus reducing the likelihood of complications occurring. They provide prompt available access to women from a broad range of income groups and residential areas. These freestanding, non-profit clinics would cease to operate if Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile's proposals were implemented. Delays in accessing hospital treatment will lead to unacceptable increases in terminations being carried out later than 12 weeks into the pregnancy, with a dire increase in serious complications.

I have been informed that the cost for a termination of pregnancy in a public hospital is more than double the cost charged by women's clinics. The service provided at the clinic is therefore far more affordable to the poorer women in the community. Rich women can always pay for and obtain treatment to terminate a pregnancy whether it is legal or illegal. In contrast to the usual specialist fees in public hospitals, the Preterm Foundation engages sessional doctors at the rate of about $40 per hour which is far less than Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile or other honourable members of this House receive. Claims made by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile that a small number of doctors have become millionaires as a result of fees charged for pregnancy terminations do not apply to the professional staff engaged by the Preterm Foundation, where 24 doctors receive reimbursement under the one provider unit. Doctors' professional fees last year totalled $584,231, an average of $24,343 per doctor, which is far lower than the exaggerated amount Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile claimed they received. Specialist anaesthetists are paid under the Public Hospitals Award. Similarly, nurses and counsellors are paid under their respective awards. The clinic is self-funding, funding its administrative and medical costs from the $90 excess charged over and above the Medicare rebate for services correctly itemised.

If this draconian bill were passed, any registered medical practitioner who carried out treatment for the termination of a pregnancy at a women's clinic or a private hospital would be guilty of professional misconduct and could lose his or her right to practise. In addition to this unethical intervention in the medical, and often life-saving, process, the medical practitioner may be fined up to $5,000. The main Page 2403 thrust of the bill is to make it almost an impossibility for a woman to obtain an abortion. It is impossible to legislate effectively to stop pregnancy terminations and it is unethical and immoral to legislate against human rights - in this case the woman's right to professional medical care, and the right to choose a course of action that will ensure the continuation of her physical and mental health and that of her family. It is hypocritical to apply double standards to this most sensitive issue by introducing legislation which would allow treatment for termination of pregnancy in a public hospital, but not in a private hospital or a women's clinic.

The introduction of this bill is a replay of the past, exacerbating the stress placed on women in an increasingly violent and alienating society. It ignores the economic hardships, the homelessness, the unemployment and the breakdown in the provision of services offered by the present Government. Women seeking a pregnancy termination will be pushed into the hands of unskilled operators, with the predictable outcome of death and disease, and an increase in crime associated with illegal pregnancy terminations. Termination of pregnancies cannot and will not be halted by unrealistic legislation. Far from stopping pregnancy terminations the legislation will promote the evils of the past. As I support the right of women to have a legal, safe, affordable termination of a pregnancy I will vote against this bill.

[Interruption from gallery]

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! If there are any further outbursts from the gallery I shall ask the Usher of the Black Rod to escort those concerned from the Chamber. When members of the public visit this House they should observe its traditions.

The Hon. DELCIA KITE: The present Government has stipulated in the public hospital system a quota of the number of pregnancy terminations that may be carried out in one week. At King George V Hospital and the Royal Hospital for Women the quota is eight terminations a week. For Westmead hospital the quota is six terminations a week and for Liverpool, Blacktown and other public hospitals it is one termination a week. How on earth would a woman be able to obtain a bed in a public hospital for a pregnancy termination? I was shocked that in her speech the Hon. Elaine Nile launched an attack on the late Lionel Murphy. How low will she stoop, attacking a dead man. The Hon. Lionel Murphy was a personal friend of mine and I am proud to have known him. He most certainly was a great humanist who introduced many reforms in the interests of ordinary people and their families.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [4.18]: I strenuously oppose this illogical bill entitled the Procurement of Miscarriage Limitation Bill that is being foisted upon the Parliament by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. In 1988 this Chamber debated a motion on abortion moved by the Hon. Marie Bignold. The motion called for, inter alia, the enforcement of sections 82 and 85 of the Crimes Act relating to abortion. When a vote on the Bignold motion was taken, it was resolved in the affirmative following a 20 to 20 vote, with the President casting his vote in favour of the Page 2404 motion. That resolution was not sufficient for Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. Though it was the only victory of the anti-abortionist minority in this Parliament in recent years, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile then conducted a political war with the Hon. Marie Bignold through the print media for the past three and a half years.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: The honourable member should return to the subject-matter of the bill.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: For the past four and a half hours the Hon. Elaine Nile has talked about abortion generally, Bertram Wainer, Lionel Murphy, and anyone else she wanted to refer to. The honourable member should not attempt to tell me whom I can or cannot talk about in this debate. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile then proceeded to promote the Unborn Child Protection Bill, which for almost three years sat firmly on the notice paper of this House. The Government, through procedural manoeuvring, ensured that the bill was not debated. On 25th May Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile had his popular vote halved. Having secured the balance of power, he has been allowed to debate this divisive, illogical, contradictory, and unproductive limitation bill. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile have done the most extraordinary backflip on a major issue ever documented in the history of this House. If Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile were in a horserace at Randwick, the stewards would have them swabbed immediately. Their form is so contradictory compared with previous performances that the stewards would dope-test them. The Hon. Elaine Nile in her contribution said that because of biology I cannot understand a woman's perspective. She said:

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald would never understand. He is not a woman and he has never carried a child in his womb. He has never felt the movement of a child. He has never been told that he is having a baby.

Obviously I cannot know the experience of pregnancy; but that does not prevent me from having an understanding of the issues, just as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile presumes he has an understanding. I doubt that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile - the alleged miracle worker - has had an experience that I have not had. If he has, he has yet to reveal it to the House. The Hon. Elaine Nile should at least do me the courtesy of accepting that I have an understanding of the issues in the same way that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile thinks he has an understanding of them.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: One does not have to have cancer to know that cancer is bad.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: Exactly. That is the point I am making. By interjecting, the Hon. J. R. Johnson has supported my comments.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Rubbish!

Page 2405 The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: The arguments of the Hon. Elaine Nile are rubbish. I can have an understanding of the issues without having to experience them. Just as the Hon. Elaine Nile has, I have listened to what numerous women have had to say about this issue. I have reached an understanding built on communication and research. Therefore, I am able to determine conclusions and define a perspective, just as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile does, in this tolerant society, when he supports his wife. Significant changes in community thinking have occurred. Since 1988 when the Bignold resolution was carried, more people have accepted abortion as a fact of medical life. Recent opinion polls suggest that more and more Australians are of the view that abortion is a fact of medical life. In that regard the community is not saying that abortion is a wonderful medical procedure without trauma. I acknowledge that there is considerable trauma. Rather, the community is saying that in certain circumstances a woman has the right with medical consultation to make her own decision. This has led to a general community distrust of the religious bigotry that is woven into this bill. Consequently, the trends in the community of affirming tolerance and supporting a woman's right to choose will be reflected in this Chamber when Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is game enough to allow a vote to take place. In my view, should that happen, this nonsensical bill will be defeated severely.

To their credit virtually every female member of this Chamber exercised the right of protest when this bill was last debated. I fully endorse the action they took on that occasion. In my view this decline in religiously-motivated intolerance constitutes an increasing maturity in the Australian community which resists the political thuggery involved in imposing nineteenth century values upon a modern society. For more than 5,000 years men have been making the political rules. It is about time they stopped telling women what to do with their own bodies. It is my fundamental belief that a woman has the right to choose, in consultation with a medical practitioner, to have a safe and legal abortion. It is not my right, the right of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, or the right of this Chamber to alter what is essentially a decision by a woman concerning her own body. The only role of this Chamber, as part of the political and administrative apparatus of this State, is to ensure that when a woman makes that decision in consultation with medical advice she can do so in safety. Consequently, I cannot support a bill that restricts the exercise of this right to public hospitals and imposes severe penalties on medical practitioners who perform this procedure outside a public hospital. The bill provides for severe penalties to be imposed on doctors who perform abortions outside the public hospital system. It is a clear medical fact that private clinics are safe and effective and that many are non-profit organisations, often managed by women.

The material brought to this Chamber by the Hon. Elaine Nile about the earning capacities of various clinics does not matter one iota. She may as well have referred to the earning capacities of a whole range of medical clinics. That would have as much relevance. It is a disgraceful suggestion that specific doctors earn specific amounts of money. Clearly this bill is a trick and a con job. The real aim of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is to terminate abortions in all circumstances. He Page 2406 has said as much year in, year out. In pursuing this course he has adopted a strategy that in essence will permit abortions, but confine them to the public health system. This trickery has worked on some. The Archbishop of Sydney in commending this bill to the House has in effect sanctioned the right of women to seek abortions in public hospitals. This expedient change of principle by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and his supporters has been gained through the most flagrant form of deception. Fortunately, other churches, including, most notably, sections of the honourable member's own Uniting Church, have been more cautious in their discussions on the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The Uniting Church has not had a policy on abortion.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I said they have been more cautious in their discussions. I did not say that they opposed or supported the bill. I said they have been more cautious in their discussion than Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has. The bill has a further deceptive and tragic consequence. Clearly it has not been designed to stop abortions but to limit the performance of the procedure to public hospitals. It is similar in intent to the legislation introduced in South Australia in 1986. It will in effect place extreme administrative pressure on already overburdened public hospitals and, as a consequence, will create greater chaos in our health care system. Inevitably this will lead to those less well off in the community having to pay increased fees for this medical procedure. The result will be that significant numbers of illegal abortions are performed in New South Wales. In this climate, as has been demonstrated in numerous inquiries, particularly in Victoria, the banning of abortion leads to crime and corruption. In years past when abortion was banned people were counselled in one form or another and advised that there was only one course available to them. Even so, many abortions were performed in New South Wales, in a corrupt environment.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: Prove it.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I draw the attention of the honourable member to the findings of the royal commission into corruption in the police force, with regard to abortion, in Victoria. This hypocritical and Claytons bill on abortion will not stop abortions being performed in New South Wales. Rather it will overburden the health care system, increase costs for poorer women, and lead to an increase in illegal activity. They will be the consequences of acceptance of this bill, and no interminable lectures by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the Hon. Elaine Nile and their few supporters will hide these facts from the people of New South Wales. I predict that when a vote is taken on this bill it will be soundly defeated.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [4.29]: The Procurement of Miscarriage Limitation Bill seeks to limit the procurement of miscarriages to public hospitals. South Australia and Tasmania already have legislation of the type referred to by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile. In those States abortions Page 2407 are restricted to public and private hospitals. In both Tasmania and South Australia - certainly in South Australia - abortion is available on demand and as a right. I could not support that and I am sure the Hon. Elaine Nile does not support it. The result of the legislation in South Australia, however, is not that fewer abortion operations are carried out on women living there. If there were fewer abortions there, more children would be given up for adoption in South Australia or that State would have an abnormally high number of single unmarried mothers. Neither is discernible in South Australian figures. More important, the number of second trimester abortions is remarkably low and has continued to fall because nurses and doctors in South Australia and in the public hospital system in particular have revolted against doing second trimester abortions.

There is a disinclination by the medical and nursing professions, especially in the public hospital system, to perform these procedures. So the South Australian Government, because of its legislation, has to send people by bus to Victoria to have second trimester abortions. The number of abortions done in South Australia cannot be discerned to have been limited in any way. I attempted to obtain from Medicare the number of South Australian women who underwent abortion procedures - a specific Medicare item - in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales or Western Australia. I was assured by the Health Insurance Commission that I could not get that information. I said: "Why not? I do not want the names of the people". The commission said that Medicare had to sharpen its privacy protection provisions after the furore of the failed attempt by the Federal Labor Government to introduce an Australia Card. I could discover how many doctors did abortions because the commission was able to give me the item and provider numbers for abortions and where those operations were carried out. But the commission, because of the privacy provisions, had no way of getting information for me about the address of origin of the women who presented for abortion.

I then examined other ways of extracting that information. Perhaps the rate of pregnancy might not be as high in South Australia as in other States. The statistics, though, do not lead me to believe that is so. I conclude that similar legislation in South Australia has in no way limited the number of abortions. The bill in its present form cannot be expected - from the experience in other States - to achieve that limitation. I vividly remember seeing a television program about a young pregnant Tasmanian mother of two, taking a cheap flight to Melbourne provided for her by a so-called philanthropic organisation in Victoria because she was not allowed an abortion in Tasmania. Women are travelling from Tasmania to have abortions. That woman and another gave evidence in that program that they flew out from Hobart to Melbourne, had their abortions, and flew back the day after the abortions. The statistical guides that come from the departments of health in South Australia and Tasmania do not give a complete picture. I challenge anyone to discover how many women are travelling out of South Australia to private and public clinics in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia.

The bill aims to limit the number of abortions performed in this State. Should the proposed legislation be enacted to limit abortions to public hospitals - a step which has not been tried in any other State - certain features of that limitation Page 2408 would recommend themselves to me as a practitioner. First, counselling could be prescribed for women, and their husbands or partners, to ensure that they understood precisely that they were getting involved in the death of their child, possibly the death of the mother, and also consequent anxieties and guilt. People should be counselled to comprehend the real physical and mental complications of abortion. Regulation or prescription may not guarantee better understanding but it will ensure greater accountability. One could argue that limitation of abortion, as proposed in the bill, would enable women to have abortions in safer, more extravagant and expensive but not necessarily more caring surroundings, and would also provide more information on the indications for abortion.

It is not necessarily the case that an operation performed in a big hospital is safer than an operation performed in a small hospital. An interesting example is that the number of deaths under anaesthesia associated with dental extractions is vastly higher in the public hospital system than it is in a dental surgery for patients having general anaesthesia. Though it seems unlikely, those are the statistics from the morbidity studies of the death under anaesthesia committee and the coroner's results. That has always been of some interest to me because in the public hospital system all those who give anaesthetics are specialists, whereas in a dental surgery some are simply dentists and not specialists. In the public hospital system we have gone to a great deal of trouble, in particular over the past three years, to improve the delivery, range and standard of facilities provided, therefore making it a more equitable system. But more dental extraction patients die under anaesthesia in public hospitals than under anaesthesia in dentists' chairs even though the vast majority of anaesthesia for dental surgery is administered outside hospitals.

Should this bill become law and the 40,000 or so women who present for abortion each year in New South Wales be accommodated in the public hospital system, there will have to be a major shift of resources. It may be argued under the Levine ruling that many cases of abortions are legal, and proper counselling must take place. Therefore, resources will have to be provided to accommodate what I believe to be a legal, if not a legitimate, right of women to have abortions in public hospitals. Where does that put the Minister for Health Services Management in trying to provide those facilities? There are a number of options available to him. He may have to bring on stream fairly quickly some contracted services. He may have to purchase some existing clinics and declare them annexes to public hospitals.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: That will not happen.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I know. This bill has no chance of success; it is grossly flawed. But, in the unlikely event that this bill becomes law, two options must be available to the Minister for Health Services Management to provide those facilities. Public hospital nurses have an agreement that if they are not comfortable about or do not like being involved in these operations, they do not have to do them. Honourable members might not believe that if they believe what has been said by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile on this issue. There was an attempt to Page 2409 make some noise about this in amendments proposed to the Nurses Registration Bill. However, those procedures are in place and are accepted by the nursing union and by the profession.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: You told us when we were last discussing this that it was not necessary.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It is already there. That is why it is unnecessary to introduce new legislation. It is not necessary because of the way in which it works. Another thing that concerns me about this legislation is that should it succeed, and public hospitals are the only places where abortions can be carried out in New South Wales - and abortions would be legal because the unborn child has no protection under the law unless it is born alive - the next step, which is the Harradine amendment in the Federal Parliament, would preclude the payment of Medicare benefits for any procedure designed to procure an abortion. We must then be concerned about the women who have conceived these unborn children who will be caught between a rock and a hard place. We would go back to the old days of backyard, illegal abortions. Anyone practising abortion, procuring an abortion or aiding and abetting in the procurement or performance of an abortion goes to gaol - do not pass go, do not collect $200. This bill is an attempt, I believe, to get around the real issue and the real discussion about how we can give the unborn child some legal protection. This bill, if enacted, would not in any way limit the number of abortions. It is not practical and does not attempt in any way to limit the number of abortions and, therefore, does not go to the heart of the abortion issue. To call this bill a pro-life bill is nothing short of a joke.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It was designed by the pro-life lawyers.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: You should have found good lawyers who have their feet on the ground, because as a pro-life measure this bill is nothing short of a joke. I understand that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile brings this bill to the Parliament at the request and urging of many people and he supports it. But this is nothing short of outrageous and will not achieve what in banner headlines it has been said it sets out to achieve. The unborn child needs protection, but this is not the way to go about it. It is impractical, it will not work, and I will not support it.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [4.47]: I oppose the bill and place on public record that I believe it to be only one of a troika of very dangerous pieces of legislation. In fact, that has been admitted by the people who prepare the Right to Life newspaper, because in the August 1991 edition, on the front page under the heading "President's View", they state:

In the forthcoming session of State Parliament up to three pieces of legislation sponsored by either the Rev Fred Nile or Elaine Nile may be debated - the Procurement of Miscarriage (Limitation) Bill which, if enacted, would effectively prohibit abortion clinics; the Nurses (Conscientious Objection) Amendment Bill which seeks again to give nurses a right to Page 2410 refrain from assisting in certain procedures, such as abortion, on the grounds of conscientious objection -

I may say that when previously Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile have spoken on this issue, they have objected not only to abortion but also to various sterilisation procedures such as tubal ligation. The article went on to state:

- and, thirdly, the revamped Unborn Child Protection Bill which would seek to enshrine in the law the same rights and privileges for the unborn that are enjoyed by persons who have been born. These are all worthy pieces of legislation which this Association wholeheartedly supports. Hopefully the Catholic Bishops and, following their example, leaders of other churches, will publicly support this legislation and hopefully the many thousands of churchgoers will join in this support.

Of course, that did not happen because the Uniting Church in Australia, which is the church I believe that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is a Minister of, or at least at one time was a Minister of, does not support this legislation. In a media release dated 29th August sent to me by the Uniting Church in Australia New South Wales Synod their spokesperson said:

We support the position that the decision whether or not to have an abortion should be made by the woman.

This is the policy of the Uniting Church inherited from the Methodist and Presbyterian churches before union, and it remains valid now.

Appropriate counselling, support and medical services should be provided to ensure that the woman's decision is well-informed and is respected and implemented.

