7933
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Tuesday 8 August 2000 ______
Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.
Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.
ASSENT TO BILLS
Assent to the following bills reported:
Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Dairy Industry Bill Fair Trading Amendment (Enforcement and Compliance Powers) Bill Home Building Amendment Bill Casino Control Amendment Bill Children's Court Amendment Bill Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Bill Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill Industrial Relations Leave Legislation Amendment (Bonuses) Bill Liquor and Registered Clubs Legislation Amendment Bill Lotteries and Art Unions Amendment Bill Medical Practice Amendment Bill Racing Taxation (Betting Tax) Amendment Bill Unlawful Gambling Amendment (Betting) Bill Road Transport (Heavy Vehicles Registration Charges) Amendment Bill Industrial Relations Amendment Bill
DEATH OF MARK CUPIT
Ministerial Statement
Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [2.18 p.m.]: I wish to make a ministerial statement about a sad matter. I regret to inform the House that last Friday a fourth officer of the National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS] died from injuries that he sustained in the Ku- ring-gai Chase National Park fire tragedy. Mark Cupit's family and fiancee were with him when he passed away shortly after 7 a.m. on 4 August at the Royal North Shore Hospital. On behalf of the House, I express my deepest sympathy to Mark's fiancee, Angie, to his mother, Lee Cupit, and to all of Mark's family and friends for this tragic loss. I have spoken to Mark's family and they are showing great strength and dignity in a time of such sadness and grief.
Mark had remained in a critical condition since the incident on 8 June and, since that time, he had courageously fought the terrible injuries he suffered in the fire. Mark had worked for the service since 1997 when he started as a field officer in Grafton. In 1998 he joined the staff at La Perouse, then later at Sydney Harbour National Park and in the Hawkesbury. As well as building a wealth of firefighting experience and training with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Mark was a Rural Fire Service volunteer for six years. As a NPWS field officer, Mark worked on issues and incidents as diverse as bushfires, the Sydney hailstorm, the Sydney Harbour oil spill and the restoration of historic buildings. He was known as a hard-working and experienced National Parks and Wildlife Service officer committed to conservation and was immensely liked by his colleagues.
A coronial investigation is of course presently under way, which, once completed, will hopefully answer the questions that we all have about how this tragedy could possibly have happened. The Government, and in particular the National Parks and Wildlife Service, is focusing its efforts on supporting the family and friends of the deceased as well as doing all that we can to assist in the recovery of the three officers who are still battling injury in hospital: Natalie Saville, Luke McSweeney and Jamie Shaw. I am sure that all honourable members join me in expressing their condolences to the friends, workmates and family of Mark Cupit at this time of sadness. 7934 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
Ms SEATON (Southern Highlands) [2.21 p.m.]: All members of the Coalition and I am sure all honourable members in this place join the Minister for Emergency Services in expressing sympathy to the fiancee and family of Mark Cupit, who sadly passed away last week. On any day the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Rural Fire Service, private landowners and members of the New South Wales Fire Brigades risk their lives to protect life and property on our behalf. They are involved in hazard reduction, maintaining fire trails, training and a number of other activities.
The Premier, the Minister for the Environment, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and many members of this House attended a very sad thanksgiving memorial service on 21 June at which we expressed our sympathies to those families. One of the most worthwhile jobs in life is the conservation of our environment. Many envy the work done daily by members of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, particularly the more attractive aspects of that job. But with that privilege comes constant danger. Whilst participating in that memorial service and laying a carpet of eucalyptus leaves on the floor of the cathedral, many of us were reminded that beauty can turn to danger at a moment's notice. Sadly, that is one of the circumstances that Mark Cupit and his colleagues encountered.
The honourable member for Gosford, who represents the area from which Mark Cupit came, particularly joins in acknowledging the Minister's comments, as indeed the honourable member for Hornsby and the honourable member for Wakehurst have done in this place on behalf of Claire Deane, George Fitzsimmons and Erik Furlan. Every member of the Opposition in this House joins in wishing Luke McSweeney, Natalie Saville and Jamie Shaw great success in their fight for recovery, and in extending deep sympathy to the family of Mark Cupit.
POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION
Reports
Mr Speaker tabled, pursuant to the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, the following reports of the Police Integrity Commission:
Report for the year ended 30 June 2000 Report to Parliament—Operation Algiers Report to Parliament—Operations Copper, Triton and Nickel.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
The Clerk, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, announced the receipt of the following reports of the Public Accounts Committee, dated July 2000:
Cost Control in the Department of Juvenile Justice Financial Disclosure of the WorkCover Scheme Statutory Funds Long Term Financial Viability of the Waste Recycling and Processing Service
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
The Clerk announced the receipt of the Standing Committee on Public Works' report entitled "Inquiry into Infrastructure Delivery and Maintenance: Volume 1—Report on Office Accommodation Management", dated July 2000.
PETITIONS
Drug Reform
Petitions praying that the establishment of heroin shooting galleries be opposed and that consideration be given to the introduction of legislation for drug reform, received from Ms Hodgkinson and Mr Piccoli.
Willoughby Paddocks Rezoning
Petition praying that the Legislative Assembly will advocate for the retention of all vacant land in the area historically known as the Willoughby Paddocks and its development as public parkland for the enjoyment of the community, received from Mr Collins. 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7935
Department of Housing Waiting Lists
Petition praying for a 50 per cent reduction in public housing waiting lists, received from Ms Harrison.
North Wallarah Peninsula Development
Petition praying that community concerns relating to the north Wallarah peninsula development be not ignored and that an inquiry into the process be considered, received from Mr Orkopoulos.
McDonald Truss Bridge
Petition praying that the McDonald Truss Bridge at Cunninghams Point, Bombala, be retained both for its heritage value and as a foot and cycle bridge linking Bombala on both sides of the river, received from Mr Webb.
Firearms Legislation
Petition praying that a committee be established to review the Firearms Act, received from Ms Hodgkinson.
Queanbeyan Ambulance Station
Petition praying for the allocation of funds for the construction of a permanent ambulance station in the Queanbeyan central business district to ensure faster response times and prompt emergency care for the residents of Queanbeyan and the surrounding region, received from Mr Webb.
Illalong Deviation
Petition expressing concern at traffic management issues and potential safety risks associated with the Illalong deviation on the Burley Griffin Way, and praying that the House will call on the Minister for Transport to provide an accurate completion date, received from Ms Hodgkinson.
School Student Transport Scheme Subsidy
Petition expressing opposition to the proposed elimination of the school student transport scheme subsidy for boarding students of Trinity Catholic College, and praying that the House will ensure that the basic transport needs of students of the college are met, received from Ms Hodgkinson.