That media release was authorised by the Reverend Harry Herbert, General Secretary of the Board of Social Responsibility of the Uniting Church in Australia. It was endorsed by the following ministers of the Word of the Uniting Church: Ann Wansbrough, Anne Ryan, Heather Coombes, Miriam Howard, Marjorie Roberts -

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: All the radical feminist ordained ministers.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: - Chris McLeod, Maz Smith, Barbara Oldmeadow, Christine MoiMoi, Janis Huggett, Shirley Parkin, Kerry Rebecca Pattenden, Nerida Drake, Carol Morris, Lyn Collins, Janet Dawson, Shirley Maddox, Moira Laidlaw, Claire Duncan, Ruth Thomas, Jane Munro, Lyn Ewin, Norma Brown and Gwen Masters. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has just said "Raving feminists".

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: No, radical.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Radical feminists. They are women and ordained ministers of the Uniting Church. They are standing up for the rights of women. They are brave to do so, and I fully support them. I believe the majority of women in the population also will support them. A few moments ago Reverend Page 2411 the Hon. F. J. Nile stated, by way of interjection, that no abortion could take place in South Australia except in a public hospital. Only a few weeks ago a colleague in the Legislative Council of the South Australian Parliament sent me a photocopy of a bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. It states:

Medical termination of pregnancy

2. Section 82a of the principal Act is amended -

. . .

(b) by inserting after subsection (2) the following subection:

(2a) The place in which the termination of a pregnancy is to be carried out . . . must conform with the following requirements:

(a) it must be within a hospital declared by regulation to be a prescribed hospital . . .

and

(b) if it is within an abortion clinic, the clinic must have been separately approved by regulation for the purposes of this section.

Therefore, in South Australia it is possible to have an approved abortion clinic. Perhaps Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile will stop saying that in South Australia it is not possible to have an abortion clinic. I wish to refer to the Levine ruling, the ruling under which abortions are legal in this State. In 1975 the Royal Commission on Human Relationships confirmed that all small clinics offered privacy and speedy attention, which were absolutely essential. Almost 20 years ago, in 1975, Professor Leeton of Melbourne reported that approximately two in three pregnancies are unplanned and one in two are unwanted. It is exactly 20 years ago that a member of this House, the Hon. W. G. Keightley, M.L.C., on 11th August, 1971, stated that under the Askin regime 31 highly trained detectives were used exclusively to detect abortions. He asked, "Where are our priorities?" In concluding his speech he quoted a statement of Mr Justice McCardie who 60 years ago, in 1931, said:

The law on abortion as it exists, ought to be substantially modified. It is out of keeping with the conditions that prevail in the world today.

He referred to the Sanctity of Life in the Criminal Law by Glanville Williams. As everyone who studies the law knows, Glanville Williams is a legal textbook that is highly revered by all law students and practising lawyers. That was 60 years ago, but honourable members in this Parliament are having the debate all over again, a debate that I have had in this Parliament for 10 years. When I am accused by members of the public of not being in the Chamber to hear what the anti-abortionists are saying I can tell them that I have heard it over and over again. I am almost able to recite their arguments off by heart. I hope that within a short time this terrible piece of legislation will be put to the vote. I know it will be defeated.

Page 2412 [Interruption from gallery]

The PRESIDENT: Order! There will be no interruptions from the gallery of any nature or I will clear it.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: It is very strange that it is always believed that the Catholic Church is against abortion. I should like to quote a remark made by Cardinal Cushing in Boston in 1970 - more than 20 years ago - who said:

Catholics do not need the support of civil laws to be faithful to their religious convictions, and they do not seek to impose by law their moral views on other members of society.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile should take heed of those remarks of a cardinal of the Catholic Church and perhaps put them into practice themselves. During this debate a great deal of discussion has occurred about the so-called abortion clinics - "in it for the money". All clinics have been lumped together; it has been said that they are run by abortionists who are out to make large profits. I place on record once again that the Preterm Foundation in New South Wales is a non-profit organisation. It was the first of its kind when it opened in Sydney in 1974. It aims to provide, and has proved that it does, the best possible service at the lowest cost to women. It is a model of a medically safe environment and it has an emphasis on unbiased, non-judgmental counselling in a caring atmosphere. Thus, it is this model that has set the standards for the delivery of abortion services for the past 17 years.

It is also proper for me to place on public record, in view of remarks made to the media by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, that a woman who goes to a freestanding clinic receives no counselling. The Preterm counselling services are staffed by counsellors with recognised academic and professional qualifications. The Pregnancy Help counsellors are volunteers with minimal counselling training and no academic or professional prerequisites. Perhaps honourable members ought to consider - and I know that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has dealt with this at some length - what would happen if we attempted to transfer the cost of abortions from Medicare to the hospital system in New South Wales. It is obvious that with the need for abortion that is met in New South Wales - and it meets the needs of women from New Zealand and from other States - the public hospitals in New South Wales would be in chaos with the huge increases in requests for services. It would be necessary also for extensive counselling services to be set up in public hospitals, and there would be an increase in the number of second trimester abortions, which has been proved by the South Australian experience. An increase in the number of second trimester abortions would lead to an increase in the number of general anaesthetics that need to be used for that procedure.

I do not think anyone denies that, if an abortion is necessary, it should be done in the first trimester and preferably in the first eight weeks of pregnancy. Page 2413 Women in South Australia have not been able to get an abortion within the first eight weeks. They have been sent for two, three and sometimes four referrals and have been having late abortions with consequent danger to themselves and the risk of trauma. I would like also to refer to deaths from abortion in the period since 1964. It has to be remembered that, prior to the Levine ruling, every year many women died as a result of abortion. Going back as far as 1931 - the figures I am referring to come from the Australian Bureau of Statistics - 185 women died. In 1936, at the height of the depression - a depression like the one we are having now - 233 women died as a result of abortion. But by 1976, after the Levine ruling, only two women died and between 1982 and 1984 only one woman died. Those figures are significant and I believe they should be taken into account. We should also remember that women die not only from botched or illegal abortions but also from legal abortions carried out by incompetent medically qualified practitioners or backyard abortionists. Even if a woman does not die she may suffer irreparable damage. She may have to have a hysterectomy and, therefore, never be able to bear a child. She may develop blocked fallopian tubes so that later, when she possibly wants to have a child, she is unable to do so. The trauma and suffering caused through septicaemia and other serious complications resulting from a botched or backyard abortion have to be taken into account.

It should not be necessary for me to have to say again that, whatever our beliefs about abortion, it is not possible to choose between legal abortion and no abortion; it is possible only to choose between a safe legal abortion and a dangerous illegal abortion. Illegal abortions, unsafe abortions, have been going on for thousands of years. They are documented in the Bible and they are documented in history prior to the Bible; certainly prior to the New Testament. So we have thousands of years of experience of women suffering unwanted pregnancies. The methods used to rid them of those unwanted pregnancies are a matter of historical record. If this legislative proposal to limit abortion services to public hospitals receives approval, several things will happen. Between 1986 and 1987 only 7 per cent of abortions were performed on public patients in public hospitals. The remaining 93 per cent were performed in freestanding clinics, in private hospitals, or on private patients in public hospitals. Public hospitals will be required to expand theatres and bed availability if they have to meet the demand because not all women can afford a private hospital or to be a private patient in a public hospital. Additional costs against the hospital budget would be approximately $43 million based on figures for basic services in South Australian hospitals.

There is no indication in this proposed bill - and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile have given no indication - whether abortion would be available to private patients in public hospitals. But if this is to happen, it would be blatant discrimination against women of low socioeconomic status. Obviously, private patients would be far more likely to gain admission ahead of public patients, just as they do for every other medical procedure. As I said earlier, private hospitals will be required to make counselling services available to women, otherwise women will not be aware of available options, including information on Page 2414 support services that might make it possible for a pregnancy to be continued. It must be possible for a woman to have the opportunity to explore her options. It must also be possible for information on contraceptive practices and services to be provided. This is something that makes me very angry. Year after year Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile complain about money being given to the Family Planning Association of New South Wales. If more money were available for family planning services, there would be less need for abortion. So long as that service is being denied funds - and it receives less funding from this Government than from any other State government in Australia - there will always be a need for abortion.

It is criminal to deny women access to cheap and safe contraception and, at the same time, condemn them when they take the only path open to them - which is to have an abortion. Several scientific papers have been brought to my attention by medical practitioners and gynaecologists explaining the psychological responses of and effect on women who have had an abortion without proper counselling and women who are denied an abortion. These papers explain also what happens to children who are born to women who have been denied an abortion. I will make a few short comments about these scientific papers. The first paper, dated 6th April, 1990 - quite a recent paper - which was written by six American writers, is a review of methodologically sound studies of the psychological responses of women in the United States of America. The writers, in their conclusion, state:

The time of greatest distress is likely to be before the abortion. Severe negative reactions after abortions are rare and can best be understood in the framework of coping with a normal life stress.

The second paper, a journal from West Germany, is a slightly older paper; it was not written in the 1990s. Studies were made by the Family Research Institute, the Psychiatric Research Institute and the Institute for Postgraduate Medical Education in Prague. Studies were undertaken also by the director of the Transnational Family Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, and by Dr Friedman, director of the Geneva office of the American Institute for Research. In conclusion they state:

Our findings suggest that the commonly held belief among professionals, that a child unwanted during pregnancy remains unwanted, is not necessarily true. However, the opposite notion, more common among the lay public, that the birth of a child causes a complete change in attitude and that every women who becomes a mother will love her child, is also untrue. The child of a mother denied abortion is born into a potentially handicapping situation.

When we consider that the level of child abuse in our community is rising to most appalling heights we should remember that. In conclusion I should like to quote again from the discussion paper prepared by the Board of Social Responsibility of the Uniting Church. The Reverend Harry Herbert stated in his letter to me that copies of the discussion paper were sent to all members of the Legislative Council. The attitude of the Uniting Church was laid out in these terms:

Among the consequent resolutions adopted by the Assembly -

Page 2415

That is the Presbyterian Assembly:

- the most important were:

1. "Acknowledge that christians may conscientiously hold different views as to the permissibility of abortion in varying circumstance."

2. "Believes that the basic decision concerning legal abortion should be left in the hands of the individual woman as advised by her qualified medical practitioner and other professional advisers, who are in the best position to discover all the relevant factors and weigh them up in each particular situation.

The discussion paper stated also:

We also accept the possibility of other valid humanitarian reasons for termination, reasons which need to be considered individually in the light of christian compassion for all concerned.

This statement has the greatest weight of all:

In an ideal society, abortion would very rarely be an issue. Better use of contraceptives, less involvement in sex by unmarried young people, and better sex education in our community would dramatically reduce the need for abortions. All of which should suggest that church members support those organisations which are attempting to improve sex education and family planning opportunities and to thus reduce the need for abortions. All too often we see those who oppose abortion also opposing the provision of more education and family planning. The Preterm Foundation advises that 20% of its clients are married women, which indicates that better family planning measures and contraceptive advice would probably significantly reduce the number of abortions. Selfishness of male partners is an issue here. The best course of action for the church would be to give support to those community organisations.

Over and over again I have written in letters to people who have written to me on this issue that I would have far more sympathy for the position of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile if he would give some support to those counselling and contraceptive services, and in particular to the Family Planning Association of Australia. Until he does, I cannot possibly support his views, nor can I support the bill before the House. Since this bill was first mooted, I have placed on the public record that I have no intention of doing so.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH [5.13]: Let me say at the outset that I do not believe that we as legislators have the right to make the determination set out in this bill.

[Interruption from gallery]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have warned the gallery once before. On the next occasion there is such a demonstration, I will authorise the attendants to remove three people so demonstrating.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I wish to refer to a remark made by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile which does him no credit, nor indeed the people to Page 2416 whom he referred. He said that the female ministers from the Uniting Church were radical ordained ministers.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Radical feminists.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Radical feminists, or whatever it is. Let me remind the honourable member that 24 of these ladies have been ordained by the Uniting Church. Obviously Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile does not like female ministers. I can assure the House that what Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile had to say will go down well with the Anglican Church when I have the opportunity of talking to the Archbishop.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to resolution of the House in that behalf, time for debate on this bill has expired for this day. The Clerk will read the Order of the Day.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The debate was scheduled to continue until 5.30 p.m.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The copy of the minutes I have shows 5.15 p.m. The Clerk's notes show 5.15 p.m. I am in the hands of the House.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: When I moved the motion I wrote 5.30 p.m. on a piece of paper. My intention was that the debate should continue until 5.30 p.m. and I had given that assurance to members of the House. The only written record is my personal note. I do not like to break assurances and because of the assurance I gave to honourable members, I ask that the debate continue until 5.30 p.m. in accordance with my express intention.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Is there any objection to that course being followed? There being no objection, the debate may proceed.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: As I reminded Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, his words will go down in history, especially with those ordained ladies. The author of this legislation, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, admits in the bill that there is a place for abortion in our society, as indeed he should. However, I was under the impression that he was violently opposed to abortion wherever it may occur. The bill provides that an abortion may take place only in a public hospital. I have listened for nearly three hours to the Hon. Elaine Nile. I found her contribution extremely difficult to follow because she read it at a great pace to get it on to the record. One of her claims, to which she continually referred, was that abortion is murder. Why then does she support the bill? This bill will seriously interfere with the individual liberties of many people.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Particularly those of the babies that are killed.

Page 2417

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: The Hon. J. R. Johnson is the person who has said constantly that abortion is murder. Why is he supporting this bill, or is he going to vote against it? The bill will interfere with the patient's right to choose a medical practitioner and the place to have a termination. It will interfere with the rights of potential users of operating theatres, listed patients, who may be subjected to longer delays. It will interfere with the right of private medical practitioners to choose the most appropriate way of meeting a patient's needs. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is a medical practitioner and knows much more about this subject than I or any other member of this Chamber. He put forward a most logical argument, and I am sure he would support my last statement. During the past few weeks all members have received a large number of letters, mostly in favour of this legislation. I have taken great exception to some of those letters, in which the authors have demanded to know, or practically sought to blackmail me into saying, where I stand on this issue. They could come into the public gallery to hear what I have to say. If Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile were sincere in his desire to eradicate what he describes as dubious clinics, he would support the right of individual women to choose between a public hospital, a private hospital and an approved abortion clinic. In his second reading speech he said:

It is not necessary to have what is called an abortion clinic. Some people have expressed sympathy for the abortion clinics and said they are non-profit organisations. There seems to be a question mark over the proposition of non-profitability.

I was concerned about this allegation because I had heard from a number of people that the main abortion clinics were non-profitmaking organisations and were extremely well run. I have obtained a balance sheet for the Preterm Foundation for the year ended 30th June, 1991. It shows professional fees for doctors of $584,231, but a net surplus of only $56,272. That is hardly a huge sum of money. I have had a good look at the Preterm Foundation and have spoken to several doctors. I said earlier that one of the founding doctors of the foundation is Dr Malcolm Coppleson, a world renowned gynaecologist - hardly a quack. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said that these clinics do not provide adequate counselling for their clients. He said:

Other people say that abortion clinics provide the best counselling. The information available to me is often that the counselling available in an abortion clinic is from a person who is a qualified social worker employed by the clinic and therefore one might argue not truly objective or independent. The main function of the clinic is to perform abortions. The main aim of that counsellor, being an employee of the clinic, would be to provide advice and financial counselling about the method of payment for the abortion.

That is a deliberate misrepresentation of the position with the principal abortion clinics. I am surprised that the honourable member has not taken the trouble to consult the Preterm Foundation, the Bessie Smyth Foundation and others to see exactly what happens with counselling. I am advised that the decision to have an abortion was once viewed as a pathological decision, therefore needing psychiatric assessment. However, a decision about an unplanned and or unwanted pregnancy is now classified as a normal life crisis, requiring supportive counselling. In 1991, Page 2418 95 per cent of part-time counsellors at the Preterm Foundation have tertiary qualifications such as a Bachelor of Arts degree, degrees in social work or science with psychology majors, or social welfare diplomas. All full-time counsellors at Preterm are psychologists. I have read with interest a paper by Vanessa Rivers on the question of counselling. In part she said:

It may seem odd to provide pregnancy counselling in an abortion clinic. Surely a woman who goes there has already decided what to do with her problem pregnancy? But an unwanted pregnancy, more than many other life crises, can leave a women (especially a young woman) without advice and support from her family and friends: she may feel she cannot tell them about it. So it is helpful if professional counselling is available. Perhaps this should ideally be in a place independent of the abortion clinic, where there is no bias towards any particular outcome, but in the absence of such services, most clinics offer their own counselling.

Why provide counselling? A woman who has an unplanned pregnancy may have ambivalent feelings. She may have been subjected to pressures from family and friends trying to influence her decision. She may have concerns relating to her upbringing, her religion or her present life situation which she has been unable to resolve. She may have insufficient knowledge about physiology, about sexuality or about conception. In order to make the best decision for herself about her present pregnancy and about her future contraception she may benefit from the assistance of an emphatic but impartial counsellor with whom she can air her feelings and work out her decisions and from whom she can derive a sense of support.

I refer also to a paper that all members received from the Bessie Smyth Foundation. On the matter of counselling it states:

Many counsellors and doctors working at the clinic are multi-lingual or from non- English backgrounds. This enables us to provide women with either a counsellor or a doctor speaking their language in many instances. The clinic sees many women who speak no English at all from a variety of backgrounds, reflecting the ethnic mix of today's society. For these women, having a counsellor or doctor who not only speaks their language but also understands their cultures is of great benefit. Where there is no one available who speaks a specific language we attempt to arrange an appropriate interpreter. If this is not possible we use the phone interpreter service. We have also had all relevant information, consent forms, descriptions of procedures and complications, contraceptive advise and after care sheets translated into many languages.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile should have taken time to consult with these organisations before being so critical of what they are doing. Quite clearly this bill provides that the only place for the termination of a pregnancy will be a public hospital. The question I pose is why is a public hospital singled out rather than a private hospital or an approved abortion clinic? Surely private hospitals can provide the necessary services for the termination of a pregnancy - as indeed can abortion clinics. Dealing once again with clinics, members have received a very logical, clear letter from the Bessie Smyth Foundation. The author sets out clearly the functions of that foundation, which was established 14 years ago as a non-profitmaking organisation to provide women with a safe, non-judgmental, affordable and legal abortion. Then there is the question of private hospitals. I ask: why cannot abortions take place in private hospitals? I have heard no arguments whatsoever that Page 2419 would convince me that they should not be carried out in a private hospital. That brings me to the question of abortion itself. One of the best cases put to us by a church group was the discussion paper from the Uniting Church in Australia, the New South Wales Board of Social Responsibility.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith.

[Interruption from gallery]

The PRESIDENT: Order! Remove those people from the gallery.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16th October.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.31]: I have covered a fair amount of material on the Industrial Relations Bill but I wish to conclude my contribution by referring to parts of the bill that have been ignored or underestimated by critics of the bill in trying to give the impression that the bill does not provide protection for workers. A lot of irresponsible scare talk has been directed at the bill with posters and mailing cards headed "Greiner's industrial coup" and so on. Workers have written to me on the subject. In my view they have been misled. Their concerns are not justified by the facts. For example, clause 133 clearly states the Industrial Court's powers. It reads:

The Industrial Court may, on application by a person bound by an enterprise agreement, declare the agreement wholly or partly void, either from its commencement or from some other time, if the Industrial Court finds that the agreement:

(a) is unfair; or

(b) is harsh or unconscionable; or

(c) was entered into under duress.

This will give protection to the workers. In spite of some of the statements that have been made, the bill will protect wage rates. In part 2, division 1, dealing with wage rates, the bill provides for the fixing of the minimum adult basic wage, the application of national wage decisions, directions for variation of the basic wage and other matters associated with wage rates. A general duty is imposed on the commission to fix just and reasonable rates of pay. Rates cannot be fixed below the adult basic wage and must, unless good reason exists for not doing so, be varied from time to time, by variation of the basic wage and any necessary consequential orders, to implement national wage decisions. Division 2 refers to hours of work. The existing provisions relating to the 40-hour week are not re-enacted. The division Page 2420 fixes the maximum ordinary working hours that may be included in awards by the commission in all industries except coalmining and rural industries. The maximum is to remain 40-hours a week averaged over a 52-week period.

We know that female workers with children have tried hard to find part-time work. This bill will provide for that. Under division 4 employers may enter into agreements with employees for part-time work. Division 8 provides for the insertion of sick leave provisions in awards and prescribed minimum sick leave entitlements for employees. The minimum entitlement will continue to be one week's sick leave per year. So there is no scrapping of sick leave. Concern has been expressed about the effect of the bill on female employees. Division 9 provides for the insertion in awards of provisions requiring equal pay for employees of both sexes. Equal pay is embodied in the legislation. There has been discussion about union representatives or officials having to wait seven days to inspect wage sheets and so on. They will be able to enter a workplace if union members are employed at the site. The times are restricted but they can enter. The bill requires that particulars of wages are to be supplied to employees when they are paid and every employer must keep time-sheets and paysheets in a specified manner.

The bill provides a clear definition of unlawful industrial action. Such action gave rise to the bill. Part 3 defines certain types of industrial action as unlawful - action based on demarcation disputes, action by an employer or action by an employees' or employers' organisation in support of industrial action taken by another party, and action based on a claim for wages or benefits in respect of time spent engaging in industrial action. It is an offence to engage in these types of industrial action subject to certain available defences. That is an improvement on the present situation. Part 4 refers to demarcation disputes. In combination with restrictive union practices, demarcation disputes have been one of the reasons why Australia is falling behind in competition with other countries. Division 1 of part 5 provides for secret ballots to find out whether the majority of members of an industrial employee organisation are or are not in favour of industrial action that is taking place or contemplated. This provision will deal with the threats that have applied previously.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods referred to the Teachers Federation. Questions have been raised about the Teachers Federation giving money to the Labor Party. I have not found evidence of that, unless the money is buried in the victory fund. I was surprised at the violent protest against our Jesus march on Monday, 7th October. The equipment used by the international Socialist organisation was provided by the New South Wales Teachers Federation. Apparently it supports the international Socialist organisation and violent demonstrations. I support the statement made in the Daily Telegraph Mirror on Monday, 30th September, by the Premier. He presented a strong and concise argument for this legislation. The workers of this State would have read the article, because the Daily Telegraph Mirror is a widely distributed newspaper. I have noted over recent months that that newspaper can be trusted more than the Sydney Morning Herald. I have many Page 2421 disagreements with the journalists at the Sydney Morning Herald because they want to run that newspaper to express their own views and biases. An article by the Premier in the Daily Telegraph Mirror dated 30th September clearly explained the purpose of this legislation. It focused on the main reforms and voluntary unionism. The Premier said:

We are not against people being in a union. If I were working in a particular industry I'd probably join the relevant union or association as well.

The Premier continued:

What the Government is saying is that people should have freedom to choose.

And that is what we believe. Another major reform in the legislation is the provision for enterprise agreements. The Premier thinks it would be much better if individual work forces can devise work contracts with their employers. The other important aspect of the legislation is the provision for banning secondary boycotts. The Premier said:

. . . no more of that nonsense where an industrial dispute in another workplace can end up involving you and your employer.

I agree with the following statement by the Premier:

So, there is absolutely no point in the Labor Council trying to hold back this tide of industrial progress. They have more to gain from seeking to be a part of the process and winning community support on their merits.

By resisting reform they -

He is referring to the Labor Council:

- simply liken themselves to the ageing power brokers of eastern Europe and the Soviet bloc who failed to hear the message of the people - that the days of centralised control are over.

The Premier could make that reference because he came from eastern Europe. The article continued:

Our industrial relations package will give NSW people greater power over their own destinies. We know that is what they want.

Opinion polls reveal that between 70 and 80 per cent of people support the concept of voluntary unionism and enterprise agreements.

The Labor Council had discussion with me recently. Michael Easson presented four suggested amendments to the bill. I have asked the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment for his response to them. I shall refer to them briefly because they are at the very heart of the division of opinion between the Government and the Opposition over this legislation. Page 2422 Government members would be aware of this but the Opposition members may not be, because they have been supplied to me by the Minister only recently. The Labor Council said it was concerned about the commission's power to determine on its own initiative the minimum conditions of employment for inclusion in enterprise agreements. In his reply to the Labor Council the Minister said:

The Bill now contains minimum conditions which recognise the ordinary hourly rate of pay for the classification to be determined from time to time by the Commission; the Annual Holidays Act; the Long Service Leave Act and a strengthened minimum sick leave provision which improves the provisions in the current Act.

Enterprise Agreements will be illegal if they do not contain all of these minimum conditions and the protection of the existing law is therefore preserved.

I shall not take the time of the House to read all the explanation. However, he said:

It should be remembered that parties can choose to remain within the framework of the award system.

The second area of concern by the Labor Council is the power of the Industrial Court to review an agreement after it is in place on the application of peak bodies of employers and employees or on the court's own initiative. The Minister replied:

This would allow bodies removed from the particular workplace to commence action in the Industrial Court which would declare an Enterprise Agreement void.

The Government has already provided in the Bill that any party to an Enterprise Agreement may apply to the Court for relief on defined and appropriate grounds after the agreement is in existence. The Government cannot see what right a peak body should have to interfere with the validly created agreement of workplace parties who may not have any association or wish to associate with such peak body. To create such a right as suggested by you can only place peak bodies, such as the Labor Council, in a privileged position to the possible detriment of 69 per cent of workers not in unions and the many thousands of employers not associated with employer peak bodies.

I move on to the third area that concerns the Labor Council. That is the right of entry by a union official to any workplace. I have referred to this a number of times already. The criticism by members of the Opposition has been exaggerated. The Minister said:

The bill does not prevent officials access to the workplace for the purpose of discussion with all workers during meal breaks and outside work hours where the union has a member in the workplace.

The fourth area of concern is industrial agreements. The Minister replied:

The amendment seeks to preserve the existing Section 11 industrial agreements and thus create a third stream in addition to enterprise agreements and awards.

The Government has already amended the Bill to preserve Section 11 agreements, following your comments, for specific projects such as the Sydney Harbour Tunnel. Following Page 2423 the completion of such projects and expiry of existing Section 11 agreements, such agreements can be properly accommodated within the enterprise agreement provisions of the Bill.

In his response the Minister has dealt with those four areas of concern, which are a refinement of the large number of amendments proposed by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. This House is in a different situation. The Government went to the people of this State seeking to be able to pass legislation through the upper House. Previous legislation was passed through the lower House, and it was decimated, obstructed and emasculated in the upper House. The Premier went to the people of the State asking for a mandate specifically in these areas. The plan has not worked exactly in the lower House as was hoped but it has worked with the upper House. In May three elections were held: the election for the lower House for each of the individual seats, the referendum, and the election for the upper House. The referendum was won overwhelmingly by 500,000 votes and the Government's vote in the upper House was increased to 200,000 votes. With the two votes from the Call to Australia group, the Government now has the ability to pass legislation through this House. That puts greater responsibility on my wife and me. We will endeavour to exercise that responsibility with a clear conscience and due regard to the well-being and protection of the workers of this State. I have given my assurances to the many workers who have written to me over the past weeks. The Minister has given a strong assurance that the whole legislation will be reviewed within 12 months.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: He will not be the Minister then.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Or it may be reviewed by another government. I assume it would be reviewed by a Labor Government, or, if not, repealed. Nevertheless, it provides for those protections for workers. It is a disgrace that many falsehoods have been conveyed within the community to create genuine fear and concern in the minds of many people. That situation is to be regretted because it colours the whole of the debate in our society. Industrial relations need to be updated, improved and made more flexible with only one purpose, and that is to benefit the workers of this State. By benefiting the workers it benefits their families also, and for those reasons we support the Industrial Relations Bill.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON [5.50]: This bill in its current form is not worthy of any government in a free society. Indeed, it is not worthy of the support of anyone in a free society. The bill is an example of what one would expect from Nazi Germany or from Stalin. This year is the anniversary of the founding of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party was founded by the trade union movement because it believed that the antecedents of members opposite would not be a party to social change. This year is also the hundredth anniversary of the publication of the working man's charter by Pope Leo XIII entitled "Rerum Novarum". The Australian Labor Party is one of the oldest social democratic parties in the world. Members of the party are charged with upholding the rights of all men Page 2424 and women. We will fight for those rights, try to conserve what is good, and condemn injustice. Injustice will flow from certain provisions of this bill.

I am proud to have been a trade union official. In all the years that I was a trade union official I was involved only once in getting the troops out, a stopwork meeting that lasted for a little more than an hour and a half. I believed it was my job to see that every man and woman took home a full pay packet every week. However, there were times when the only remedy for injustice was for the men and women in the work force to use the only weapon at their disposal: to fold their arms, to withdraw their labour. An employer has the right not to sell his product. He can wait until the market price rises. Men and women of the work force are a week from starvation and they must be protected. The majority of Government members, and indeed many Opposition members, have not experienced the extreme difficulty of having to rely on a weekly pay packet.

In my view certain sections of this bill would deem it to be more appropriately named the freedom of exploitation bill. From a reading of this bill it would seem that the New Right is craving for the old wrongs. The old wrongs will never come back. If by chance they do return it will be for a short time only because wrongs are wrongs are wrongs. Some of the provisions of this bill will tend to perpetrate injustice. Honourable members have heard of the so-called right to be a non-unionist. I agree that a person has the right to be a non-unionist. One of the provisions of the bill deals with the basic wage. The basic wage in this State is $121.40. That is the lowest wage that a person who is not covered by an award can legally receive. Any person not covered by an award can legally receive $121.40 for a 40-hour week's work.

People do not understand the difference between the basic wage, an award wage, average wages, average award wages and a minimum wage. The difference between the basic wage and an award wage is that an award wage is made up of various allowances and margins, margins of skill that determine the amount to which the employee is entitled. Where do the margins and allowances in excess of $121.40 come from to make up the award wage? They are the result of the work of the trade union movement. I believe that if I have private hospital cover I am entitled to go to a private hospital and be reimbursed, because I have paid for that right. No Government member would believe that people who do not pay for private hospital coverage should be entitled to a private hospital bed. If they pay for it they are entitled to that service. Why should a non-unionist be entitled to the benefits that unionists pay for? If all awards provided that unionists were entitled to the award wage because they contributed to the unions that fought for an award wage and non-unionists were entitled to the basic wage of $121.40 only, there would be a line from here to Bourke, from Bourke to Cunnamulla, from Cunnamulla to Carnarvon, back across the Simpson Desert without water, to the unions' offices to join the unions. Principle would go out the door. The principle of the non-unionist is "You pay for it and I will take it".

Non-unionists are always willing to take what the unionists have fought for. I pose this question: Have honourable members heard about the non-unionist who Page 2425 refused to accept the recent wage increase? They did not and they never will. Non-unionists are there with their hands out. We are told that this is a bill for the future. It does contain some good provisions but other portions of it seek to impose slave labour conditions on unsuspecting employees, in particular young employees in country towns. I have said in this House before that I have observed young people in country towns who were frightened to tell their employers of their forthcoming birthday because their wages would increase and the boss would sack them. Honourable members have not seen injustice until they have seen the injustice that can be perpetrated on workers.

[The Deputy-President (the Hon. R. T. M. Bull) left the chair at 6 p.m. The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.]

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON [8.15]: Before the adjournment I was commenting on my view that the bill in part was a recipe for injustice. There is little doubt that all legislation that comes before any Parliament should be equitable and befit the nature of human beings. This legislation contains little more in part than reactionary right-wing shibboleths. In part it will be responsible, particularly in country areas, for untold misery. The only thing that the working men and women of Australia have to sell is their labour. They have a right to be paid a just wage for the labour they have to sell in the market-place in which they operate; a wage that can be negotiated, that will give justice. If there is not justice, there is injustice. I shall go through some of the provisions of the bill and demonstrate that they have within them the seeds of injustice. Before doing so I should say that this nation, particularly this State, owes an immeasurable debt of gratitude to our responsible trade union movement.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: What about the other ones?

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: I am talking about the responsible trade union movement. We owe this debt of gratitude to industrial leaders in New South Wales who have led the trade union movement. The majority of them were respected members of the Parliament, of this House. I speak of men such as the Hon. Bob King, the Secretary of the Labor Council for many years and a longtime member of this House. He was followed as secretary of the Labor Council by the Hon. Jim Kenny. I suggest that some honourable members opposite should find out about the tragic circumstances of his death and the comments that were made the night before he died. A member from that side of the House had said to him, "Why don't you go home and drop dead?" That is what he did. Within a few short months the man who made the remark was dead also. Jim Kenny was followed as Secretary of the Labor Council by the Hon. Ralph Marsh, who is well known to many members of this House. He was followed by the Hon. John Ducker, the Hon. Barrie Unsworth, John MacBean and now Michael Easson - responsible trade union officials. No one in this State, not one employer association, will deny that. They were and are men who kept their word. When they gave their word one could stake one's salvation on it. At one time in this House also was the Hon. Fred Bowen, a man of considerable Page 2426 capacity, a long-serving secretary of the furnishing trade union and president of the Labor Council. Mac Hewitt was a Minister for Labour and Industry in this House. Mac Hewitt and Fred Bowen would be seen sitting in the far corner of the House solving industrial disputes: men who respected one another.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Over a cup of tea?

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: One could have a cup of tea with some of them. This legislation personifies novices getting into industrial relations. When novices get into industrial relations - and I do not care whether they are trade union officials, employer associations or members from the Government side of the House - they muck it up. The weak will suffer and the strong will prosper as a result of this legislation. The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann referred to tanker drivers in the United States of America who, because of their industrial muscle, are able to attract salaries of $4,000 a week while shop assistants earn $400 a week. The minimum hourly wage in the United States is $US3.25 - the McDonalds Family Restaurants rate of pay. Recently in New Zealand, with the introduction of similar legislation to this, a free and open market has been the order of the day. I wish to read to honourable members a statement of the Catholic Conference of New Zealand about the legislation that has been perpetrated on the people of New Zealand. Recently I read about a man who was offered a job for 60 hours a week for $60 - a dollar an hour.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: He was probably only worth 50c.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: If you were paid that amount, your employers would expect change. There is little doubt that not every employer is a good bloke, just as every worker is not a good bloke. The bishops of New Zealand have expressed some views about this type of legislation.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The bishops of New Zealand? They know nothing about industrial relations. They are classic novices.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: I shall send the honourable member's remarks to the Bishop of Lismore. Is the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti saying that the Catholic bishops of New Zealand are classic novices?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: In industrial relations, yes. But not the Bishop of Lismore.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Perhaps I should read the statement of the Bishop of Lismore.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I would like to hear it.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: The bishops would be on their knees for seven days of the week if they were praying for Pezzutti. The New Zealand bishops stated:

Page 2427

This year the Church commemorates an event of great importance, whose prophetic value has been confirmed with the passing of time: the publication of the encyclical RERUM NOVARUM by Pope Leo XIII on 15th March, 1881. This was the first "social" encyclical of modern times, and it took as its subject the condition of workers.

As we celebrate in 1991 the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum we strive to become a community of faith even more committed to the promotion of the rights and dignity of every human person. We strive to become a community working day to day to build a world of genuine solidarity and social and economic justice.

For us in New Zealand this year of the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum with its focus on the conditions of workers has special significance in view of the fundamental changes in labour relations proposed through the Employment Contracts Bill.

The new legislation will radically alter relations between employers, workers and the state as they have developed since the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1894, nearly 100 years ago. The Church identifies three groups active in labour relations, all of whom must work for the common good - workers, direct employers and indirect employers.

According to Government the purpose of the proposed legislation is to create flexible labour market practices so that production efficiencies will be encouraged: they in turn will lead to economic growth. The legislation dismantles the national award system and promotes new forms of work place bargaining. It does away with compulsory unionism -

We do not have compulsory unionism in this State; this document is centred on New Zealand. It continues:

- and allows employers and workers to enter into collective or individual contracts, thereby removing union's statutory bargaining rights. It redefines the internationally understood terms, freedom of association and right to organise in trade unions, thus hampering the right to form unions. It also restricts the right to strike.

The legislation is proposed in a depressed economic climate with a current 9% unemployment rate. At the same time the legislation is part of wider economic policy, which is underpinned by a monetarist approach to economic planning. "Monetarist" theory is a return to liberal capitalism with its emphasis of reliance on market forces alone. The theory proposes that full employment, as we have known it, is not possible without inflation, and that there is a natural rate of employment consistent with wage costs. It also proposes that the welfare state has had its time. This is an economistic approach which the Church views with grave concern, because it puts capital and resources alone at the centre of economic activity, and considers human labour solely according to its economic purpose.

This is real Marxism. It continues:

This legislative change is not simply a technical issue. It involves ethics and morality. The question must be asked what the new legislation does to people and society, to human dignity and the common good. As Bishops of New Zealand we must speak against this proposed legislation as its underlying ideology is contrary to the social doctrines of the Church. Pope Paul VI teaches that, "All social action involves a doctrine. The Christian cannot admit that which is based upon a materialistic and atheistic philosophy". The underlying ideology of the new industrial legislation is unacceptable for two reasons: firstly, because it emphasises free choice without balancing this concept with concern for the common, ie. public, good; and Page 2428 secondly because it emphasises the rights of the individual without their accompanying duty to act in solidarity and without giving any corresponding rights to the group.