Bungonia to Goulburn School Bus Service
Petition praying that the overcrowded Bungonia to Goulburn school bus service will be split into two distinct runs to ensure the safety of children travelling on the bus, received from Ms Hodgkinson.
Elizabeth Drive, Bonnyrigg, Redevelopment
Petition from concerned citizens of Bonnyrigg and surrounding districts praying for a review of the proposed redevelopment of Elizabeth Drive, received from Ms Meagher.
Windsor Road Upgrading
Petitions praying that Windsor Road be upgraded and widened within the next two financial years, received from Mr Merton, Mr Richardson and Mr Rozzoli.
Dairy Farmers Assistance
Petitions praying that the House will seek the provision of a State-based assistance package to New South Wales dairy farmers, received from Mr Amery and Mr Souris. 7936 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
Export of Puppies to Asia
Petition praying for opposition to the export of puppies to Asia, received from Mr Amery.
Ovine Johne's Disease Program
Petition praying for deregulation of the current Ovine Johne's Disease program and its replacement with a fair and workable alternative to facilitate trade and alleviate the social issues crippling the New South Wales sheep industry, received from Ms Hodgkinson.
Standard Time Amendment Act
Petition expressing strong opposition to the proposed two-month extension of daylight saving, and praying that the House consider the adverse effect on rural families in New South Wales and take immediate steps to repeal the Standard Time Amendment Act, received from Ms Hodgkinson.
Disorderly Houses Act
Petition praying that the Disorderly Houses Act be amended to confer on councils and shires the right to ban the establishment of brothels in towns of less than 20,000 people, received from Ms Hodgkinson.
Septic Tank Inspection Fees
Petition praying that septic tank owners be exempted from inspection and registration fees, received from Ms Hodgkinson.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
ALLAN BAKER LIFE SENTENCE REDETERMINATION
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that advice from senior counsel says that you are wrong to claim that Parliament cannot debate the Baker matter because it is before the courts, will you now allow the Parliament to pass legislation as a matter of urgency to ensure that convicted murderer Allan Baker stays in gaol?
Mr CARR: The Opposition is attempting to move its motion, as it did the day before a Supreme Court hearing on 30 June.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order.
Mr CARR: Back at that time the Government expressed the view that the Supreme Court hearing must be allowed to take its course.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Hornsby to order.
Mr CARR: Comment by the Parliament on the day before a Supreme Court hearing was extremely ill- advised. Our advice at that time was shown to the Opposition.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford to order.
Mr CARR: Although the honourable member for Gosford said he had got advice from a lawyer, that lawyer severely qualified his advice and hinted at strong disapproval of the course being taken.
Mrs Chikarovski: Wrong.
Mr CARR: That is in the document. That is what he said, unmistakably, in the document that the Opposition has provided. In this matter the Supreme Court process continues. The court will shortly be receiving submissions from both parties. The Government's view is that the court proceedings must be allowed 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7937
to take their course—and we have not changed that view. It has not changed, because under our changes to the sentencing Act Baker's sentence may be redetermined to life imprisonment. At the conclusion of the court proceedings, if the Opposition still wishes to introduce its legislation, the Government will not stand in its way.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Hornsby to order for the second time.
Mr CARR: I will quote an editorial from the Daily Telegraph of 1 July. Today's Daily Telegraph editorial, which certainly does merit the attention of the House, might later in question time be drawn to the attention of members who have not yet read it. The Daily Telegraph, always astute, stated in its editorial of 1 July:
The future of Baker is to be determined by the process of law, not by the weight of public outcry …
Following the Crump decision, Premier Bob Carr introduced legislation that directed judges to give "substantial weight" to the intention of the original sentencing court …
Nothing can be gained by emotional outpourings. The matter is in the hands of the court, and it is there that the proper outcome must be determined.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the second time.
Mr CARR: Let me make these points. First, the Government is closely monitoring the court proceedings. The Queensland extradition remains an option to be considered after the court case. Second, the comments of the Leader of the Opposition on 2BL on 5 July give her game away—and what a nasty little game it is.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for North Shore to order.
Mr CARR: She said on 2BL:
… disappointed that we [the Opposition] didn't get as much reaction from the media as we thought on this matter.
It is all a cynical game to get some attention in the media, not to resolve a problem that Yabsley's legislation created. It is not to resolve a problem that Coalition legislation created. It is all a game.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on two calls to order.
Mr CARR: It is all a game to get some publicity for an Opposition leader under chronic leadership pressure. That is why she said on 2BL:
… disappointed that we [the Opposition] didn't get as much reaction from the media as we thought …
So that is the game. The Opposition is not trying to solve the problem—a problem created by legislation passed by members opposite when last in government—for the community, as we are. Surely what matters here is not a little game by the Opposition to get publicity for a leader under threat. Surely the purpose of everything we do legally should be to keep Baker in gaol. That is the position we have taken.
Third, I make this point: there has not yet been legislation of this kind that has been able to overcome the Kable High Court precedent. Fourth, the Supreme Court hearing is not a parole hearing but a redetermination of sentence. This is a right afforded to Baker by truth in sentencing legislation—legislation that members opposite passed cheerfully when they were in government. As I said in my letter to the Leader of the Opposition, I have known and worked with Brian Morse for four years. I undertook to do all in my legal power to keep Crump and Baker in gaol. That remains my intention.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I seek leave to table the legal advice.
Leave not granted.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: Mr Speaker, may I lay the legal advice on the table of the House?