[Interruption]

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti would have kids in the mine if he could get away with it. It continues:

The legislation assumes that the free pursuit of his or her interest by the private individual automatically leads to the public or common good of society. As Bishops, guiding our people in faith and morals, it is our duty to reject this assumption for two reasons.

Firstly because egotism is an inevitable part of the fallen human condition. Greed and lust for power are basic sinful attitudes. The "all consuming desire for profit" and the "thirst for power" lie behind the "sinful structures" in society. The prescription for freedom in the legislation includes the freedom of the strong to exploit the weak, resulting in less freedom for the weak. Thus the legislation will not lead to the common good.

Secondly the Church teaches that human beings are by nature social beings and therefore the rights of individuals cannot be separated from the duty of individuals and the rights of the group. There is a relational aspect to all human activity: freedom is not the right to do anything one pleases, but the right to act freely in doing what is just, not only for oneself but also in relation to others. The pre-eminence given in the legislation to the rights of the individual and the ignoring of the corresponding duties of the individual in effect negate the rights of the group. Thus again the legislation will not lead to the common good.

The legislation purports to give equal bargaining power to employers and workers. We are convinced that in the period of high and rising unemployment and in our difficult economic times, employers and workers do not have equal bargaining power.

This is particularly so in country areas.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: And in the mines on the South Coast.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Rubbish! The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has already been proved wrong once this week when he missed out on his long service leave.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: I have not been proved wrong.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: You should get your fifty bucks ready. It continues:

Direct negotiations will favour employers as workers will not be prepared to put their jobs at risk in order to get a fair award. It is women - whose skills have traditionally been undervalued - along with low skilled workers with a disproportionate representation of Maori -

For Maoris substitute Aborigines. The document continues:

- among whom unemployment figures already are highest, who will be the hardest hit by this new legislation. The result of the Employment Contracts legislation will be that human labour Page 2429 will be compensated according to the principle of supply and demand. This reduces human labour to the position of a commodity and makes the New Zealand workers accept the fluctuating price in a labour market irrespective of the needs of themselves and family. But according to Church teaching human labour has special dignity. Human beings are always more important than capital -

[Interruption]

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: If the Hon. Patricia Forsythe does not like this, she can go outside. It does not worry me if this is getting to her conscience.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It is just a little tedious.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: It is a bit too intellectual for you. The document continues:

- workers are not instruments in the whole production process, but are to be treated as the true subjects of worth. Unemployment can never be accepted as an unfortunate by-product of restructuring: human beings have the inherent right to be given the opportunity to work.

They have the right to work for a just wage.

Full employment is the foundation of a just society and human work has special dignity and is the key to achieving justice in society. One hundred years ago, May 1891, Pope Leo XIII pleaded with governments, capital and industry to abolish economic injustices and to establish just working conditions. One hundreds years later, we, the Catholic Bishops of New Zealand, plead with our Government to withdraw this legislation and redraft it so that justice may be ensured. If it happens that this legislation becomes law, we plead with those who have economic power to apply it with fairness and equity in their labour relations.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe commented that that was back in the last century. That statement was made in the last century but it is as true now as it was then: there are and always have been people out in society who are prepared to exploit workers. I have further examples of such exploitation. Recently I received material from the shop assistants union. One document has the statement "Union wins back pay of $59,490".

[Interruption]

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: At least the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith is not an unjust employer and has good relations with the union. Most of the people who work for him in Orange are members of the Australian Workers Union or the Textile Workers Union. He runs a closed shop and has very good relations with the union officials; and I think he pays over the award. People think that exploitation of workers does not occur but I have recent examples to prove the contrary. A union member working in a boutique at Chatswood telephoned the union one morning to say that an employer had closed the store overnight and she had been sacked. The union had to chase the employer and recovered $2,202 for the employee as Page 2430 underpayment of wages. Another union member working in a boutique was found to be grossly underpaid on termination, with back wages of $3,940. Underpayment of wages is not uncommon. In the last month these amounts were recovered: from The Bakery in Hornsby, $4,134; from McDonalds, $83; from Mr Whippy, $5,000; from Who's That Girl at Hornsby, $700 back wages; from Coles Supermarket, $2,000; from Myers at Albury, underpayment of Saturday penalty rate, $9,000.

The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: That is terrible.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: That is terrible, as the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith said. The list continues: a member working in a cake shop at Mount Druitt was underpaid $230; illegal roster - a full-time member of Coles stores was working a roster Thursday to Sunday - underpayment of wages $4,700; Video Aided Learning at Chatswood, underpayment of wages $15,000; an ice cream shop in the southern part of the State, back pay $5,700; members at Pay Less at Bowral and Moss Vale received back pay for underpayment of wages for working on a Sunday. Guess in whose electorate that company is located - the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment. A casual worker received $5,500 for underpayment of wages, and another received $900. These examples of exploitation come from one union's quarterly journal.

The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: What is the point?

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: The Government, by its proposed legislation, is seeking to deny trade union officials their present right to go on to a site other than on seven days' notice to inspect time and wages books. I will give further examples of the stupidity of that provision. All honourable members know that the Minister and his department are concerned with the activities of one union only. Further examples of exploitation are as follows: $11,400 paid by Coles; a member at a 7-Eleven store received $4,500 in back pay; a woman working at the Royal Easter Show received $249; a casual received $5,188; $4,807 paid to a part-time worker; $8,933 to a woman who was working for a newsagent at Pennant Hills; a lingerie store agreed to pay $693 to a union member; $4,500 went to a shop assistant who was working in a bike shop; $19,780 was paid to another member in back pay. Such exploitation has been going on for years in our society and is very difficult to stamp out.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: It happens in union offices.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Go outside and say that.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: I do not have to. I am here.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Kings Tuckerbag at Corowa paid $6,100.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: When the union inspects books in future it will continue to pick up those matters.

Page 2431

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: When I was a trade union official working in country towns I found that most wage underpayments were not picked up as a result of an employee telling me about them. Usually another employer would say: "I am doing the right thing and paying award rates or a little overaward but the bloke over the road is cutting the guts out of my prices. He is employing only junior labour, no seniors, and underpaying them wages. What can you do about it?" That might be at Bourke, which is visited by a union official every six months.

The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: They would have loved to have seen you more often.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Most of the bosses did like to see me more often because when I went into their stores to inspect the time and wages book I did not go in to catch them but to put them right where they might be wrong.

The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: That is what old Richardson said about you in Armidale; I must say that.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: And Richardson is right. I am sure that John Richardson would not like to be referred to as old Richardson.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Under the proposed legislation you will be able to do just that.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: I can do it but I must give them seven days' notice.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: What is wrong with that? You ring them up seven days before you go to Bourke.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: I do not know until I get to Bourke that this employer is underpaying wages.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: That does not matter. You will tell all the people in Bourke you are going to see them that day.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Oh, for goodness' sake! When you send out notices, you inform the people in Bourke that you will be there for two days. You tell the people in Cobar that you will be there for a day and a half. You tell the people in Warren that you will be there for a day and the people in Tamworth you will be there for four days.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Just do that seven days earlier than you would otherwise have done.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Do not be stupid! At times I have been away for 11 weeks. Does that mean that I would have to visit every place of employment, give seven days' notice and then return seven days later to carry out my inspection? Page 2432 It is crazy. The Minister knows this is designed to get at one union and one union only.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Just give them all seven days' notice.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Why put it into the Act?

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: What rights do they have?

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: They have the rights to protect employees.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: And they want to act like storm troopers.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: That has never happened with me and it does not happen with the majority of trade unions. Under the present Act one can enter any place, premise, ship or vessel to inspect the time and wages books at any time during office hours. The time and wages books had to be kept on the premises where the work was executed. It was customary to go to establishments that had a group of shops perhaps in Armidale, Glen Innes, Guyra, Deepwater, Bingara, Barraba and Manilla. You might go to those shops only to find that all the wages books are kept at Glen Innes. You could inspect the wages books because the employers knew that you were there to help put them right where they might be wrong. But the employers who were crooks - give them an inch and they would take a mile. I have related stories to this Chamber on other occasions about the practices of employers.

To the day I die I will never forget one employer at Port Macquarie who had robbed a war widow from 1937 to 1962 by paying her three-quarters of her wages. At that time you could claim back wages for only 12 months. While I was there the employer paid her. I was told that when I walked out of the shop the employer took the cheque from her. When I got to Casino a commercial traveller told me what had happened. In that case the employer was a member of the Retail Traders Association. If employers were not members of an employer body, I encouraged them to join because I believe that employers have a right to the protection of their industrial organisation. Whereas the present legislation gives the right to an inspector to go to any employer employing people under the relevant award, what does the proposed new legislation say? Clause 733 states that an officer of an industrial organisation of employees is authorised to enter any premises of an employer where members of that organisation are engaged during working hours for the purpose of investigating any suspected breach of the Act or of any award or agreement in force in relation to the industry or enterprise in which those members are engaged.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Fair enough.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: No, it is not fair enough because it is where there is non- unionism that the other employers urge officials to go in, because they Page 2433 are the crooks. This is a licence to give crooks seven days' notice. What do they have to hide?

The Hon. A. B. Manson: The crooked books.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: The crooked books, exactly - stop up for seven days rewriting them.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: You have a vivid imagination. It is nonsense.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: You know it is right.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Only you would think of that.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: I have seen it happen.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: At least we are getting an idea why it took you so long to get around your territory.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: I used to start at Bulahdelah and work to Tweed Heads. If you took a line from Tweed Heads to Bourke, Bourke to Cobar, Cobar to Nyngan, Nyngan to Dubbo, down to the foot of the mountains and all in between, I bet you could not run your sheep around that in 11 weeks.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: If you had been to the Australian Workers Union, going out and droving -

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: The AWU has to be quick for you blokes. There is sufficient in this legislation for us to show at the Committee stages that it is rank injustice. Let us examine hours. The number of ordinary hours of an employee fixed by an award must not exceed 40, averaged over a 52-week period - 10 hours this week, 70 hours next week?

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Like we all do?

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: There are lots who would swap with you. If you do not like the job, resign. Tonight I heard Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile talking about the need for part- time work.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Especially for women.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Especially for women. Let us look at the injustices that can occur with unrestricted part-time work. There needs to be a limit on part-time work.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Limited by what?

Page 2434 The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Limited by justice. Let me give the House some examples. Where there is a minimum engagement of, say, four hours, a person living at Blacktown could do that job. That person would be able to travel into the city daily, buy lunch and take some money home. If there are unrestricted rights to part-time work the boss might say, "I want you for an hour today". It will cost that employee more in fares to get to work than he would receive in salary. You have to guard against those things. You must have minimum standards.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: We do not live in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. You cannot force people to have a job.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: The Government is making conditions that will make Russian conditions look good.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Nonsense.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: The Minister does not understand what happens, particularly in country towns, where kids are frightened to have birthdays, as I have told the House previously. Members of the Liberal Party have approached me about their children being underpaid, and I have fixed it. The majority of employers in our society are great people, but the Government is introducing legislation - particularly the right of entry provisions - that will benefit the crooks.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Is the honourable member saying that his own employees are equally as crooked?

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: I have said that already. There are injustices on both sides. But let us look at it. If any employees had stolen the amounts of money that the employers attempted to steal from their employees, they would have gone to gaol. What do these blokes get off the Government - knighthoods, O.B.E.s and M.B.E.s?

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: They do not give out knighthoods now.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: They do not give them out now because the Government has not got Bob around with the bag to pay for them.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: The honourable member would not get one, anyway.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Mate, you know it is right. Two of your former Ministers told me of one who paid.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: The grand statement with no evidence.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Plenty of evidence.

Page 2435

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Put it on the record.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: It will not be produced here. The honourable member knows that if an employee had knocked off $59,490 from the till, he would be in gaol - and rightly so. The employers can attempt to get away with those injustices.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: And so do some of the employees.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Rubbish! The honourable member knows that it was an injustice. Anything that perpetrates injustice is injustice.

The Hon. A. B. Manson: We know what happens in the building industry.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: The Australian Labor Party is not happy about the royal commission, either.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Beryl Evans): Order! Interjections are disorderly.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: The honourable member has raised the question of the Building Workers Industrial Union and the building industry royal commission. When the report is brought down by the commission more bosses will be running for cover than will workers.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: We will see.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: You know it. There have not been fair dinkum negotiations with the trade union movement on this bill. I believe men and women of good will can sit down at a table and solve any problem. The Opposition knows that some things in the legislation needed updating, but it did not think that any Australian government that believed in a fair go would perpetrate some of these things.

[Interruption]

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: I have already praised the Hon. Robert Baron Rowland Smith. He is a former Deputy Leader. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe should not make statements like that.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: We watched you doing it too.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Watched me doing what?

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Trying to praise the Hon. Robert Baron Rowland Smith. He was damned with faint praise.

Page 2436

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Under no circumstances. He has always had a good name with the employees and with the unions.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: And there are a lot more like him.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: There are a lot more like him, but do not protect the crooks. Let us have a look at this bill for a piece of stupidity.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: We are listening.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: You could have read it. The commission may not make an award or order requiring an employer to make deductions from wages for an employee for subscriptions payable to the employee's industrial or non-industrial union. What a load of crap! Why on earth would the Government put in something like that?

[Interruption]

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Pezzutti, go back to Lismore, will you?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Beryl Evans): Order! The Hon. J. R. Johnson knows the proper form of address in this Chamber.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. Why put a provision like that in a bill?

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You do not like it?

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: It is crazy. Why do it? An enterprise agreement may make provision for an employer to make these deductions.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It is a question of choice.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: You are denying the umpire, the Industrial Commission, the right to do it, but if an enterprise agreement has been sanctioned by the enterprise agreement commissioner, you can do it.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: By agreement; not by direction.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: But why?

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Why not?

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Go and read Goldilocks.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: I have. I am listening to you.

Page 2437

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Any provision of an award or order made before the commencement of this section that requires an employer to make these deductions ceases to have any effect on that commencement. Why? Have all the advisers to the Minister gone mad?

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: It is not so bad to call us mad, but leave the advisers alone. They cannot defend themselves.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: They must have been put up to it, because no person with a rational mind could come up with such stupidity.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: That is just your view.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: But why? The Opposition asks for simple answers. It will get simple answers, all right.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: The honourable member may ask specific questions in Committee.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Why is it that judges of the Industrial Commission will not have the right to scrutinise enterprise agreements? Is there any reason for that? Have they suddenly become bandits overnight? Why should the Industrial Commission not be able to award preference to unionists? Unionists pay for the awards. We have never asked for compulsion nor opposed proper conscientious objection provisions. What is wrong with the present section that deals with industrial agreements which have been in force for years? This whole matter fascinates me. As I indicated earlier to the House, it has always been necessary to protect the weak. In 1900 the Truck Act was introduced to stop employers paying in kind and not in coin of the realm. The blokes who sit on that side of the fence were the ones who were doing it.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: This is now. We have moved on.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: It would take dynamite to move the mob opposite. These things happened in the past and there is little doubt that in 50 years' time men and women will stand at this podium and ask, "How could they do it?" They will still be talking to the Tories of that time as I am talking to the Tories now. The Leader of the Government considers himself to be pretty cluey.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: No, I am just a humble engineer.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: He says he is just a humble engineer; he was so stupid that he could not even negotiate to get his long service leave after 23 years of service. Let me give as an example a person living in a country town who has never moved from that town. It is often the case that an employer says, "You are not entitled to long service leave", and that person goes home, just like Ted. But Page 2438 people in country towns have not had the education that Ted has and their rights have to be protected.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: But if you are right, I will be looking for retrospective payment from them.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: The Leader of the Government might be looking for retrospective payment but has run out of time. He has only six years within which to claim it. He was dudded and he was too stupid to know it. A lot of people in the community are not stupid. They are members of trade unions and they know that the trade union movement will do its best to ensure that this legislation does not pass. We will do our best. We hope we can appeal to the Christian conscience of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile on provisions that are important. In God's name, I ask them to support us.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.13]: Before the last election I spoke at length - in fact, I spoke for one and a half hours - on the industrial relations legislation, so I do not intend to take much time this evening. My colleague the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has already made a long speech and a number of amendments will be moved in Committee, so we will have an opportunity to discuss matters of interest to us. This bill is part of an economic rationalist move by this Government and by the Federal Opposition. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government intends to implement what it calls its level playing field philosophy, which is designed to weaken the union movement. Australia has a long and proud tradition of egalitarianism. It seems to me that this legislation is designed specifically to remove egalitarianism from the Australian work force. There is no doubt that the differentials between the salaries and wages of the weak and the strong will widen considerably. The rich will get richer; the stronger unions will negotiate good deals for their members; and the weak - the women and migrant workers referred to by my colleague - will be worse off. In this recessionary period - a recession almost bordering on depression - employees who are seeking jobs will be worse off after the recession is over. They will not be able to negotiate good wage deals or conditions.

It is depressing to think that this legislation will pass through this House virtually unamended. We have to remember that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has already declared his support for the legislation. At the last Federal election Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile called on all Australians to help save planet earth. The poster which he used at that campaign states: "Help save planet earth. Become an agent for good. Help save Australia from all forms of pollution and corruption. Help save our environment, our beaches, our wilderness and ozone layer". The poster has a picture of planet earth with the caption, "In times like these". Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile may have forgotten last year's campaign. I understand that members of the conservation movement have tried to meet with him on a number of occasions. They have contacted him. He has had letters from people like Peter Garrett and he has not replied to one of them. He has refused to meet them. They have not received one response from him or his wife. On this question of secondary Page 2439 boycotts they have written to him and phoned him on many occasions but they have not received one response. I am sure they will be very surprised if he comes into this House and supports the secondary boycott provisions. If he does so he will be voting directly against what he promised at last year's election campaign. In fact, he will contribute to the destruction of the planet. He will not be an agent for good and he will not be supporting our beaches, our wilderness or our ozone layer, as he claims on his poster. He will not be helping our environment or planet earth. In fact, he will be weakening planet earth because he will be ensuring that our heritage cannot be protected by green bans as it has been successfully for 20 or 30 years.

He will be voting against those who wish to stop the importation of rainforest timber from Sarawak where the Penan people are losing their homeland. In fact, there is an act of genocide by the Malaysian Government against these people and other tribes. He will make it impossible, as Jack Mundey did, to save heritage areas like The Rocks. He will make it impossible to stop the use of rainforest timber, for example, for plywood. Because of his attitude to secondary boycotts he will make it impossible to stop the destruction of our environment. In fact, we are aware that there was an attempt by a northern New South Wales timber contractor to take action against John Corkill and Dailan Pugh because of the blockade at Chaelundi forest. Chaelundi forest does not belong to that timber organisation, to the Forestry Commission or even to the Government; it belongs to the people of Australia. In fact, it is such a valuable area that it belongs to the people of the world. Endangered species in that forest cannot be replaced.

If Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile supports this legislation, effectively he will be supporting the destruction of the Chaelundi wilderness. This man has said one thing publicly but when he comes into this House he may do something entirely different. It will all depend on how he votes on clauses 256 and 269. As I have said, he has been approached by the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, the Total Environment Centre, the National Trust of Australia, the Wilderness Society, Greenpeace and the National Parks Association of New South Wales. All these people believed in the promise he made last year. They believed what he said when he talked about saving planet earth. They are bewildered by the fact that he has not replied to representations made by them. He still has time to reply. He still has time to meet with these people. But time is running out; he has only one day left in which to do so.

During the last few years the union movement was instrumental in saving the Wedderburn koala colony. It was instrumental in saving the light rail corridor in Randwick, which I visited yesterday. The Government proposes to sell off part of the Randwick bus depot, making it virtually impossible to have a light rail facility through that area. The Government is also attempting to sell off part of the corridor. On many occasions the union movement has shown a responsible attitude to the saving of our heritage. The green movement has been grateful for that. On many occasions there has been an informal alliance between the green movement and the union movement. Recently BHP Petroleum attempted to take legal action against Page 2440 Greenpeace under section 45D in the Federal Court. That is typical of many large companies. In America they have been taking pre-emptive action against conservation organisations that are trying to preserve what is left of the planet. That action was dropped, a course followed by many large companies in America. It was never intended that the action be heard in court; it was a pre-emptive strike to prevent Greenpeace from saving that area.

If the legislation is passed, as it may well do with the support of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and his honourable wife, New South Wales will undergo significant changes. The legislation will lead to women, particularly migrant women, being a lot worse off in a few years' time. New South Wales will return to the law of the jungle, the law of Darwin, where the weak go under and the strong become stronger. That is an unfortunate prospect. The only positive thing is that this legislation will not last long. I am certain that when the people of New South Wales see the results of the legislation, they will take steps to ensure that it is thrown out. It may well be that when they see the way Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile votes, particularly on the secondary boycott provisions of the bill, he may not receive the same level of support he received at the last election, 3.6 per cent of the vote. I advise the honourable member to have a good look at what he promised at the time of the last Federal election. He promised to save planet earth. A wonderful poster relating to planet earth appeared at every polling booth in New South Wales. He should be aware that several hundred thousand people in New South Wales, including the Hon. Terry Metherell, care deeply about what is happening to our planet and to New South Wales in particular.

The Hon. Terry Metherell is not Robinson Crusoe. I am aware that at least three other members of the Liberal Party are disturbed about the way the Government is going. It was merely a matter of who went first. I am sure that in another six to eight months at least three more members of the Liberal Party will no longer be members of that party. Because of the Government's attitude to the environment and to green bans, which it is now trying to get rid of, I do not believe the Government will last more than about 12 to 14 months. At that time Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and his good lady will also be suffering a backlash from the green movement. There has already been a mini-backlash to the resignation of Terry Metherell. Other members of the Liberal Party are disillusioned that the Government is no longer green and warm. In fact it was never green and warm. It has now become cold and brown. I will have much more to say during the Committee stages of this bill during the next two or three days. No doubt the result of the court challenge to the election result in The Entrance will be of interest and it may well be that New South Wales will reach crisis point in the next few days.

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY [9.23]: The issue which has to be dealt with in this debate is the legitimacy of the Government. The Government has no mandate now and will have no mandate in six days, six weeks or six months. On 25th May the policies espoused by the Government were clearly rejected.

The Hon. R. J. Webster: Tell us who got what percentage of the vote on 25th May.

Page 2441

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: This debate has in fact -

The Hon. R. J. Webster: Tell us who won the seats in the upper House.

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: I will get to that, don't worry.

The Hon. R. J. Webster: We are on this side and you are on that side.

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: Precisely, and do you know why?

The Hon. R. J. Webster: You need to get used to that.

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: No. You need to get used to the reality of politics in New South Wales, the fact that politics have changed. The Government has no legitimacy and no mandate. On 25th May the policies of the Minister's administration were rejected. The policies of Nick Greiner were rejected. The election result also demonstrated the manipulation of the electoral boundaries introduced into this House by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. The legislation in relation to ticks and crosses was a crucial -

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Beryl Evans): Order! I remind the Hon. P. F. O'Grady that he should be speaking to the Industrial Relations Bill.

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: I am demonstrating that -

The Hon. R. J. Webster: You are canvassing the ruling of the Chair.

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: No. This bill has been debated in a former Parliament. The bill is now before this new Parliament, the Fiftieth Parliament, which was constituted after a general election. If the legislation relating to ticks and crosses had not been in place, this legislation would not be before the House. Madam Deputy-President, I put to you in the strongest possible terms that that is the reality. Ticks and crosses made a big difference to the election results - whether they be in The Entrance, Maitland, Blue Mountains or Camden.

The Hon. R. J. Webster: On a point of order. Madam Deputy-President, the Hon. P. F. O'Grady is clearly flouting your ruling. The House is debating the Industrial Relations Bill; it is not debating the election result. The election was clearly won by the coalition parties with a majority of the two-party preferred vote, a majority of the seats in the Legislative Assembly, and a majority of the seats in the Legislative Council as well. The matter referred to by the honourable member is at present before the Court of Disputed Returns and is in a sense sub judice. It ill behoves him to raise it in this House. Madam Deputy-President, I urge you strongly to bring the Hon. P. F. O'Grady back to the ambit of the bill. If he is unable to do so, you should ask him to resume his seat.

The Hon. P. F. O'Grady: On the point of order. The Minister stated that the House is debating the Industrial Relations Bill. That is precisely what I have said.

Page 2442 The Hon. R. J. Webster: Get on with it.

The Hon. P. F. O'Grady: The Minister might not like what I say but that is precisely what I have said. Had there been a legitimate result at the general election, this legislation would not be before the House. That is the crucial issue.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: On the point of order. Absolutely nothing in the bill refers to The Entrance or to ticks and crosses. The Hon. P. F. O'Grady is outside the ambit of the bill and the matter the House is debating. I ask that you bring him back to the bill or rule him out of order.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: On the point of order. The Minister himself provoked this response because he raised the subject of the election. Surely the honourable member therefore has the right to reply to the Minister's interjection about the election result.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: On the point of order. Surely it is relevant to debate whether the Government has a mandate for this legislation.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Of course we have a mandate.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: The interjection is, "Of course we have a mandate". That demonstrates that this point can be debated. The Hon. D. F. Moppett contends that the Government has a mandate; the Hon. P. F. O'Grady contends the contrary. That is relevant to whether this House should give this bill a second reading.

The Hon. R. J. Webster: Further to the point of order. The point made by the Hon. J. W. Shaw is clearly irrelevant to what is being discussed. As a result of the election the coalition is the Government in the lower House. What the Hon. J. W. Shaw has just said is clearly nonsense. Obviously the bill would not be before the House if we had not been voted in as the legitimate Government. Let us get serious about it and bring the Hon. P. F. O'Grady back to the scope of the bill.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Beryl Evans): Order! I uphold the point of order. I repeat my earlier direction to the Hon. P. F. O'Grady to confine his remarks to the subject-matter of the bill.

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: This bill deals with a whole range of issues, including secondary boycotts, the right of entry of a union official, widespread community opposition and political donations. The bill impinges upon the fundamental existence of the Labor Party and the whole substance of the trade union movement. The bill attacks the foundation and the substance of both those organisations. In New South Wales the political and the industrial organisations of Labor have grown from the defeat of industrial campaigns into a political organisation to further enhance and protect the rights of individuals in the industrial Page 2443 sense. That has occurred in the Parliament and through legislation. Today we are debating a major bill that would alter the fundamental nature and the fundamental principles of industrial law. Underlying the whole concept of industrial law is the concept of equity. Equity is a most important principle which this Parliament must confront and deal with. To reduce the rights of individuals is to attack equity, the basis of employment, working conditions and wages. That issue must be clearly dealt with. The industrial and political arms of Labor go back a long way: in Australia to significant disputes in earlier years. They go back to the first Labor Government in this State. It is appropriate that we read and consider the significant High Court case of Williams and Others v. Hursey, reported in volume 103 of the Commonwealth Law Reports at page 30. That case deals with the fundamental right of trade unions to have political objectives and associations. The High Court said:

In this connection it is, I think, necessary, if one is to arrive at a realistic view, to remember certain aspects of the history of trade unionism in Great Britain and in Australia. One need not go back beyond the middle of the 19th century or examine what happened otherwise than in bare outline. At that time and thereafter in both countries the trade union movement, as it has been called, was endeavouring to achieve its ends - the general alleviation and amelioration of working and living conditions - by "industrial" means, that is to say, by combination, by propaganda, and by direct action, such as the strike. But in both countries a time arrived when the unions became convinced that those legitimate aims could not be attained except by political, as distinct from industrial, action. This meant ultimately that the unions and the class to which their members belonged, must have direct representation in Parliament, but it was not at first realised that this in turn meant that a new political "party" must be formed to support their interests.

It is at first sight curious, though readily explainable, that the use of trade union funds with a view to the attainment of immediate political ends became common in Great Britain at an earlier stage than in Australia, although the actual conception and creation of a distinctive "Labour" party came earlier in Australia than in Great Britain.

The court noted that A Short History of the British Working Class Movement stated:

Trade unions had been using their funds for political agitation at least since the early 60s, and for promotion trade union candidatures at least since 1867, the year of the Representation of the People Act.

The court continued:

But a nominate "Labour Party" seems to have come into actual being in Great Britain only in 1906. This was about five years after the decision of the House of Lords in the Taff Vale Case. Trevelyan, English Social History, pp. 574, 575 says: "It was no theory but the practical need to defend trade union rights . . . that brought Labour into politics to form a party of its own . . . The Taff Vale decision provoked the effective formation of a separate Labour Party in Parliament.

In Australia, on the other hand, the idea of direct representation in Parliament as an objective of the unions was definitely adopted earlier than in Great Britain and its development was more rapid. "An original development of trade unionism in Australia was its decision in the eighties of last century to play a direct part in politics". (Hancock, Australia, (1930) p. 199). . . At the end of the eighties the political activities of the unions received a powerful Page 2444 stimulus. The decade 1880-1890 was a decade of industrial conflicts, often culminating in strikes, in all the Australian colonies. In 1890 there was a strike which was disastrous from the unions' point of view. The point made is that these events convinced unionists generally that, while not abandoning "industrial" action as a weapon, the workers "must set about the work of reform where it seems that reform alone can be obtained, and that is in Parliament".

This bill attacks those principles and origins, which form the labour movement in this State.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: The bill really only requires them to go back and do what they did then: consult their membership.

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: The Hon. D. F. Moppett refers to consultation. This Government went to the polls and told the people there were no issues in the election campaign; it said none: this is not an issue: nothing is an issue. Yet the Hon. D. F. Moppett says that people should be consulted. The Government has not consulted anyone; it has not spoken to anyone. Every day on television during the election campaign the Premier said there were no issues - as he sped off to Lidcombe in his ministerial limousine. So it is absolute hypocrisy to say that there has been consultation. There has not. The Government must realise that we live in different times. This is the 1990s, not the 1980s or the 1970s. More and more, equity is the key, and this legislation would undermine the principle of equity. As a farmer the Hon. D. F. Moppett knows the problems of rural Australia. He knows how people are hurting. That is precisely why he should support the Opposition's stance on this legislation; because, very simply, this legislation is about equity, and equity is harder to find now than previously it was.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: That is rubbish.

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: It is not rubbish, and the honourable member knows that as well as I. The effect of this legislation would be to withdraw the influence and power of the right of entry - a most important right. As a former union official I understand the concept and importance of the right of entry. I have sat in many supermarket lunchrooms throughout New South Wales and I know what management would do to remove me. Management had no qualms about calling the police; it did so regularly. I know also the importance of the right of entry to inspect books. Whether the Government likes it or not, some employers do underpay their workers. The books are important and the right of a union official to enter a place of employment and inspect the books is a crucial and important right. That right deals fundamentally with equity, because it is about workers' entitlements.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Would it be possible for you to consider that they occasionally pay over the award? That is the substance of this voluntary agreement, which is a core part of the bill. All you people can talk about is the occasional isolated instance of underpayment. You never talk about how workers can gain from bargaining arrangements whereby they get overaward rates.

Page 2445

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: Let us deal with that concept. The Hon. A. B. Manson comes from the Building Workers Industrial Union, which is associated with the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia, which looks after crane drivers. As a group of employees they are not badly paid. But they have the strength. They can reach agreement and get a good whack for themselves. A part-time or casual shop assistant - or even a full-time employee - does not have as much power or industrial strength as a crane driver. The Government is creating a rod for its own back in this bill. The Government has absolutely no concept of how the industrial system works and is not particularly interested in it. It is interesting to note that this segment of the bill disregards the recommendations of the bill's guru, John Niland. He clearly recognised the legitimate right of a union official to enter a non- union workplace to inspect for compliance with an award or an order of the commission.

Under the bill a union official will have to give seven days' notice before he can inspect the books in the workplace. I do not regard that as being particularly valid or fair. If the Government were concerned about equity and justice, such a provision would not be in the bill - and this bill would not be before the House tonight. The Government has attempted to create the impression that there is a great need for this bill. It has said that the community is crying out for it. It has said that the industrial system is in such chaos that an overhaul is needed to provide a modern climate in which to work. No one is prepared to say that the system is a shambles and that we desperately need something new to improve industrial relations. William Patterson, Executive Director of the Meat and Allied Trades Federation, one of the employer organisations - I do not think anyone would assert that employer organisations are established to support the trade union movement - has said:

Threats of heavy fines against employers and unions, voluntary union membership and enterprise agreements are theoretical exercises which I see as creating, not settling, industrial disputes.

The bill is a theoretical exercise - nothing else. It does not come from a fundamental and principled understanding of the industrial relations system; it comes from someone dreaming up a good right-wing philosophical position, which is chaos. The people who work in the system, and understand it, do not support what the Government is seeking to do. The union movement can be accused of many things. In my view it can correctly be accused of using secondary boycotts to defend basic community rights. There are at least two examples of that. One is the action taken by the Newcastle Trades Hall Council in relation to the closing of Wallsend Hospital, which was created by the community. The union movement and the residents of Newcastle considered it of fundamental importance to the community to protect the hospital. The community generally and the Trades Hall Council fought against the closure of Wallsend Hospital. In 1990 the then Minister for Health, Peter Collins, released a new strategic plan for health services in the Hunter area which confirmed Wallsend's role as part of an integrated health care system based around the new John Hunter Hospital, a large successful hospital. The Wallsend Hospital was to be Page 2446 allocated 190 elective surgical and medical beds to deal with the needs of and to perform a role in the local community.

By August the Government had a new health Minister and had reneged on the agreement. The unions and the community organisations combined in secondary boycott action to persuade the Government to reconsider its decision. It seems to me that that is a particularly good use of secondary boycott action. The community and the union movement were seeking to defend and maintain community services. The other example arises from a letter which a whole range of organisations have sent out this week. They include Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society, the Total Environment Centre, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, the National Trust of Australia and the National Parks Association of New South Wales. Those organisations can foresee the secondary boycott provisions in the bill making illegal virtually every strike, picket or blockade - and perhaps even consumer boycotts. The union movement has been addressing the issue of environmental degradation in positive ways. Maritime unions have banned the import of rainforest timber. The building unions have banned construction of building along the eastern suburbs light rail corridor. Without the foresight to set aside such areas Sydney would be fundamentally damaged. Such action would be rendered illegal by the bill and would be subject to regressive fines of up to $100,000 for an organisation and $10,000 for an individual. The bill also provides for a penalty of up to six months in gaol. Such penalties would operate in addition to remedies currently available under common law.

Members of the Opposition have revealed a variety of matters which show the this legislation is fundamentally flawed, that it has not been thought through and that it needs a massive 57 amendments. The Opposition will oppose, debate and seek to make 57 amendments to this bill. This will enable us to return to the position of maintaining equity in the industrial relations system, ensuring some concept of justice and protection to people who are not at the top of the heap but rather at or near the bottom. It is the role of this Parliament to ensure that people are protected and that honesty and equity are built into the system. It is interesting that on this occasion the Government has not chosen to debate this issue. No Government member, aside from the Minister in his second reading speech, has even bothered to actually -

The Hon. R. J. Webster: What about me?

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: I was actually thinking about Government members on the backbenches. Two Ministers have spoken. The Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy has said that he made a good speech so there have been two contributions from Ministers. However none of the backbenchers have bothered to participate in this debate.

The Hon. A. B. Manson: They have had a black ban put on them.

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: The Hon. A. B. Manson says that they have had a black ban put on them, and that is obviously the case.

Page 2447

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It is probably a green ban, a secondary boycott.

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: It could be a green ban but I do not think honourable members opposite have much capacity to achieve something of a green nature. Nevertheless I am sure this legislation will be debated for many more hours and many amendments will be moved and many good cases put as to why this legislation should be rejected. I am disappointed that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services has not been at the table while I have been speaking.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [9.52]: We are all familiar with this legislation and its aims. The more enlightened of us are aware of the likely outcome. My colleagues have spoken previously on the Industrial Relations Bill and its many failings as legislation. They have spoken on the mechanisms within it, designed to allow unprecedented attacks on wages and working conditions, but I should like to remind the House of the general aim of this legislation and of the Government's industrial legislation as a whole. I may be understating the case but, given the draconian nature of the legislation, what we are looking at is basically labour market deregulation. This is the basis of the Liberal agenda, its philosophy. It is embodied in the bill before us, constantly pushed at the Federal level and has been implemented with disastrous effects in New Zealand.