Mr SPEAKER: Yes. 7938 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
GENERAL INSURANCE INDUSTRY DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Mr BLACK: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. What is the Government's response to calls for independent dispute resolution in the general insurance industry? Mr CARR: It is great to see Country Labor at work.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order. Mr CARR: Recently I was in Albury to attend a country Cabinet meeting. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bega to order. Mr CARR: People were rolling up to join the Country Labor Party. There is no greater example of the spirit and values of Country Labor than the honourable member for Murray-Darling. [Interruption] The honourable member for Gosford is interjecting. We will hear more of him later if he wants to keep that up. The editorial in today's Daily Telegraph refers to the honourable member, and states that his "press statements are so rare as to be collectors' items". The honourable member's press releases have become collectors' items. They auction them at great art dealership auction houses. A press release by the shadow Attorney General is one of the rarest of all political interventions. But enough of this frivolity. The matter raised by the honourable member for Murray-Darling deserves the attention of the House. Honourable members will recall the plight of families in Broken Hill, Coffs Harbour and the Illawarra whose homes were wrecked in major storms over the past two years. Disgracefully, some insurance companies refused to honour their policies, and they invited aggrieved policyholders to pursue them in the courts. The Hams family, near Broken Hill, paid premiums to CGU insurance for 30 years. It is interesting to note that the policy explicitly covered flood damage. However, CGU defined this flood—honourable members will remember the big floods in the west of the State—as "accumulated stormwater run-off" and refused to pay. This proves a deficiency in the general insurance industry; there is no independent dispute resolution. An insurer can choose not to honour its obligations. There are few options and only expensive legal challenges, which battling farming families are not in a position to undertake. It is time action was taken to provide an independent arbiter for these disputes. Today I have written to the Prime Minister and to the Insurance Council of Australia suggesting a national insurance ombudsman to independently investigate complaints about insurers. The national insurance ombudsman would operate like the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman, who independently investigates disputes in that industry. Importantly— and I think this is essential—the national ombudsman would be funded by the Federal Government, not the industry, and would bring complete independence to the process of dispute resolution. The general insurance industry is currently regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, which monitors the solvency of insurers and promotes industry standards, and by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, which oversees consumer protection arrangements in the industry. But this latter body is not a resort for families with payout disputes. The Insurance Council of Australia refers complaints to the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority [APRA]. The APRA refers them to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission [ASIC], and the ASIC sends them back to the APRA. The alternative to this is a costly legal war, and the families I am fighting for do not have the money to go to court. The option of a legal war favours insurers because of the substantial reserves and their legal teams. The Hams family, whose case I have taken up in this Parliament once before, deserves better than that. Surely this is something that can enjoy the support of the Opposition. I urge all honourable members on both sides of the House to support the call for an independent ombudsman to be set up by the insurance industry, supported by the Federal Government, for general insurance claims. There is one footnote: The insurance company in this case, CGU, which stood out against making a payment to the Hams family, actually ran advertisements on television promoting itself as an insurer for farmers. It will be challenged by its own promotion to do the right thing by the Hams family, symbolising the plight of farmers in this State. COUNTRY POLICE STATIONS STAFFING Mr SOURIS: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. Given that the Premier has frozen police numbers until 30 November, and given his promise not to close one-officer stations in the country, will he now give a guarantee that all country stations will be returned to full strength after the Olympic Games? 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7939
Mr CARR: This is relevant to the matter of public importance. We are not closing police stations. I went out of the way to assure the people of country New South Wales at the first opportunity that there were no savings to Government in closing country police stations, and they are entitled—
[Interruption]
The Greiner-Murray Government, the last Coalition Government, ripped things out of the country. It closed rail services, police stations and courthouses. That is where Kennett got his template from. The increase in police numbers, as promised during the last State election campaign, continues throughout this term. Country New South Wales stands to benefit from that continued implementation of a policy we made and a policy we are keeping.
PRE-TRIAL DISCLOSURE
Mr COLLIER: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on pre-trial disclosure in criminal cases?
Mr DEBUS: The Government is committed to improving the conduct of complex criminal trials, to improving the capacity of the courts to deal with criminal trials, and to ensuring that victims of crime endure minimal trauma during trial. This is more important now than ever before because we live in a time when scientific evidence and expert witnesses are crucial to criminal proceedings. With the 1 January 2001 commencement of the Government's DNA legislation, we need to make sure that complexities surrounding scientific proceedings do not cause more complex or lengthier trials. We also need to stop attempts at ambush defences where surprise last-minute evidence is introduced into court to delay the process and to traumatise victims of crime. That is why during this parliamentary session the Government is introducing historic legislation to implement a pre-trial disclosure regime. The proposed legislation will allow judges to speed up criminal trials by requiring the defence to outline its case before a trial begins.
The legislation will establish a routine for pre-trial disclosure for complex criminal trials. The judge will be able to require both the Crown and the defence to reveal specific evidence and material at a reasonable time before the trial. Pre-trial disclosure will forever change the conduct of complex criminal trials in New South Wales. For the first time, with the consent of the court, the defence must disclose before the actual trial whether it intends to rely on specific defences—such as insanity, self-defence, provocation, accident, duress, claim of right, automatism or intoxication—as well as the already required disclosure when a defendant seeks to rely on an alibi or impairment of mind. If those requirements are not met, the judge can refuse to allow the evidence to be admitted later.
On the other hand, the prosecution must disclose before the trial a copy of the charges, an outline of the prosecution case, copies of witness statements and documents relied upon, reports of expert witnesses, information relevant to the reliability and credibility of prosecution witnesses, unused police and prosecution material gathered in preparing the case and material in its possession adverse to the credibility of the defendant. Similarly, reports and disclosure of witnesses will be required before the trial. Following the defence disclosure, the prosecution will have further responsibilities concerning whether it takes issue with the disclosed information, such as the use of expert evidence or continuity of defence exhibits. Complex criminal trials require extensive resources provided by the taxpayer. Pre-trial disclosure is designed to lessen the time spent in court arguing over process, which causes frustration to all parties and greatly adds to the cost borne by taxpayers. These changes do not impede the prosecution in the proper exercise of its responsibilities or the ability of the defence to argue its case in a fair manner. The police, courts and victims of crime all benefit because the defence and the prosecution must thoroughly prepare their cases in advance and settle on the issues in dispute before presenting them at trial. This new process, which will commence early next year, will remain under review and a report of its implementation will be completed after 18 months. I am advised that last year 250 criminal trials took 10 days or more to complete. The application of the new regime will decrease trial length, the average cost of complex criminal trials and the time in courtrooms, occupying available judges. The Attorney General's Department estimates that pre-trial disclosure could reduce some complex matters by a number of days and provide an extraordinary saving of up to 40 per cent of time spent at trial. I shall monitor the ability of the courts to then list more matters and to reduce overall waiting times as a result. The Government will also provide the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Legal Aid Commission with additional resources to meet the requirements of this new pre-trial disclosure regime. 7940 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
I would like to thank the members of the working party who were able to bring about these proposals. The working party consisted of staff of the Attorney General's Department, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Law Society, the Cabinet Office, the Police Service, the Bar Association, the Crown Prosecutors and Public Defenders offices and the Criminal Law Review Division of the Attorney General's Department. The working party was representative of all parties who had a legitimate interest in ensuring not only a more efficient court system but also a court system that continued to proceed with fairness and justice in the discharge of its responsibilities.
CITYRAIL AND STATE RAIL AUTHORITY LOGOS
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: My question is directed to the Premier. Given the Premier's statement that State Rail Authority services are indefensible and inexcusable, why is he wasting an estimated $100,000 on consultants to redesign the CityRail and State Rail Authority logos instead of spending that money on desperately needed maintenance?
Mr CARR: It has been a big, wonderful, happy day for the Leader of the Opposition because she has been confirmed in the leadership, yet again. I am somewhat tempted to keep this House in permanent session, rather like the National Assembly during the French Revolution, to keep the tumbrels busy. I know that is something she would lament. The Minister for Transport would be happy to address the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Gosford on two calls to order.
Mr CARR: I make no apologies for saying that the level of performance of CityRail has been hugely defective. The Leader of the Opposition and her deputy interject. Two days ago the shadow Minister for Transport made comments about the performance of CityRail in respect of station skipping. He was in charge of rail, as chief of staff to Bruce Baird, when, in a draft press release dated 28 November 1990, Bruce Baird came out with a policy "Nothing new in train station skipping". That draft press release was signed off by Barry O'Farrell, Chief of Staff.
Not to be deterred, the shadow Minister for Transport bobbed up and said, "Too many derailments". The Minister for Transport was quick off the mark and pulled out the figures for derailments when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was sitting in the office of the then Minister for Transport as the octopus in charge of all branches of policy. Whilst there were 192 derailments in the past year, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was running transport in this State as chief of staff to Bruce Baird the number of derailments peaked at 612. Well done, Barry! I have no qualms about saying that CityRail has to lift its performance on behalf of the commuters of this great city. But the last place one would go for advice on how to do it is to the failed man who ran transport policy under Bruce Baird.
NORTH HEAD SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT INVESTIGATION
Mr TRIPODI: My question is directed to the Minister for Energy. What is the status of an investigation into activity at the North Head sewage treatment plant?
Mr YEADON: I thank the honourable member for Fairfield for providing me with the opportunity to outline concerns held by the Government and to inform the House and the public about the report and Sydney Water's response. When allegations were first raised by staff, Sydney Water took the matter seriously and acted immediately by launching an investigation into the North Head sewage treatment plant and its staff. Sydney Water brought in an external investigator to undertake an independent analysis of the allegations and to provide its internal auditing branch with the findings.
I am advised that the investigation has concluded with a number of findings and recommendations which Sydney Water has responsibility for releasing and implementing. The investigation involved extensive interviews with staff at the plant and reviewing record books, telephone calls, computer records, training and accounts. Even though the investigation was thorough and confidential, there was no evidence of the original allegations of an on-site party involving drugs and prostitution. However, the investigation did bring to light a number of additional issues that are significant and require immediate action by Sydney Water.
The investigation highlighted inadequate management controls at the plant in relation to matters such as serious lapses in security procedures and site attendance records, and in particular the use of email facilities to 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7941 distribute pornography. The Government's position is straightforward: this is completely unacceptable and must be rectified with appropriate disciplinary action. Unfortunately the actions of a few have tainted the hard- working reputation of the majority of workers who take their jobs seriously and do them well.
I have written to Sydney Water's chairman and to its board of directors calling for a full report on the necessary changes to management controls to address these matters and a timetable relating to their implementation. As I have indicated, these are matters that I take very seriously. I have discussed the issues raised in the investigation with Sydney Water's management to ensure that action is taking place. The managing director has advised me that all recommendations arising from the investigation are being addressed at North Head and that any broader implications for the corporation will also be addressed. A new manager is in place at North Head to fully implement recommendations and to ensure that real changes take place.
I have also been advised that after receiving the recommendations from its internal audit branch, the new manager was able to implement many of these immediately. For example, in relation to security at the site, Sydney Water has installed new locks onto access gates and moved to make repairs to the perimeter fencing. Although no irregularities were found in time sheets, the new plant manager is putting in place random spot checks and plans for improved overall monitoring of procedures.
Of course, one of the most concerning findings was the use of email for sending and receiving pornography. I am advised that existing software filters across Sydney Water prevent pornography being downloaded from the Internet. However, it seems that email was used to send and receive the material. Accordingly, Sydney Water's management is taking action to ensure that external email outside of Sydney Water's own intranet will be closed off.
Sydney Water will be reinforcing to all staff its numerous and very clear policies regarding appropriate email practices. Forensic tools will also be employed to monitor the computer system to ensure that the policies are being observed. It is important that the Government be assured that the findings of the internal auditor are dealt with in full and promptly. The managing director has given me those assurances, and I look forward to the board reinforcing them in the report I have requested.
OLYMPIC GAMES HOMELESSNESS PROTOCOL
Ms MOORE: My question is to the Minister for the Olympics. Why has the Government refused to give the Olympics homelessness protocol the force of law? Mr KNIGHT: There are two answers to that question. The short answer is that the honourable member has addressed the question to the wrong Minister; I am not responsible for the protocol. Secondly, I presume the answer isbecause it is a protocol and not an Act of Parliament. PARALYMPIANS ENTRY FEES Mr HAZZARD: My question is directed to the Premier. Now that the Athens Olympic organising committee has been required to waive the entry fees for all Paralympians in 2004, will the Premier ensure that his Government puts the same arrangements in place for the Sydney Games, so that all Paralympians are treated equally with Olympians? Mr CARR: All aspects of the Paralympic Games were part of the big document signed off and agreed to by both parties. There was no fuss at the time. That agreement will be honoured. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the third time. Mr CARR: The agreement is in place; it is in line with the position taken by the former Coalition Government. That agreement governs the Paralympics, and it will be honoured. CITYRAIL SECURITY GUARDS Mr MOSS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport. What is the latest information on the use of security guards on the CityRail network? Mr SCULLY: In July 1998 this Government took a major step towards improving the security of passengers on the CityRail network. We introduced a policy of two Chubb Security guards on every night train after 7 o'clock—a network of eyes and ears right across the CityRail network, detecting and dealing with incidents as they occur, providing passengers with a sense of security on our trains. 7942 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
The CityRail security guards are equipped with radios linked to a central CityRail control room which has direct links with the Police Service. The security guards complement the roll-out of digital security cameras to more than 300 stations across the CityRail network. More than two-thirds of our 305-odd stations now have cameras operating. Every month police request a number of tapes to assist them in their inquiries and investigations, and they are provided to police by CityRail. There is no program comparable to the comprehensive security upgrade that we are, and have been, undertaking for CityRail.
Despite the misinformation being spread by the shadow Minister for Transport—the barefaced cheek of the man—when he talks about security incidents, let us be honest in regard to what this bloke is on about. He goes around talking down public transport, but what is he really on about? What is he really saying when he is talking about public transport? He is always talking down Kerry Chikarovski. That is what he is on about. He will stop at nothing. He will say anything to get the leadership of the Liberal Party. Later today he will present further misinformation on security incidents. I want to tell the House what the real situation is. In the first six months of this year, by comparison with the first six months of last year, the number of incidents has in fact fallen from 747 incidents to 691.