Various points can be made about labour market deregulation generally. For example, our past experience in this country under the Fraser Government's deregulation has shown that it is an economically flawed approach. In 1981-83 wages increased by 17 per cent, thus reducing our economic competitiveness. Honourable members are aware of what happened with inflation during those years. Under the centralised, regulated accord process real wages have decreased by approximately 15 per cent since 1983. Honourable members opposite often prefer to forget these figures. This is an important consideration but it is not my immediate concern. Many of my colleagues who are much more experienced than I on industrial relations have spoken on this legislation. My concern is to talk about the very people that I try humbly to represent in this Chamber, the most vulnerable group in our community, the real losers in a deregulated labour market, the lowest paid in society, migrants, women, the disadvantaged, the uneducated and so on. Why is this? It is because those groups represent the economic groups in society least able to successfully negotiate wages and conditions.

[Interruption]

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Is the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy not a union member any more?

The Hon. R. J. Webster: No, I belong to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Under Greiner's proposed legislation those groups will not even be able to protect their current levels of pay. Labour market Page 2448 deregulation and any concept of social injustice are largely incompatible aims. Our labour market is already comparatively highly regulated. Minister Fahey slanders it as inefficient. But, to the contrary, it is an efficient means of protecting acceptable living standards for the majority. The system of awards, agreements and procedures for negotiating this industrial law extends to all members of the work force. These are collectively created standards that protect the majority, to the extent that the basic wage rate for all workers was 73.4 per cent of the trades awards. This is a critical statistic to non-English speaking migrants. These workers are concentrated in the semiskilled to unskilled sector of the labour market. By virtue of their background they have no option but to opt for manual labour requiring no technical skill. Some of these people migrated to this country with high qualifications but those qualifications have not been recognised. Therefore they have had to start right from the bottom and do underpaid manual jobs from which very seldom they managed to escape, and only after many years of struggle had their overseas qualifications recognised.

Jock Collins, an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Technology, Sydney, has highlighted this reality in a most revealing way. I wish to pay tribute to the work of Professor Collins, who always deals in matters of immigrant workers in the most competent way. He categorised all female workers by their ethnic background and allowed each grouping an average of 100 women in each occupation. The 1986 census revealed that Vietnamese and Turkish women averaged 490 in the clothing industry; that is, they were over-represented almost five times in that industry in comparison to other nationalities. Honourable members would know of the work performed by the Women's Advisory Council of this State and by the clothing industry trade union official, Anna Booth. They have done excellent work to try to protect outworkers. Greek women averaged 838, showing that eight times the expected number of these women were in the clothing industry.

It is critical that honourable members realise that migrants, particularly migrant women, are working on a massive scale in the lowest skilled occupations in this country. I challenge the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs and the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment to tell me that, as unrepresented individuals, these people can approach their employer and negotiate reasonable wages and conditions. What do they have to bargain with? They have little education - in some cases they have no education - due to conditions in their country of origin. For example, people from what was formerly known as Indo-China had their education interrupted. Lebanese migrants and people from war torn countries have come to this country with very little education. Their level of skills is severely limited. They have little chance of obtaining other than the minimum wage, which is likely to leave them living in near poverty. This is compounded by the fact that a significant proportion of migrants cannot speak English. Are they expected to negotiate their working conditions through an interpreter? Will unscrupulous employers allow them to have the services of an interpreter? Under the newly established user-pays system these poor workers, who receive a minimum wage, would be asked to pay for that service.

Page 2449

Will they be forced to place their signature on an enterprise agreement as a matter of economic necessity without anyone on hand to guard them against the consequences? Honourable members have seen the exploitation of migrant workers decade after decade. Thanks to the work of unions such as the Clothing and Allied Trades Union, migrant women, and in particular migrant women outworkers, have been protected. Perhaps the most distressing outcome becomes obvious when the levels of unemployment in the migrant work force are considered. The level of unemployment for Vietnamese, Lebanese and Turkish men and women is four to five times higher than the average. The combination of a deregulated labour market and a large pool of unemployed workers is, as we all know, a recipe for blatant exploitation. Workers with little understanding of their entitlements simply undercut their wages in a desperate bid for employment. That is what this Government wants. That is what this piece of legislation is all about. This piece of legislation will send us back 50 or 100 years. In a State such as New South Wales, which has gained extraordinary benefits from the contribution of the migrant labour force, this is an unacceptable leap backwards. Let us examine the history of migrant workers in this State and this country. They have contributed enormously to the development of this State. The Leader of the Government in this House has said as much many times. He comes from Wollongong where migrants have worked in the steelworks and done the dirtiest jobs that no Australian wanted to do. Migrant workers have made a tremendous contribution to places such as Wollongong and Newcastle, as well as to the Snowy Mountains scheme.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: What has that got to do with the bill?

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: If this bill becomes law they will be put in a position where their wages will be cut and they will be unable to negotiate with employers.

The Hon. A. B. Manson: Legal exploitation.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Exactly. This bill lacks compassion in respect of the needs of the disadvantaged in the community, and it demonstrates a profound ignorance of the past contributions of the State's migrant work force. The Industrial Relations Bill pays no regard to social justice issues. It represents a direct attack upon workers, and in particular the wages and conditions of the already disadvantaged. It is ironic that this piece of legislation, which will disadvantage migrant workers in particular, should come to light under a Government led by the son of migrants, a man who has proudly said to migrant groups, "I am the son of immigrants. I was not born in this country. I came here and had it tough like you did". Shame on him. This legislation will be the death knell for Greiner. I assure honourable members that when migrant workers realise what this legislation will do to their living conditions, Mr Greiner will not be able to go to the ethnic groups and play the big part that he generally does, and neither will his Minister. This legislation will ensure that migrant workers in this country will never vote for a Liberal government again.

Page 2450

The Hon. DELCIA KITE [10.6]: My integrity as a labour movement representative and as a descendant of one of the many honorable hard-working men who struggled to feed their families would be challenged if I did not speak to this revoltingly reactionary legislation. If this bill is passed it will take us back to the dark ages, when organised action as a means of advancing the cause of dignity of working-class people was met by the violence of exclusive privileged power merchants. I am proud that my grandfather was involved in the historic shearers strike in the 1890s at Barcaldine in Queensland. It was during that strike that my father was born. He inspired me to listen, learn and understand the strength of those who worked in solidarity to lift hard-working Australians out of the dark satanic mill psychology inherited from the old country.

The unique psyche of the Australian worker has developed from this sense of personal and national pride. It is that image which is depicted overseas of the courageous, strong but honest battler. The Australian morality code stands by the principle of giving your mate a fair go. It is the ethic of sharing possessions as well as power, and it is that trait which endears international visitors to our Australian way of life. I am most concerned about the Government's intention to modify the existing Industrial Commission. The Industrial Commission of New South Wales has Supreme Court status. It can conciliate, arbitrate and determine questions of law. Clause 305 of the proposed legislation will split the Industrial Commission into two separate institutions, an Industrial Relations Commission and an Industrial Court. That is an unnecessary and artificial division. Currently the commission is extremely flexible. It is empowered to exercise a range of conciliatory, arbitral and judicial powers as the need arises. The proposed split will reduce the commission's ability to assist in the prevention and resolution of industrial disputes. It will be more time-consuming, laborious and expensive for unions to take industrial matters before the commission. It is quite common for unions to be involved in matters which relate to both questions of fact and questions of law. These new provisions may require that some matters proceed to the commission and that others proceed to the court before they can continue in the commission.

The outcome of this provision inevitably will be massive delays in the process of dispute prevention and resolution. The underlying agenda is to get rid of the Industrial Commission altogether. Premier Greiner has made his attitude toward the Industrial Commission very clear. Consider his proposal in 1989 that the Easter half-day concession for the public service be abolished. Unfortunately for Premier Greiner the commission made an award contrary to his highly publicised wishes. The Government then appealed against that decision. The appeal went before the full bench, which overturned the award but at the same time admitted that public servants had behaved most properly in the past regarding the Easter half-day holiday. The decision was based on restructuring and efficiency considerations. When the Premier lost the dispute and the following appeal he denigrated the judge and the Industrial Commission. On the other hand the unions adhered to the proper processes at all times. It appears that a hidden motive in these provisions punishes the Industrial Page 2451 Commission. The Government cannot control the judges; they are too independent. So the bill seeks to abolish the existing Industrial Commission.

The provisions regarding parental leave are less than what was provided by the Federal Court. Under proposed section 44(2) a male employee will not be entitled to parental leave unless the employer consents. Thus men will have no right to parental leave; there will only be the right to ask. The Government has broken its promise. On International Women's Day in 1989 and 1990 the Premier reassured the women of New South Wales that he is not sexist, that he is vitally concerned not only about maternity leave but also about providing males with the opportunity to take parental leave. A number of glossy publications were produced outlining the Government's commitment that male workers in this State should be entitled to a maximum of 52 weeks' paternity leave or parental leave. Unfortunately on this issue there was active resistance within Cabinet. The disappointing parental leave provisions in the bill are a result of that Cabinet resistance. There is inconsistency in the way in which the bill deals with parental leave and part-time work provisions. Almost unlimited freedom is guaranteed to employers to negotiate any sort of part-time work arrangements, no matter how exploitive. This is particularly pertinent for women workers, many of whom will want part-time arrangements because of family commitments. It is accepted already that women workers are disadvantaged industrially. Unfettered extension of part-time work, without strictures, may create another marginalised disadvantaged group within the work force. Curiously, the legislation will place restrictions at the same time on the many thousands of men who would like to take parental leave, to take on the role that traditionally women have taken up. These inconsistencies indicate that the legislation has a patriarchal basis.

I shall deal with the inferiority of the provisions of the bill compared with principles set out in the Federal test case decision. In July 1990 the Australian Industrial Relations Commission handed down a decision on the parental leave test case. The decision was arrived at after the court considered in detail issues such as the changing pattern of parental responsibilities and economic factors. The test case decision is now flowing on to Federal awards. The New South Wales Industrial Relations Bill will mean differing entitlements for working fathers in New South Wales, depending whether they work under Federal awards or the State system. Soon every other State in Australia will have the benefits of the Federal decision. Clearly New South Wales is dragging the chain and in conscience should implement the Federal decision. One hears with regular monotony the trendy terms that are so popular in the ranks of the powerful today, including the Greiner Government. The words include productivity, pay for performance, collective bargaining, accountability, damage control - particularly relevant issues to this Government which has failed in all of those respects. Surely even this extreme Government must realise that these goals were sought and achieved by the trade union movement, which understood the importance of all those aspects of progressive labour practices, taught them and encouraged them for the benefit of industry in this country. The period that represented the greatest growth in the trade union movement through compulsory membership coincided with the increased growth in our national product. Page 2452 Industrial harmony is as essential for this Government as it was for any previous government and is for any future government. That harmony will not be achieved by the cynical divide and rule tactics that are inherent in the proposed legislation.

Workers who contributed their skills, experience and hard labour to the State government owned projects did so with a pride of achievement. There was a sense of collective pride in the final product, established by the people for the people. The workers have watched those government enterprises being sold, one after another, lock stock and barrel, to private and often foreign entrepreneurs, with profits being squandered in relentless greedy takeover bids. Those profits could have been capitalised for the expansion of our public hospitals, public schools, and public transport services, which are so vital to working-class families. The bill is a mechanism by which their frustration and anger once again are being reduced to redundant appendages and a mechanism by which scapegoats for a billionaire-led recession may be quietened. It is part of the grand plan of preferential treatment for unscrupulous employers and business hijackers. This proposed industrial legislation is beyond the pale, un-Australian and unacceptable to the decent democratic minded people of New South Wales. Even the churches are concerned about the wasted sacrifices of the Tolpuddle Martyrs. Many clergy have supported the ideals of organised peaceful negotiation and reconciliation, which will no longer be achieved if the bill is passed.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [10.17]: It was not originally my intention to speak in this debate, but the remarks of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald about enterprise agreements, particularly his specific attack on the enterprise agreement of the McDonald College, cannot be allowed to pass without correction. The honourable member was being very unfair to enterprise agreements in general and to the McDonald College in particular. I should declare my personal interest in this matter, for I am a member of the Governing Council of the McDonald College - New South Wales' first specialist high school of the performing arts and a school that has nationwide and international respect for its contribution to the education of talented young people. McDonald has an excellent record in dance, in its academic program and in its sense of community spirit. The teachers, parents and students of McDonald are a very special group of people who must have been very upset by the careless remarks of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald and his totally unjustified slur on their school.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald in his speech in debate in this House referred to employers having the ability to "screw down their employees". He referred to "a number of unscrupulous employers who will exploit the system"; and then he stated that "the McDonald College agreement has the potential to exploit the work force to a significant degree". He implied that it was unscrupulous and uncaring of its employees. Yet the simple truth of the matter is that the Hon. I. M. Macdonald and, for that matter, the Independent Teachers Association, whose document the honourable member was using - the document that I have here - was attempting to compare apples with oranges. The comments made by the honourable member Page 2453 clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding of the structure of the Teachers Non-Government Schools (State) Award, both in its classification variances and its incremental salary scale.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald demonstrates a profound ignorance of the likely educational and professional backgrounds of present and potential teachers in the performing arts - an ignorance he shares, obviously, with the Independent Teachers Association. Those covered under the McDonald College enterprise agreement are not teachers of the academic curriculum at the college, they are the performing arts instructors. They have extensive and highly respected qualifications in dance, but not in academic teaching. To understand this distinction one needs to understand the special nature of the McDonald College. It offers a quality academic curriculum on the one hand with an extended studies program in acting, classical ballet, dance, and music on the other hand. The extended studies program is offered to its own students and to many students of other schools who attend evening and weekend classes. The college employs staff to teach the normal academic program, which is determined by the Board of Studies. For this purpose the college employs teachers under the Teachers Non- Government Schools (State) Award. In addition, the college has individually contracted with performers and others who work in performing arts. In this way the college has created new employment and offered continuity of work to many. There is no award applicable to the instructors of dance, ballet and acting.

The majority of those who work in the hundreds of dance schools throughout New South Wales are employed on a casual, hourly rate basis. They do not have the benefit of secure and permanent employment, sick leave, superannuation, and so on. Generally speaking they have little or no tertiary qualifications or formal teacher training. They are in that sense very different from the teachers who work in schools teaching academic programs. Employees primarily concerned with the implementation of the extended studies program are, therefore, not employed as teachers under the terms of the Teachers Non-Government Schools (State) Award. Technically they are dance instructors with no award at all. This is an important point because the choice is not as the Hon. I. M. Macdonald and the Independent Teachers Association claim; that is, between a high ITA award and a much lower McDonald College enterprise agreement. The true and honest comparison is between the sorts of salaries that dance teachers generally get and the salaries they get under the new enterprise agreement. I wish to share with honourable members some comparisons. I have before me documentation relating to salaries received by teachers at McDonald College under the enterprise agreement. I shall not violate the privacy of members of the staff at that college by revealing their names.

The Hon. Franca Arena: What has this got to do with the bill?

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: I suggest that the honourable member read that part of the bill that relates to enterprise agreements. What I am referring to certainly has to do with the comments of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald and the Independent Teachers Association. The teaching staff at McDonald College Page 2454 covered by this agreement - that is, the non-academic teaching staff under what would be the equivalent Independent Teachers Association award if they were being represented fairly by an Independent Teachers Association award rate - are all receiving substantially higher salaries for their academic qualifications than they would under an Independent Teachers Association award rate. In one instance a teacher is receiving almost $7,000 more, and in another instance more than $11,000. I have no figures relating to part-time teachers. A comparison of what teachers at that college will receive under the proposed enterprise agreement and the comparatively high salaries paid by McDonald College shows that two teachers will receive the same salary and five will receive more. In other words, they are receiving substantially higher salaries than teachers elsewhere receive. Their salaries will be even higher under the proposed enterprise agreement.

The suggestion by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald that this enterprise agreement seriously erodes the present conditions under the industrial award for independent teachers should be given the same acknowledgment and credence as his statement that teachers at the college had agreed to take a cut in wages and conditions. He said, "That is clear cut; it cannot be denied". It certainly can be denied. It was dishonest of the honourable member at the very least to suggest such a thing. It is dishonest also of the Independent Teachers Association to suggest that such a thing would happen. The McDonald College agreement grew up over a long period because teachers at the college were not covered and could not be sympathetically covered by the Independent Teachers Association. They wanted to have an agreement of their own and they wanted separate coverage. Sadly, the only way that could be achieved was through the philosophy of an enterprise agreement. Thank goodness they had this model to follow! Their alternative would have been nothing.

The enterprise agreement between the teachers and the college has given the teachers job security, appropriate levels of salary, award classifications, flexible and varied working hours to accommodate the need for extra workshops and rehearsals, and a more flexible approach to the payment of casual teachers that recognises the needs of both the college and the teachers. Many of the teachers work in outside areas as well. The agreement will provide superannuation, sick leave, annual holiday pay and long service leave. Teachers will attain promotional levels that were barred to them in the past. Procedures will be created that will allow significant staff input into the ongoing development of salary and work conditions. It will enable the creation of a workplace committee of employees and the employer to overview the day-to-day operations of the extended studies program. That committee will adjudicate in cases of grievances, misunderstandings or terminations of employment. To his discredit the Hon. I. M. Macdonald chose to criticise such a sterling institution in our educational system. It was a pity that the Independent Teachers Association published an extremely dishonest document. I shall conclude by quoting from a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald written by a teacher at McDonald College. It reads:

We were all involved, with the administration, in the discussion and formulation of our Enterprise Agreement. More importantly, the College welcomed our total input. It is our agreement. The healthy and honest dealings on both sides of the fence enabled us to establish a new bond of understanding among staff members and between the staff and the college administration.

Page 2455

To assist with the development of the agreement and to ensure that its wording could not be open to misunderstanding, both the college and employees commissioned suitably qualified industrial advocates. The cost of these consultants for both sides, estimated at close to $9,000, was met with extreme difficulty by the college, such was considered to be the importance of the agreement. The industrial relations legislation and the earlier enterprise agreements legislation are about providing more and better opportunities for the working people of New South Wales - not fewer. A clear example of such improved salaries and conditions is the enterprise agreement of the McDonald College. I congratulate the college, an industrial trailblazer of the twenty-first century. I call upon the Hon. I. M. Macdonald to retract his unfair comments and to apologise to McDonald College. I support the bill.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice- President of the Executive Council) [10.31], in reply: I thank all honourable members who have spoken on the bill before the House, and in particular I congratulate the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann and the Hon. Jan Burnswoods on their maiden addresses to the House. Sadly, the debate from honourable members opposite has been very predictable and has generally been marked by much ill-informed fervour. However, in light of the hour - I am sure that everyone would be delighted to listen to my reasoned and well researched response to all the contributions made by honourable members opposite - perhaps we should reassemble tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice- President of the Executive Council) [10.32]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

BUILDING SERVICES CORPORATION REFORMS

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [10.32]: A few weeks ago I received a letter from Springett and Associates, who are consulting civil and structural engineers. They brought to my attention what they believe will be useful reforms in relation to the Building Services Corporation. The letter is couched in these terms. The removal of the guarantee provisions against faulty workmanship from the Building Services Corporation is talked about. The position of the Building Services Corporation as both judge and insurer, according to Springett and Associates, is a clear conflict of interest that must act at least to some degree against the consumer. As honourable members will know, I am quite certain from letters Page 2456 that they will have received from constituents, that this is very frequently the case. Many consumers feel that they are not adequately protected.