[Interruption]
Members of the National and Liberal parties may chuckle. Unlike when they were in government, more people are now using our trains. We have had a small but pleasing reduction in the number of incidents but a big increase in the number of passengers. Over that period we had 4.3 million extra passenger journeys—that is, more than four million people extra on the trains—and fewer incidents. In fact, an incident is quite rare on our trains. For the benefit of the Opposition, I will inform the House of the number of incidents per number of passenger journeys. In the first six months of this year, there was one incident per 204,000 passenger journeys. Incidents do occur from time to time, which is unfortunate. Of course, I am sure honourable members on both sides of the House would prefer that they did not occurr, but let us put the matter into perspective: one incident per 204,000 passenger journeys.
Last week a serious incident occurred near Sydenham railway station. On Thursday night two security guards made a very real difference in a dangerous situation on a CityRail train. At about 9.15 p.m. the train travelling from Bondi Junction to Cronulla was making its way between Redfern and Sydenham. Two security guards, Alan Laird and Adnane Ahovldak, were patrolling the middle of the train when they were approached by a passenger who informed them that, following a dispute between passengers, a person in the last carriage of the train had been stabbed. The two security guards made their way very quickly to that carriage, where Mr Ahovldak arrested and detained the alleged assailant. Police and ambulance officers were called and were quickly on the scene. Mr Laird gave first aid to both the man and woman who were suffering from stab wounds. The two security guards made a real difference. I have been informed that the alleged assailant has been charged with two counts of malicious wounding and has already been before the court.
Early the next morning I telephoned the two security guards involved, and I thanked them on behalf of the community. I indicated to them that their performance and behaviour were absolutely exemplary and demonstrated most aptly why this Government has put two security guards on every night train. I am sure that everyone in this House would join me in congratulating them on the effort they put into a very dangerous situation. The transport agency's Your Say Line has received a comment from one of the passengers on the train, which I would like to share with the House. The passenger stated:
I am writing regarding the stabbing incident at Sydenham station last night. I was on the same train, and I was very impressed by the response of security staff who reacted in a swift and highly efficient manner to the crisis. Please pass on my thanks to the officers involved.
This incident demonstrates that security guards can and do make a difference. I expect all security guards to strive towards the same high standard as that demonstrated last Thursday by Alan Laird and Adnane Ahovldak. Our record is about 350 security guards on trains; the Opposition's record is none. We are installing cameras on all the 305-odd stations; the Opposition had a few dinosaur cameras, now useless technology, on a small number of stations. We are unfolding a very exciting security program that involves cameras and security guards. The incident that occurred last week demonstrated most aptly that they make a difference. But look at the statistics. Do not believe the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he gets up in a few minutes to try to justify his motion for urgent consideration. He is full of untruths. He is seeking to mislead the public and to drive the Leader of the Opposition further towards the back benches. 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7943
AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS
Mr PICCOLI: My question without notice is to the Premier. Have concerns been expressed to him about continued antisocial behaviour of one of his members resulting in that member being barred from several country hotels, the latest for allegedly being objectionable and insulting to Aboriginal patrons, and on another occasion for passing out while at the official table at a regional Australian Hotels Association meeting?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The standing orders provide that if members wish to impugn the character of another member they must do so by way of a substantive motion.
Mr Hartcher: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled.
Mr Hartcher: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Gosford wishes to take a point of order he may do so at the end of question time.
STATE HERITAGE PROTECTION
Mr ANDERSON: My question without notice is to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. What is the latest information on the Government's efforts to protect the State's heritage?
Dr REFSHAUGE: Across New South Wales we see the rich diversity of our past—thousands of buildings, artefacts, sites and objects—that contributes much to our understanding of our history and the history of this great State. In bringing those memories to light they help to define our present, where we are going and our future. Each of these things, some tangible and some intangible, is invaluable in painting a detailed and fascinating story of our past.
Each reveals much about our lifestyle, landscape and contemporary activity. Each has contributed something special to our daily lives. The Government has made a strong and enduring commitment to protect the heritage of New South Wales. More than that, we are working to conserve, interpret and promote heritage places and items. Heritage is more than a pleasure, an insight or an education: it is a responsibility and also a challenge. It is a responsibility because we need to look after what has been left so that future generations can enjoy and benefit from it. It is a challenge because we must find creative new ways of interpreting and preserving the evidence of our past, and of balancing the sometimes competing demands of conservation and development.
In April last year we introduced the concept of State heritage significance and we established the State Heritage Register. We are working to develop the State Heritage Register as a comprehensive list of all items of heritage significance in New South Wales. Since April 1999, some 598 items of State significance have been added to the register in addition to the 670 items previously covered by the permanent conservation order, which were automatically listed. I am delighted to advise the House that there are now 1,268 items listed on the register, including city icons such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Centennial Park and the First Government House site. Also included are many significant regional and rural places such as the Amusu Theatre in Manildra, the Victoria Theatre in Newcastle and St Marys Convent in Young.
It is clear that it is important that the register reflects the importance of our multicultural heritage, not just our European heritage, and, of course, our indigenous heritage. We are determined that the register will reflect the cultural diversity of contemporary Australia. In that regard we have moved to list items that are significant to the Chinese and other ethnic communities. Honourable members will recall that last year we listed the Yu Ming Temple in Alexandria. This important and beautiful temple is one of only a small number of Chinese temples that survive in Australia. It has provided practical assistance for newly arrived migrants for the past 130 years. We have also listed on the register the La Perouse Market Gardens and the Wing Hing Long Store in Tingha, both of which have played a long-term role in the local history.
I am particularly proud that we have also moved to list important indigenous sites on the State Heritage Register. The culture of Aboriginal Australia is widely acknowledged as the oldest on earth, embracing some 7944 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
50,000 years of history across this wide and beautiful land. I am very pleased that we have now added the extraordinary Brewarrina fish traps to the register. The fish traps are highly significant to the Aboriginal community of western New South Wales because of their traditional, spiritual, symbolic and cultural associations. There are only four such sites in New South Wales. This one is in the best condition to survive, and it has now been listed on the State Heritage Register. The listing of the Brewarrina fish traps was strongly supported by the community and, indeed, is something we should all be proud to celebrate.
We will continue our work with the Aboriginal community to find other important items to list, and to protect the sites and objects that provide an insight into our indigenous past. The Government is strongly of the view that the community needs to own its heritage. In that regard all proposals to add items to the register are advertised so that the community can comment on a proposed listing. I am delighted to announce today that, following this process, we have listed another Sydney site rich in colonial history. The Kirkham Stables in Narellan are among the oldest stables in Australia. This impressive colonial building was built in 1816 on one of the earliest farms in the colony outside Sydney and Parramatta.
The stables, together with a late Victorian homestead and timber store also located on the property, are still situated in a farm setting with views to and from other historic places of the period. Kirkham has been continually farmed since the earliest years of the colony. Its rural working buildings can tell us much about changing agricultural and pastoral practices over almost two centuries. Today I announce also that we are proposing to boost the size of the colony's third government farm. The Castle Hill Heritage Park and neighbouring land is a nationally significant area with connections back to the early years of the colony. It is where the colony's third government farm was hewn from bushland by convicts in 1801. Three years later events leading to the convict uprising and the Battle of Vinegar Hill occurred on this very spot.
The first dedicated mental institution, which in those days was known as a lunatic asylum, was later established there. The Castle Hill area was visited by a party of explorers headed by Governor Phillip in 1791. The colony began growing food there in 1801. By the end of the following year, the farm was said to be doing extremely well. The former farm provides an unparalleled opportunity to learn about the early colony. The landscape remains largely unchanged and the important archaeology of the site can tell us much about the lives of the people who worked there. Today there is an open invitation for the community to comment on the proposed listing before making a decision on whether the site should be on the register.
AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS
Mr Hartcher: My point of order on your disallowance of the question asked by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee is that I take it that you, Mr Speaker, acted in accordance with Standing Order 82, which states:
Imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members of either House are disorderly other than by substantive motion.
There are a number of rulings which cover this standing order. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, are familiar with them but I draw them to the attention of the House. A ruling by Speaker Kelly states:
Members should not be over-ready to complain of rugged and forthright criticism.
The question asked by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee related to no specified member: no-one was named. The question contained the word "members". Speaker Rozzoli made a specific ruling in 1990-91, which stated:
Members are not required to move a substantive motion to make a comment about members on either side of the House.
No-one was named in the question asked by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. It was a comment seeking a simple response from the Premier, as the Minister in charge of members of the Labor Party, in relation to the behaviour of unnamed members. The disallowance takes the standing order to a length not previously seen when a person who has not been named but who is only part of a generic class of members can claim its protection.
The whole idea of the standing order is to prevent individual attacks on members such that a member feels required to defend himself or herself, and that is when a member can plead Standing Order 82. It does not 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7945
relate to a whole class of members. Matters will reach the stage when any reflection upon members opposite or members on each side of the House as a general class will be ruled out of order under that standing order. That is the widest possible application that could be given to the standing order and it is in direct contrast to the specific ruling by Speaker Rozzoli. It is also in direct contrast to the rulings to which I have referred and is in direct contrast to a further ruling by Speaker Rozzoli in 1992-93, which states:
The Standing Order requiring that personal reflections on members be by substantive motion only relates to matters that occur in the cause of debate rather than the phrasing of a motion. Chair ruled that Matter of Public Importance motion referring to activities of a member's private company did not breach Standing Orders by imputing improper motives, or by innuendo or offensive words allege improper conduct by a member of Parliament, even though the business activities of the company do touch upon that member of Parliament.
Accordingly, by moving for debate on a matter of public importance, the standing order was held not to apply but it ruled out any question that relates to the conduct of unnamed members opposite. Mr Speaker, there would surely be a point in your ruling if the member whose conduct was complained of was named in the question, but he or she was not named. It was a general question directed to the Premier and, accordingly, it falls within the standing order and within the two rulings by Speaker Rozzoli to which I have referred.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair has taken a stand in this case because the question reflected on all members. A question that reflects on the character of a member who is not named is a reflection on every member and therefore does no credit to any member of the House.
[Interruption]
Order! I see no value in question time being taken up by members asking questions about the personal conduct of other members.
[Interruption]
Order! The Leader of the House will remain silent. A member who wishes to make imputations about the conduct of another member should do so by way of substantive motion. That allows the House to debate both sides of the matter, and to vote on it. I refer the honourable member for Gosford to the nineteenth edition of Erskine May, which states:
Certain matters cannot be debated, save upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. Among these ... are the conduct of ... members of either house of Parliament ...
I would prefer the House to debate matters other than the personal conduct of members. The ruling applies equally to both sides of the House.
Questions without notice concluded.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Bill: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [3.25 p.m.]: I seek leave to move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow for the immediate introduction and passage through all stages of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentence Confirmation) Bill, notice of which was given this day by the Leader of the Opposition.
Leave not granted.
DEATH OF GORDON ARTHUR BARNIER, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Mr SPEAKER: Order! I inform the House of the death on 11 July 2000 of Gordon Arthur Barnier, a former member of the Legislative Assembly. On behalf of the House I have extended to the family of Gordon Aurthur Barnier the deep sympathy of members of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained. Ms ALLAN (Wentworthville) [3.27 p.m.], by leave: I express my appreciation to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Leader of the House for the opportunity to remark on the death of Gordon Arthur Barnier. Later this 7946 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000 evening honourable members will be commenting on the death of another former colleague, Gerry Sullivan. Only two weeks prior to the death of Gerry Sullivan, Gordon Barnier died at the age of 72. He was the former honourable member for Blacktown from the period 1971 to 1981 and a member of the Seven Hills branch of the Labor Party, which I had the pleasure of representing for seven years when I was the honourable member for Blacktown.
Gordon Barnier was a very dedicated and diligent person. I did not know him when he was the honourable member for Blacktown. However, he was probably my local member when I first joined the Labor Party in 1971. At that stage he was the honourable member for Blacktown, having taken over the electorate from Jim Southee, and represented the Girraween area where I grew up and subsequently joined the Labor Party.
Gordon Barnier was certainly someone of whom I became aware. I came to know him very closely during the period when I was the local parliamentary representative for Blacktown. Although at that time Gordon Barnier was no longer a member of Parliament, he was a very active member of the Labor Party. He was the type of member of the Labor Party whom a local parliamentary representative dreads having to face each time a branch meeting is held.
Gordon was the sort of person who knew what the local issues were and who also had solutions to those local issues. He was certainly very forthright in presenting his views to branch meetings. He was a very calm and reasoned man during the period I knew him. The debates he instigated at the Seven Hills branch, of which he had previously been a president, were certainly debates that were very important and very relevant to western Sydney communities in which he took an interest. Unfortunately, I could not attend his funeral as I was not in Sydney. However, I express my sincere condolences to his wife, Pam, to his seven children and to his grandchildren who were grieved by his death.
I obtained a copy of Gordon Barnier's inaugural speech to Parliament in 1971 and I flicked through it during question time. I was struck by the fact that three of the issues raised in Gordon's speech are as relevant today as they were in 1971. Probably not to the joy of the current Minister for Transport, Gordon Barnier—a Labor member of Parliament commenting on and criticising a conservative-led State of New South Wales— spent a large part of his inaugural speech talking about the problems in the rail system. Of course, such problems were relevant to Gordon and his constituents because people travelling to Seven Hills and Blacktown railway stations obviously relied on trains to get to work.