It is suggested that instead it should be a condition of licence renewal that a builder be required to produce proof of an adequate level of indemnity insurance with an appropriately registered insurer. "Adequate" is suggested to be a figure linked to the maximum value of the contract, factoring the total income in the last year of operations. For example, insurance should not be less than the maximum permitted contract price and not less than 10 per cent of the total income in the previous year. It is suggested that this could appear as the endorsement on a licence to enter into contracts of up to a certain value only. Therefore, a shoddy builder would be weeded out by his inability to secure insurance at an economic price and he would not be able to renew his licence. The existing pool of funds held by the Building Services Corporation could then be turned over to the GIO to fund an "insurer of last resort or excessive liability" trust account for those few cases in which a builder's liabilities exceed the policy limit and his own capacity to pay.

It is also suggested that, in conjunction with the above, the Government would accept self-certification of building works. This would greatly reduce the lost time and trivialities presently caused by the local government inspection system and also the scope for corruption. Such a self-certification system is already possible in other specific areas of work, such as electrical and plumbing. It is widely practised in a de facto way in structural engineering. But a consistent and logical framework, formalising and extending the system, would allow for considerable efficiencies. I request that the Minister responsible for the Building Services Corporation look at the suggestions with some care. At some later date he may be able to inform the House whether he believes the recommendations to be practical. However, I think there is no doubt that every honourable member will have been made aware of cases where people have had buildings constructed for them, have found that they have not been satisfactorily built and have felt that they have had an inadequate response from the Building Services Corporation. It appears that an overhaul of the present system is long overdue.

COASTAL MINING

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.37]: The high pressures of development, sand mining and weed infestation are threatening the remaining few unspoilt areas of coastal heathlands, coastal eucalypt forest, littoral rainforest and wetlands of New South Wales. To conserve a high diversity of native animals we must make every effort to protect the remaining coastal habitats. Over half the northern New South Wales coast has been sand mined at great cost to our natural heritage. The proposed sand mining at Diamond Beach by Mineral Deposits Limited exemplifies the contempt with which some developers exploit our environment at the expense of the community. The proposal is to rework a strip of 150 hectares of vacant Crown land. This land is reserve number 97782, gazetted for environmental protection by the Page 2457 Department of Lands. It is behind a foredune mined in the 1970s and includes new country consisting of prime dry and wet coastal heath and part of a State environmental planning policy No. 14 wetland that borders Khappinghat Creek. This area has been proposed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service as the Khappinghat Nature Reserve. It is one of the few remaining areas of coastal land between Manning Point and Hawks Nest that has not been seriously damaged by sandmining and other developments.

The lifespan of the operation would be four years, 24 hours a day, seven days per week. Studies undertaken by the company rate this site as having moderate to high ecological significance. Subsequent studies by recognised researchers found this rating to be extremely conservative with a number of rare and scientifically significant species occurring within the mining area. Biological surveys undertaken by Mineral Deposits confirm that many significant mammal species exist within the mining path, yet the company apparently has no idea where population centres and migration routes occur and has neglected to propose a strategy plan to provide for the continued survival of native fauna. Mineral Deposits claims that Khappinghat Creek will not be polluted but has not undertaken a detailed water management or flood study to justify this claim.

The aquatic study submitted does not provide a baseline for pre-mining and post-mining comparisons as claimed in the environmental impact statement. It is a one-off snapshot study that has no control sites, no seasonal studies, no replication within sampling sites and no quantification of results. Sand mining will destroy the humic soil layer which supports the water table. Without this soil layer, the re-established vegetation will struggle to survive. Is Mineral Deposits' consultant lacking in scientific knowledge or is it deliberately trying to avoid complex ecological problems? The company's archaeological survey in respect to Aboriginal heritage concerns for the area indicates that there will be no impact as a result of the proposed mining operation. The company initiated no consultations with the Taree-Purfleet Aboriginal Lands Council whose interest was explicitly noted in its claim for the reserve area, and was recognised by the National Parks and Wildlife Service in the declaration of the Aboriginal place, under section 84 of the National Parks and Wildlife Service Act, over the reserve.

No extensively researched economic impact statement has been initiated by Mineral Deposits to assess the impact of sand mining on the local tourist industry, an industry with a potential capitalised investment of around $30 million. Over 106,000 tourists visited Diamond Beach alone during the past 12 months and it is extremely doubtful that the mining proposal can offset this economic loss to the local community. To view this proposal on the basis of a short-term four-year venture is to jeopardise the future long-term benefits that the natural environment offers to all Australians. It directly threatens both the sustainable fishing and tourism industries of the area. It compromises the specific aim of the New South Wales coastal policy, which sanctions the protection of representative coastal species and ecosystems which are important for aesthetic, environmental, scientific and economic reasons. The EIS Page 2458 that Mineral Deposits submitted in support of its case for mining is so lacking in its treatment of basic issues that it is to be expected that the community will be concerned about the behaviour of the company if this proposal is allowed to proceed.

Taree city council has received more written objections to this proposal than any other development application in its history, yet it seems of little concern to the company how the community views this proposal. Will the community benefit in the long term by way of new playing fields for its school? The promise of improved roads is certainly attractive to any community but would existing roads suffice if the mining plan and the deterioration of roads that comes with the use of those roads by heavy vehicles did not go ahead? Mining Deposits Limited has failed to prove that it can restore vegetation to its original diversity following mining. On a number of occasions, Mineral Deposits has been asked to provide both pre-mining and post-mining vegetation surveys for sites it has mined in the past so that its claims to support its ability to effectively regenerate mined areas can be substantiated. In all cases the company has failed to provide the necessary information. The only conclusion that can be reached is that the company is well aware that, once mined, the site will lose its complexity and diversity.

This proposal appears to be a test case by the sand mining company to see just now far it can overstep the mark under the current Liberal Party-National Party Government. This development, if approved, will signal to other would-be developers that the destruction of designated wetlands has the "thumbs up". I cannot see how the Government can afford to ignore the concerns of the community in the light of scientific evidence that shows how important wetlands areas really are in the cycle of marine life. I urge the Government to read the recently released report on coastal development in New South Wales and to act swiftly on its recommendations. The Government, by ignoring the findings of the report on coastal development, will allow irreparable damage to take place on what little of the natural coastal environment we have left, at an immeasurable loss to all Australians. It does so at its own peril.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! The honourable member has exhausted his time for speaking.

BALMAIN PENINSULA DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY [10.42]: Yesterday I asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy a question about whether he planned to appoint an officer of his department as an environmental planning administrator to Leichhardt council to consider the issue of the Balmain peninsula rezoning. Honourable members are no doubt aware that today the Minister made some announcements, and the Premier spoke in the other place, about measures to be put in place, including a State environmental planning policy. Council elections were held at the end of September and as soon as Larry Hand was elected mayor of Leichhardt he wrote to Page 2459 the Minister on 1st October and informed the Minister of his election. Mr Hand advised the Minister that the council had decided to consider the timetable for the rezonings by way of mayoral amendment on 15th October. He told the Minister also that he would be happy to speak with him about this issue.

The President of the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales, Peter Woods, spoke to the Minister about this matter and it was agreed that the mayor of Leichhardt and representatives of the council would meet with the Local Government Association to discuss the issues concerning the rezoning of the land. However, the Minister decided it was not appropriate to discuss the issue because that would take more than half an hour and he would deal with it at another time. The council did consider this matter at its meeting on 15th October and set out a timetable which it referred to the Minister on 16th October. The Minister has acted today and totally ignored the wishes of the council. The members of this House who were members of the coastal development inquiry understood one fundamental concept, that is, that if we were to achieve anything in any debate, whether that relates to coastal development or to urban consolidation, the NIMBY attitude was not the foundation of concern for the majority of the groups. The process that had to be engaged in was proper discussion. If the Government were serious about urban consolidation, it would not have gone down the road it has taken today. Terry Metherell in his press conference today -

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Who?

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: Terry Metherell, a former distinguished Liberal, so we are informed, told a press conference today that the Government was simply responding to his agenda. That is the key thing.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Whose agenda?

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: The Government is responding to his agenda.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Who is he?

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: He is a member of Parliament who has deprived the Government of another vote. Though the Liberal Party might not like it, it will always have to remember it.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: There are three more.

The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: Three more to come. If the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and the Government were serious about achieving something, they could and should have engaged in discussions with Leichhardt council, which was recently elected and has resolved a number of fundamental problems that have existed in that council for a period. The council sought to adopt a positive position to resolve the issue, but the Government and the Minister have ignored the council's concern and rolled straight over it. It is a sham and a disgrace. It will not achieve the goal that the Minister seeks. What it will do is ensure that the issue is not dealt with properly.

Page 2460 The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! The honourable member has exhausted his time for speaking.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at 10.47 p.m.

______

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

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

QUAAMA ROAD FATALITIES

Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads -

(1) Has Deadmans Curve on McLeod Hill, Quaama, claimed a number of lives?

(2) Will the Minister give top priority to ensuring that Deadmans Curve is made safer for motorists?

Answer -

I am advised by the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads that the answer to the Hon. Member's question is:

(1) Since 1985, there have been two fatal accidents on the Highway at McLeod Hill. One was in 1988 and, according to the Police report, was due to driver error. The second fatal accident occurred in April this year when a motor cyclist was killed. Excessive speed was reported to be the cause of the fatality.

(2) As the condition of the pavement, linemarking and signposting on the section of the Princes Highway in question is considered to be adequate, there are no proposals to carry out upgrading works on the Highway in the McLeod Hill area. However, conditions will continue to be monitored so that any enhancement measures which may be warranted can be undertaken.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PEDESTRIAN HAZARD LIABILITY

Miss Kirkby asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Cooperatives -

Is the Local Government authority of a region liable in the event of an accident involving obstructions on public footpaths, such as advertising signs, parked cars or business activity?

Page 2461

Answer -

I am advised by the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Cooperatives that the answer to the Hon. Member's question is:

The person primarily liable in the event of an accident involving an obstruction placed on a footpath is the person who placed the obstruction on the footpath.

A local council has certain powers under the Local Government Act 1919 and Ordinances to licence, control and prohibit objects placed on footpaths for business activity or otherwise. Under the common law of negligence a local council may also be liable as a result of accidents involving objects on footpaths.

In addition, the Police have responsibility for regulating obstructions on footpaths under the Motor Traffic Regulations 1935, General Traffic Regulations 1916 and the General Traffic (Pedestrian) Regulations 1937 made pursuant to the Traffic Act 1909. In many cases, the provisions of the Traffic Regulations concerning control of footpaths overlap with the Local Government Ordinances. Where this occurs, the terms of the Traffic Regulations almost always prevail.

The permutations and variations of situations exposing a council or others to possible liability are too numerous to address in reply to the question asked. Further, in canvassing all possibilities, an onerous and undue burden would be placed on resources.

ALBURY PAPER BRIGHTENING MILL EFFLUENT

Miss Kirkby asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy -

(1) In allowing Australian Newsprint Mills to establish its paper brightening mill in Albury, has the Minister taken a unilateral decision on a project which, through its impact on the Murray River also involves the Victorian, South Australian and the Federal Governments?

(2) Has the Minister approved a plant which will release DPTA (diethylenetriaminpentaacetic acid) heavy metals and organics into the Murray River, although the Murray-Darling Ministerial Council (of which N.S.W. is a member) policy is "To maintain and where necessary, improve existing water quality in the rivers of the Murray Darling Basin"?

(3) If the effect of DPTA, heavy metals and organics has not been fully studied, how can the full impact of the mill's discharge into the Murray River drinking and irrigation water be properly assessed?

(4) Has the Minister approved the mill without fully evaluating the option of land based disposal?

Page 2462

(5) Has the Minister followed the minimum proviso stated by the Commission of Inquiry that the disposing of effluent be limited to a period of 5 years?

Answer -

(1) No. The New South Wales Government received advice from the then Chairman of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, Mr Kerin, prior to my decision on the proposed brightening facility. This advice stated that the Council considered the facility should be approved with interim approval to waste water disposal into the river. The Ministerial Council also considered that off-river options should be investigated and implemented if proven to be economic and feasible. I have required Australian Newsprint Mills (ANM) to investigate alternative waste water disposal options. ANM has given its written undertaking that it will implement an alternative disposal option if this investigation programme shows an alternative to be economically feasible and environmentally more desirable than disposal into the river. The approach I have taken is a responsible one which is in accordance with the principles contained in the decision of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council.

(2) The proposed facility was examined by a Commission of Inquiry under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The Commissioners found that the treated waste water would have negligible impact on water quality and the Murray River ecosystem. The Commissioners recommended approval.

(3) I have made the consent subject to a number of stringent conditions. These conditions will require extensive monitoring and testing of the waste water and its impact. The results of this work will enable the State Pollution Control Commission to set appropriate standards in issuing a discharge licence. The consent also requires that the results of the various testing, monitoring and investigation programmes be made public.

(4) A range of options for waste water disposal were discussed in the environmental impact statement and the report of the Commissioners of Inquiry. These documents were considered in reaching a decision on the conditions of consent. One of those conditions requires the company to investigate off-river disposal options and report to me on this matter by mid 1992.

(5) This was not a minimum proviso of the Commissioners. Rather, it was one option. The Commissioners found that on the weight of technical evidence effluent disposal into the river is acceptable.

EARTH EXCHANGE LOUDSPEAKERS

Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy -

(1) Did the Earth Exchange install thousands of dollars worth of imported loudspeakers this year?

Page 2463

(2) If so, why did the Earth Exchange not purchase Australian loudspeakers of an identical type and lower price?

(3) Will the Minister ensure that his Government Departments adopt a "Buy Australian" policy so that the general public will take pride in Australian products and actively seek them out when considering a purchase?

(4) Will the Minister ensure that the Government will purchase Australian products wherever they are of equal quality and capacity and competitively priced?

Answer -

The matters raised in this question come within the administration of the Minister for Natural Resources.

ELECTRICITY COMMISSION HEAD OFFICE RENOVATION

Mr Egan asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy -

(1) What was the cost in 1990/91 of structural alterations, fit-outs, refurbishment, and new furniture at Elcom's Head Office?

(2) What is the projected cost for such items in 1991/92?

(3) Why have these costs been incurred?

Answer -

(1) $9,536,000

(2) $27,874,000

(3) In 1989 a significant amount of asbestos was found in Electricity House. Investigations and tests carried out by architectural consultants concluded that asbestos was present on all floors within the building, and that it would be necessary to strip each floor of carpeting, offices, partitions, ceilings, curtains etc. to enable the asbestos to be removed. The investigations also revealed that toilets and tea rooms were affected, and would need to be dismantled to remove the asbestos.

This remedial work, now well in hand, will remove any possibility of potential health risks to staff, and will also remove any stigma of an "asbestos building".

Because of the extensive amount of remedial work involved, the opportunity was taken to cost- effectively refurbish the building at the same time to make it comparable with today's modern building standards.

Page 2464

As part of this refurbishment the opportunity was taken to install office workstations which provide better use of floor accommodation. In addition, an energy efficiency study has enabled a re-design of lighting and air conditioning which will ensure energy cost savings in the future.

A review of the Commission's occupation of Electricity House subsequent to organisational changes concluded that the best commercial arrangement was to rationalise the commission's accommodation within the mid-rise floors, and to make available for leasing at commercial rentals the high and low-rise levels of some 16 floors.

The expenditure to restore Electricity House to a healthy, well presented building with modern building standards is justified. Aside from the health aspects for all building inhabitants being met, the presence of asbestos in the building would have dramatically reduced its capital value and leasing potential.

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING STAFF APPOINTMENT

Mr Egan asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads -

(1) Has the driver of the former Minister for Planning, Mr David Hay, been appointed to a position in the Department of Planning?

(2) If so, was this position formerly occupied by an employee who has accepted redundancy?

Answer -

As the Minister for Planning, this is a matter which comes within my administration. The answer to the Hon. Member's question is:

(1) The person who was the driver for the former Minister for Planning, Mr David Hay, has been employed with the Department of Planning since 2 July 1990. Prior to that date he was employed by the Department of Local Government.

(2) This employee has been temporarily appointed to a position in the Department's Head Office, while the actual occupant is on leave for an extended period.

Another person who had been employed as a Clerk of Works with the Department had previously relieved in the same position also on a temporary basis. This was because the position of a Clerk of Works was no longer needed by the Department. That person subsequently accepted redundancy.

Page 2465 CORLETTE MARINA DEVELOPMENT

Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy -

(1) Is the Port Stephens Shire Council currently considering a proposal to extend the Marina at Corlette Point Road, Corlette?

(2) Does this proposal affect 2.35 hectares of virgin, unleased, Crown Lands?

(3) Is part of the proposed site unzoned?

(4) If so, has the Council followed the procedures for Building Applications?

(5) Does the EIS for the proposal state that the velocity of water on an inward and ebb tide could increase by as much as 30%?

(6) If so, does this present a potential navigational hazard for small craft?

(7) Do the areas of Crown Land adjacent to Lot 485 have Aboriginal Claims on them?

(8) Will the development interrupt the natural sand and weed movement of the beaches of the area?

(9) Does the site contain a scenic public rock shelf with geological formations unique to the Hunter Valley?

(10) Will the Minister be taking any action in regard to this proposal?

(11) If so, what?

Answer -

(1) Yes. Port Stephens Shire Council is considering a building application in respect of the development of a marina and hotel complex for which development consent was granted by the Land and Environment Court in September 1990.

(2) Yes. Whilst a lease already exists for part of the site, the Minister administering the Crown Lands Act is considering an additional lease area of approximately 2.6 hectares being made available for the proposed development.

(3) Yes. Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 1987 permits development to be carried out on unzoned land below high water mark, subject to development consent being obtained.

Page 2466

(4) Yes. The Council is empowered to consider any building applications submitted to it for consideration within the terms of the development consent granted by the Court.

(5) Yes. Documents submitted with the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed development made reference to the velocity of water on the flood and ebb tide increasing by approximately 30% as a result of the construction of the harbour.

(6) The issue of a potential navigational hazard for small craft was raised in the hearing before the Land and Environment Court. The Court concluded, upon expert evidence, that concerns as to navigational safety had not been proved.

(7) No.

(8) The Land and Environment Court addressed the issue of sand movement and sea grass beds and was satisfied that the development would have negligible impact on sand movement and that sea grass beds could be replanted with any impact being insignificant.

(9) I am not aware of the site containing a scenic public rock shelf with geological formations unique to the Hunter Valley. This issue was not raised during the development application or EIS process nor was it raised in the hearing before the Land and Environment Court. An archaeological study carried out as part of the EIS concluded that the rock shelf areas upon which the development was to take place were completely disturbed by earlier development and no longer remained in their natural state.

(10) No.

(11) No.

ELECTRICITY PRIVATE SALES

Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy -

(1) Is it illegal for a neighbour to sell electricity to another neighbour?

(2) If so, will the Minister consider amending the law so that people in remote areas are able to co-operate in an exchange of power generated by solar or other environmentally clean generation systems?

Answer -

(1) The Electricity Act 1945 makes it an offence to erect any power station or transmission line or supply electricity to the public except with the approval of the Energy Corporation of New South Wales.

Page 2467 (2) There is no need to amend the law. If people in remote areas are able to co-operate in the generation of electricity by solar or other environmentally clean means they need only put their proposals to the Energy Corporation for approval. The Energy Corporation is pleased to be able to offer technical information to assist in the establishment of remote area power generation systems.

POLICE-CITIZENS YOUTH CLUB CAMP MACKAY INCIDENT

Mr Dyer asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council -

(1) Did an incident take place at New South Wales Police Citizens Youth Club Camp Mackay in July 1990 involving a senior police constable and a juvenile member of the Police Citizens Youth Club movement?

(2) During this incident:

(a) Was a juvenile assaulted?

(b) Was the senior constable intoxicated?

(c) Was foul language used by the senior constable?

(3) Was this incident dealt with internally within the police service or was the incident reported to the Ombudsman?

(4) If the incident was dealt with internally, what are the reasons why the matter was not reported to the Ombudsman?

(5) If the incident occurred who was the police officer involved as set out in (1) and (2) above?

(6) Were any other persons involved in the incident, either police or civilian?

(7) If so, who were they?

(8) Was any pressure brought to bear concerning the incident being investigated by a member of the Interim Board of Directors of the Police Federation of Police Citizen Youth Clubs?

(9) If so, who was such person?

Answer -

(1) In August 1990 a series of complaints were made to the Head Office of the Federation of N.S.W. Police Citizens Youth Clubs concerning administrative matters. During the subsequent company investigation a twelve year old boy Page 2468 referred to an alleged incident in which a police officer placed his foot on the head of a young person in the camp dining room.

(2) (a) The identity of the alleged victim is not known.

(b) No allegation concerning intoxicating liquor.

(c) Allegation not sustained at this time.

(3-4) This allegation arose from an investigation which did not fall within the ambit of the Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act. This allegation, once raised, was then referred to the Internal Affairs Branch and the Ombudsman was subsequently notified. The investigation was carried out within the Youth Clubs Federation and it has been recommended that the complaint issues identified be regarded as "not sustained".

However, that recommendation has not yet been reviewed by the Assistant Commissioner, Professional Responsibility, nor has it been reviewed by the Ombudsman. Until this review process has been completed the matter cannot be regarded as finalised.

(5) The alleged incident has not been fully investigated. Until such time, it would be most improper to identify the officer against whom the allegation has been made.

(6-7) No other persons identified.

(8) The Interim Board of Directors is not involved in operational matters.

(9) Not applicable.

POLICE-CITIZENS YOUTH CLUBS POLICING

Mr Dyer asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Legislative Council -

(1) Are police, attached to the Police Citizens Youth Club movement in this State, restricted from performing duties during prime time (4.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.) in clubs in New South Wales?

(2) If so, what is the basis for restriction during prime time when police are not available at clubs?

(3) Has it to do with the fact that no full allocation for shift allowance is made available to the Police Citizens Youth Club movement?

(4) Has it been indicated recently that police can work as much as they like in prime time from now until July because there is money over in the budget?

Page 2469

(5) Will you conduct a full investigation into the community concern that police are not available during prime time in Police Citizens Youth Clubs, which is causing considerable concern among those citizens who send their children to Police Citizens Youth Clubs?

Answer -

(1) No. Sporting or cultural programs usually have qualified instructors and civilian supervisors and a police presence is not required.

(2) Not applicable.

(3) Not applicable.

(4) No.

(5) The Ministerial Advisory Committee has reviewed the operations of the Police Citizens Youth Clubs Movement and there is no need for a further review.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BACTERIA IDENTIFICATION

Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs -

(1) Does the Department of Agriculture have a bacterial DNA fingerprint library for rapid identification of bacteria responsible for causing disease in plants and animals?

(2) Does the Department have an image analyser capable of identifying organisms or diseases currently not in Australia, should such organisms enter the country?

(3) How much does an image analyser, capable of rapidly identifying bacteria, cost?

(4) Given that modern transport systems can move produce across the country in a couple of days, does the Minister agree that such equipment is crucial for the prevention of the spread of diseases such as Apple Fire Blight, Moko disease of banana or Brazilian Eucalyptus Wilt?

(5) Will the Minister ensure that funding is made immediately available for the purchase of an image analyser?

Answer -

I am advised by the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs that the answer to the Hon. Member's question is:

Page 2470 (1) N.S.W. Agriculture is in the process of compiling a DNA fingerprint library of pathogenic bacteria for the purpose of rapid identification of bacterial diseases. The library is, at present, composed mainly of plant pathogenic bacteria, but does include some animal pathogens as well. Although some other organisations are using DNA fingerprinting for identification of specific bacteria, the DNA fingerprinting project being undertaken by N.S.W. Agriculture is one of the most extensive and broad ranging studies being undertaken anywhere in the world.

(2) Currently, identification of unknown bacteria relies on hand matching fingerprints. While automatic matching of unknown fingerprints with known species in the library could be accomplished using image analysis the Department does not own an image analyser sophisticated enough to accomplish this task.

(3) The most suitable system costs about $100,000.

(4) The primary aim of the library is to provide a database for the rapid identification of bacterial diseases. Many important bacterial diseases that are not yet present in Australia have been lodged as DNA fingerprints in the library. This precaution will allow rapid and unequivocal identification of quarantine outbreaks of bacterial diseases should they occur. Identification using DNA fingerprints could in fact mean the difference between eradication or escape of such diseases as Apple Fire Blight, Moko disease of banana or Brazilian Eucalypt Wilt.

The DNA fingerprint library has already been instrumental in the identification of a number of quarantine diseases on citrus, millet and banana. While an image analyser will certainly assist in more rapid disease diagnosis, it is clearly not essential at present.

(5) While an image analyser would assist the long term goals of this project, the project is currently progressing satisfactorily and is just one of many investigations addressing issues considered by this government to be important in monitoring and controlling disease and reducing pesticide use.

The majority of major capital items for research purposes are currently purchased with the assistance of the Rural Industry Research Funds. If these industries identify this work as a high priority area then I am confident that they will fund the purchase of an appropriate image analyser.

MOTORCYCLE RIDER FATALITIES

Mr Jones asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council representing the Minister for Transport -

(1) Have motorcycle rider deaths been falling steadily since 1986?

Page 2471 (2) Have the number of motorcycle registrations increased over the same period?

(3) Are these figures a result of improved rider training schemes?

(4) Will the Minister acknowledge the improved safety record of the motorcycling community and the minimal impact motorcycles have on damaging the roads by reducing motorcycle insurance fees?

(5) Will the Minister acknowledge the motorcycle and its role as a low polluting, efficient mode of personal transport and speed up traffic flow on the Harbour Bridge by abolishing the motorcycle toll?

Answer -

(1-5) These issues come under the administration of the Minister for Roads, the Hon. Wal Murray.

WHEAT DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY

Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs -

(1) Has the Minister been informed of a technique for testing strains of wheat, developed by Dr Nagendra Singh of Adelaide University known as Electrophoresis?

(2) Is the Minister aware that this technique reduces the ten year breeding cycle usually required for developing new wheat varieties to a couple of years?

(3) Has the Department of Agriculture adopted this technology and is it working toward quickly developing strains of wheat that require the application of far less fertiliser and much reduced applications of fungicides and pesticides?

(4) Is runoff from agricultural fertilisers a major source of nitrate pollution in water courses?

(5) Does this technology have the potential to considerably reduce agricultural pollution of our waterways?

(6) Will the Minister ensure that adequate funding is directed toward making full use of this technique so as to achieve substantial reductions in agricultural chemical use?

Answer -

(1) I am advised by the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs that the answer to the Hon. Member's question is:

Page 2472

(1) Gel electrophoresis is a method which can be used for separating the proteins in wheat grains. A knowledge of which proteins are present can be used to predict certain aspects of wheat quality. This prediction is sometimes useful in the early stages of a breeding programme, but is not accurate enough for final evaluation. Gel electrophoresis has been used in the Department's cereal chemistry laboratories since the late 1970's, especially in selecting for Durum quality. Dr Singh has refined the standard electrophoresis procedure to allow a greater range of proteins to be identified. This improvement is useful, but not revolutionary.

(2) Regrettably the technique does not speed up the breeding programme, although it can make early generation quality testing more efficient. A wheat breeding programme takes about ten years because six years of inbreeding are required before detailed yield and quality testing can commence. Four years are then required for yield evaluation and seed multiplication.

The Department has a research project on another culture at the Agricultural Research Institute, Wagga Wagga (Dr David Luckett). This project has made outstanding progress, and has the potential to reduce the six years inbreeding to one year, saving five years in the overall programme.

(3) The Department's wheat breeding and evaluation programmes have resulted in the major disease stem rust being eliminated from the wheat belt, and stripe rust reduced to a minor disease. A series of varieties are nearing release which will result in a similar control of Septoria tritici. These successes make wheat production more reliable and have virtually eliminated the need for farmers to spray fungicides on their wheat crops. This is in stark contrast to European farmers who often need to spray three times for disease control.

It should be noted that much of the wheat crop in New South Wales is produced with very little pesticide. Fungicide use is almost unknown, and insecticides are only used to counter the occasional local plague of mites or caterpillars.

An increased range of wheat quality types is being released in response to the changes in the market brought about by deregulation of the industry.

(4) The Murray/Darling Commission has recently engaged consultants to investigate this question. The current state of knowledge indicates that across New South Wales, fertilisers are not a major source of nitrogen pollution. However, some intensive agricultural industries such as dairying and vegetable production are thought to be sources of nitrate in some water- courses.

(5) It is unlikely in the foreseeable future that gel electrophoresis technology will make any direct contribution to reducing agricultural pollution of our waterways.

The Department is very conscious of the importance of reducing the impact of agriculture on the environment, and has a number of programs in action towards this aim.

Page 2473

(6) The Department has a current high priority program aimed to promote safe handling methods and appropriate use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals to ensure the production of food and fibre at acceptable standards with minimal impact on the environment.

As indicated earlier, many of the Department's programs have an integrated approach to rationalisation of chemical use. The outcome of these programs over time will no doubt result in a better environment.

CATTLE DIPSITES CONTAMINATION

Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs -

(1) Did the Minister announce in September 1988 that $452,000 would be allocated to the Board of Tick Control to fence off cattle dipsites contaminated with DDT?

(2) How many dipsites were fenced off using this money?

(3) Was there any money remaining from this allocation of funding?

(4) If so, what was it used for?

(5) Did the Minister announce in May 1991 that notices were to be placed on 9 cattle dipsites prohibiting any further activity?

(6) How many of those dipsites have been fenced and signposted to warn the public of the potential danger?

(7) Will the Minister release the results and location of all chemical residue tests that have been carried out on cattle dipsites to date, including the 9 dipsites placed under notice in May 1991?

Answer -

I am advised by the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs that the answer to the Hon. Member's question is:

(1) Yes. $452,000 was allocated to a fencing program at dipyards under Board control. This program was to fence off the scooping pits which are outside the dipyards but alongside the dipbath.

When dips were scooped to remove the build-up of dirt and cattle hair this material was placed in the scooping pits. When the dips were emptied of Arsenic and DDT Page 2474 prior to 1963 they were pumped into these pits. The original fences required repairs and money was allocated to renew them.

(2) 864 dips were fenced-off in this program. There were a small number of dips within the Tick Quarantine Area where the scooping pits were not fenced-off for various reasons such as accessibility in wet weather. (The program did not involve dips outside the Tick Quarantine Area).

(3) Yes. This program was completed for less than the sum allocated.

(4) I am advised that the unused money was returned to Treasury.

(5) Yes. Notices were issued under Section 35 of the Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act 1985 by the State Pollution Control Commission to the occupiers of the nine nominated dip sites. These orders directed the recipients to obtain the commission's approval in writing before undertaking work on the sites which would result in removal of material from the site, rehabilitation or disturbance of the land.

(6) There has been no fencing program since the orders were issued. Some were already fenced, some had been demolished with contaminated soil removed. The order issued under the Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act in September set new and more stringent criteria for contaminated soils. Thus even those sites previously rehabilitated required re- assessment.

Management and rehabilitation of these sites is being co-ordinated by the Cattle Tick Dip Site Management Committee. This has representation from the relevant Government Departments and local and community groups.

The Department has not been advised by the State Pollution Control Commission of a requirement to signpost these sites.

(7) There are some legal matters to be resolved before information on private sites can be released. This is one of the matters referred to the Cattle Tick Dip Site Management Committee and I am advised that my colleague is awaiting their advice.

OPERA HOUSE FIRE SAFETY

Mr Egan asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council representing the Attorney General, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Arts -

(1) What is the annual cost of maintaining fire equipment at the Sydney Opera House?

(2) Is this work contracted out?

Page 2475

(3) If so, why is it not being undertaken by already employed Opera House firemen?

Answer -

(1) The annual maintenance cost is $54,449.

(2) Yes.

(3) I am advised by the Sydney Opera House that if the firemen were to undertake the additional, specialised duties currently carried out by the contractors they would have to be paid additional allowances. The Opera House has found that the current arrangements are more cost effective.

The use of private contractors also provides an independent and expert overview of the system with a 24-hour a day repair service.

POWERHOUSE MUSEUM POSTCARD SALES

Mr Egan asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council representing the Attorney General, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Arts -

(1) How many postcards, depicting Memphis "Carlton" room dividers designed by Ettore Sottsass, were printed or purchased by the Powerhouse Museum?

(2) How many have been sold?

(3) What was the total cost of the cards and what income has been received from their sale?

(4) Has any of the total cost been written off?

(5) If so, how much?

Answer -

(1) 2000. The cards were part of a batch of 470,000 of various images produced under the administration of the previous Government before the museum opened in 1988.

(2) 450.

(3) The total cost of production of the postcards was $220. The sale of 450 cards represents gross sales of $90.

(4) Yes.

Page 2476

(5) The remaining cards (worth $130) were disposed of. This stock was written off. Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences Trust funds are used to produce all shop merchandise. All profits and losses are incurred by the Trust. A product purchasing policy is now in place to ensure improved marketing and saleable shop stock. The writing off of the postcard stock did not impact on Government consolidated funds.

POLICE-CITIZENS YOUTH CLUBS VEHICULAR EMBLEMS

Mr Dyer asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council -

(1) Is it the policy of the N.S.W. Federation of Police Citizens Youth Clubs to have decals displayed on PCYC vehicles?

(2) Does this apply to all club vehicles?

(3) Does this apply to all vehicles used at Federation Head Office?

(4) Are any vehicles exempt?

(5) If so, what vehicles are exempt? Who has possession of exempt vehicles, who authorises such exemption and on what basis was the exemption given?

Answer -

(1) The Federation of N.S.W. Police Citizens Youth Clubs has a policy that all Branch vehicles are to display the emblem of the Federation of New South Wales Police Citizens Youth Clubs.

(2) Yes.

(3) No.

(4) Vehicles at Head Office do not fall within the terms of the policy.

(5) Not applicable.

MOUNT COLAH RAILWAY STATION EASTER TICKET SERVICE

Miss Kirkby asked the Minister for Police Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council representing the Minister for Transport -

(1) Was a railway officer on duty at Mt Colah Station on Easter Saturday afternoon this year?

Page 2477

(2) If so, why was there a notice on the booking office window which stated: "This station is not open for the sale of tickets. Passengers are requested to purchase tickets at their destination"?

(3) Does the SRA have a policy regarding the sale of tickets at smaller stations during weekends?

Answer -

(1) Yes.

(2) Staff acted contrary to instructions.

(3) Yes. Station staff are expected to sell tickets when on duty.

SINGLETON POLICE STAFFING

Mrs Walker asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council -

(1) Does the Greiner/Murray Government intend to fulfil their pre-election decree made by the Minister, that Singleton would have a 24 hour Police Station from the commencement of September 1991?

(2) Have "over strength" personnel been attached to Singleton in preparedness for 24 hour policing?

Answer -

(1) No.

(2) Not applicable.

BURRILL LAKE CAUSEWAY

Mr Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads -

(1) Does the Public Works Department oppose the removal of the causeway on Burrill Lake and its replacement by a bridge?

(2) If so, why?

(3) Has the Burrill Lake community attempted for at least 10 years to have the causeway removed and replaced by a bridge because of the damage the causeway is doing to the Lake?

Page 2478 (4) Does the causeway restrict the flow of water at times of heavy rain thus restricting the natural cleansing process of the Lake?

Answer -

(1) Public Works does not oppose the removal of the causeway and replacement by a bridge. Such an option has been considered in the study of Burrill Lake Inlet carried out by the Council and the Department (through the Shoalhaven City Lakes Management Committee).

However, based on an assessment of the cost/benefit, it is considered other options are more cost effective in providing waterway improvements.

(2) Not applicable.

(3) The Burrill Lake Community has lobbied the State Government for several years to remove the causeway and replace it with a bridge. However, the accusation that the causeway is damaging the Lake is not supported by the findings of the feasibility study nor recent tidal gauging. The study clearly shows the causeway and channel under the bridge has little impact on tidal flows and that the present channel is close to a stable configuration.

(4) No detailed flood assessment has been undertaken for Burrill Lake and the inlet channel and there is limited data available to provide a qualitative answer.

In general, the causeway may impact on flood discharge. It is likely fine sediment will settle on the intertidal shoals adjacent to the causeway. The removal of the causeway may increase flood flow at this point but flow and water levels would primarily be controlled by conditions at the entrance.