Another major issue about which Gordon spoke in his inaugural speech was the then state of education in New South Wales. He was concerned about what was happening in his local schools. In addition, in 1971 the Teachers Federation was bunging on a dispute—yet again! Because he was in opposition he supported the Teachers Federation at the time and appreciated that teachers were raising the concerns of children in his classrooms. He was concerned with lots of other issues also. Blacktown was beginning its development then—it is now one of the most radically developing municipalities in New South Wales. In 1971 issues such as the availability of sewerage concerned Gordon.
The final issue about which he spoke in his inaugural speech—again I cannot believe the coincidence— was that the then State Government was considering a bid for the 1988 Olympic Games in Sydney. Gordon was right on the knocker: he was concerned that the Wallgrove site, which was held by the Army, should be made available for various events during the Olympics and in commenting about rowing events he said, "Is there a better site than the Nepean at Penrith, not so far away?"
Gordon Barnier did not end his political life when he left this place. He remained active in the Labor Party. He created a political environment in the Seven Hills community where he lived almost all his life in a housing commission home. The political environment he created enabled successive members for Blacktown to thrive in that community. I am very sorry for Pam and her children in their loss of Gordon. Two weeks before his death he was at the Greenway Federal Electorate Council. Last week in Tasmania at the Federal electorate council I had a lovely discussion about Gordon's contribution with Frank Mossfield, the local member for Greenway. Gordon was active until his death and he made an outstanding contribution. I am very sad at his death.
Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [3.33 p.m.], by leave: It is with great respect and regret that I speak to this motion of condolence to mark the passing of the former honourable member for Blacktown, Mr Gordon Arthur Barnier. Mr Gordon Barnier was born in 1928. He lived in Seven Hills and raised seven children with his 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7947 wife, Pam. He was employed by the Council of the City of Sydney for some 28 years, obviously holding a long and distinguished work record with the council. He was a long-time and dedicated member of the Australian Labor Party, joining the Annandale branch in 1950. He was later a member of the Maroubra Bay and Seven Hills branches. Gordon Barnier was widely respected for his service in local government. He had a distinguished local government career, including being a member of Prospect County Council, before being elected to this Chamber.
I grew up in the Parramatta-Northmead area and I remember that the Barnier name was quite prominent in the community. The people respected and admired Gordon's service to the community as local member when he was elected in 1971 and his service to the Prospect County Council. He was a delegate to the council as an executive member of the Local Government Electricity Association of New South Wales. Mr Barnier was elected to Parliament in February 1971 as the member for Blacktown and he remained a member of this House until 1981, giving sterling and committed service. On behalf of the Coalition, I extend my deepest sympathies to Mr Barnier's wife, Pam, to his seven children, to his extended family and to his large circle of friends.
The passing of Mr Gordon Barnier is one of those cycles in the history of the Blacktown and Seven Hills areas. Friends of mine moved to Seven Hills when the Department of Housing undertook a massive construction of properties in the Seven Hills and Lalor Parks areas. New suburbs were created overnight. They were exciting days for the people who moved out there. I guess it was the beginning of the major growth that has occurred and continues in Blacktown. Of course, many people quite proudly say they were born in Blacktown or lived there all their lives. Certainly it is a great place where many solid Australian working men and women have raised their children and have lived their lives and served the community well.
Mr Gordon Arthur Barnier certainly portrayed the commitment for which many members of the Australian Labor Party have been known and continue to give the community to this day. On behalf of Coalition, again I extend my deepest sympathies to Mr Barnier's wife and his seven children. Indeed, bringing up seven children is a measure of some commitment. I do not know how he kept the home fires burning and filled in a parliamentary career in the meantime! I say well done Gordon Arthur Barnier, you served this Parliament well and you served the people of Blacktown well in many different capacities. Your record should be noted with distinction.
Mr GIBSON (Blacktown) [3.37 p.m.], by leave: I too pass on my condolences to the Barnier family— Pam and their seven children. Like many people, I did not know Gordon well. I got to know Gordon when I became the honourable member for Blacktown after the last State election. I found this man to be a wealth of knowledge and a staunch member of the community and the Labor Party. Gordon was a member of the Seven Hills branch of the Labor Party. The Labor Party used to meet at the Seven Hills soccer club at Blacktown. I arrived fairly early at the first meeting I attended and Gordon was the only one there. I soon found after attending several meetings that Gordon was always the first one at branch meetings. He would dutifully stand at the door and sign you in as you came to the club. He took great pride in doing that and in being a member of the Blacktown soccer club and the Labor Party. He continued that ritual until his death.
As a matter of fact, Gordon attended a meeting of the Seven Hills branch on the Monday night before he died. Gordon was always vocal at meetings and, as the honourable member for Wentworthville stated, he was a member of the party who would keep you on your toes. At that Monday night meeting Gordon asked two or three questions—he asked questions at every meeting I attended. He asked something about one of his pet subjects: the Badgerys Creek airport. He fought long and hard to make sure the Badgerys Creek airport never eventuated. I rang Gordon on Friday night to give him the answer he was looking for at the Monday night branch meeting. I spoke to him at length on that occasion. Gordon suffered cancer for quite some time, but he was the type of person not to let on that he was ill or more ill than he had been. I never once heard Gordon Barnier say that he was sick, did not feel well or was out of sorts.
I had a long conversation with him on Friday and he did not even mention that he was sick. Unfortunately, he passed away in the early hours of Sunday morning. Gordon Barnier was very proud of his achievements during his 10 years as the member for Blacktown. A railway line across Seven Hills Road, Seven Hills had long been a bone of contention, with boom gates causing delays to motorists of 10 or 15 minutes. Gordon was responsible for the building of an overpass bridge over that railway line.
It is a great credit to Gordon that all his family spoke at his funeral, and it was obvious that they spoke from the heart. He was a very fortunate man: all who attended the funeral were touched by the obvious love that his children had for their mother and father. Despite having been beaten at preselection, he did not feel that he 7948 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000 had been rejected by the Australian Labor Party. He remained a staunch member of the Labor Party to the day he died. The community will be a lot poorer for his passing. I offer my condolences and those of my family and staff to Pam, the seven Barnier children, and their families.
Members and officers of the House stood in their places.
CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS
Federal Education Funding
Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone—Minister for Education and Training) [3.41 p.m.]: My motion should be treated as urgent because this is the first sitting day since the Commonwealth Government introduced its States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 in the Federal Parliament. That bill will fundamentally change the Commonwealth funding relationship with both government and non-government schools. Non-government schools will receive a windfall gain from the Commonwealth Government, while at the same time government schools will receive little or nothing as a result of the continued application of the enrolment benchmark adjustment. For that reason I urge the House to treat my motion with the utmost urgency.
CityRail Safety
Mr O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.42 p.m.]: My motion deserves precedence because every day on our rail system somebody is subjected to violence or some other offence. My motion is urgent because it is untrue, as the Minister for Transport said in question time, that the last serious attack on the rail system was the stabbings at Sydenham last week. My motion is urgent because late on Sunday afternoon, on a train travelling between Central station and the Blue Mountains, a 38-year-old husband and father of four children—a person described as a quiet bloke minding his own business, who had spent the previous day doing work for his elderly parents in Sydney—saw a 14-year-old being menaced on a train.
My motion is urgent because when that individual intervened to protect the 14-year-old from the offender, who had attempted a bag snatch, he was confronted by two other offenders, who beat the living daylights out of him. My motion is urgent because that is not an irregular occurrence on our rail system. My motion is urgent because that man was threatened with death by those thugs, and was repeatedly beaten as the train travelled towards Katoomba. My motion is urgent because while that offence took place there was no security guard or other State Rail official to come to his rescue. That is an example of what is happening on the rail system. Innocent commuters travel on a system that is dirty, dangerous and unreliable, and take their lives in their hands as they protect others.
Time and again the Minister for Transport suggests, in this Chamber and in the newspapers, that all is rosy in the rail system. My motion is urgent because, despite the fact that today in this Chamber the Minister for Transport said there is one incident in every 204,000 passenger journeys, the reality is that incidents such as that on the Blue Mountains line on Sunday and the stabbings at Sydenham the previous week are all potentially life- threatening. The reality is that this Government has done nothing to staunch the increase in rail violence. In 1995 there were 207 offences on trains; in 1996, 182 offences; in 1997, 258 offences; and in 1998, 289 offences. My motion is urgent because in the last four quarters there have been 583 offences on trains across the CityRail system. My motion is urgent because that represents an increase of more than 200 per cent on the first year that this Government was in office. My motion is urgent because unless we do something about it we will be sorely embarrassed in September, when the Olympics will be held in this city.
The Minister referred to one incident in every 204,000 passenger journeys. As he knows, for 19 days in September the rail system, which would normally carry 14 million passenger journeys, will increase to 31 million passenger journeys. My motion is urgent because Olympic visitors, whether from overseas, interstate or intrastate, could potentially be threatened by the increasing incidence of violence and other offences on our rail system. This matter is urgent because the Minister for Transport is sitting on his hands. It is urgent because despite the introduction of security guards on trains and the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars, at the end of the day neither taxpayers nor commuters are getting a better result. My motion is urgent because unless we staunch the violence on the rail system we will not shift people out of their cars and on to trains, which is something that members on both sides of this House wish to do.
This matter is urgent because we need to finally get through to the Minister for Transport that there is a crisis in relation to violence on trains. The Minister for Transport too often says that this is a perception 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7949 problem. If we can debate this matter urgently we can explain to him that what he regards as a perception problem is, in reality, a man in hospital, black and blue after being beaten on a Blue Mountains train in daylight on Sunday and those who are still in hospital recovering from stabbings on a train at Sydenham. Such incidents are not isolated; there have been 537 offences on trains over the past year! That is 10 incidents a week—some as serious as a stabbing or a beating. My motion is far more urgent than any other motion. [Time expired.]
Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Riverstone be proceeded with—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 49
Ms Allan Mr Gibson Mr Newell Mr Amery Mr Greene Ms Nori Ms Andrews Mrs Grusovin Mr Orkopoulos Mr Aquilina Mr Hickey Mr E. T. Page Mr Ashton Mr Iemma Mr Price Mr Bartlett Mr Knight Dr Refshauge Ms Beamer Mr Knowles Mr Scully Mr Black Mrs Lo Po' Mr W. D. Smith Mr Brown Mr Lynch Mr Stewart Miss Burton Mr McBride Mr Tripodi Mr Campbell Mr McManus Mr Whelan Mr Carr Mr Martin Mr Woods Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr Yeadon Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr Debus Mr Mills Tellers, Mr Face Mr Moss Mr Anderson Mr Gaudry Mr Nagle Mr Thompson
Noes, 36
Mr Barr Mr McGrane Mr Slack-Smith Mr Brogden Mr Maguire Mr Souris Mrs Chikarovski Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Collins Ms Moore Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr Oakeshott Mr Torbay Mr George Mr O'Doherty Mr R. W. Turner Mr Glachan Mr O'Farrell Mr Webb Mr Hartcher Mr D. L. Page Mr Windsor Mr Hazzard Mr Piccoli Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Mr Humpherson Mr Rozzoli Tellers, Dr Kernohan Ms Seaton Mr Fraser Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Mr R. H. L. Smith
Pairs
Ms Harrison Mr Armstrong Mr Hunter Mr J. H. Turner Question resolved in the affirmative. FEDERAL EDUCATION FUNDING Urgent Motion Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone—Minister for Education and Training) [3.58 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
1. Calls on the Commonwealth Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr David Kemp, to reveal the detail of the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 and to amend the bill to fairly fund government schools; and 7950 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
2. Supports public calls to provide a fair funding deal for government schools and the neediest non-government schools by abolishing the enrolment benchmark adjustment [EBA].
It is with some sadness that on the very first sitting day after the winter recess I must yet again draw the House's attention to the Howard Government's inequitable and divisive education policy. On Thursday 29 June 2000 the Commonwealth education Minister introduced the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 into the Federal Parliament. This bill proposes a fundamental change to the Commonwealth's approach to schooling. It is a fundamental change on which the States and Territories have not yet been consulted.
I have now written to Dr Kemp seeking an urgent out-of-session Ministerial Council meeting so that he can explain the impact of the bill. The bill unsettles the basic principles upon which school education in Australia has been based since the 1970s. The bill explicitly aligns the Commonwealth Government with the interests of the non-government school sector—yet again at the expense of public education. Since the 1970s the Commonwealth has supported States and Territories in providing public schooling of the highest quality. In 1973, after the Karmel report, the proportion of Commonwealth schools funding going to government schools was around 70 per cent. In 1996, when the Howard Government came to power, that proportion was 39.2 per cent. But, if Dr Kemp's legislation becomes law, by 2004 the proportion of Commonwealth funding to government schools will have dropped to just 26.9 per cent. To put that in context, 70 per cent of students attend government schools, yet they will receive less than 30 per cent of Commonwealth funding—that is, 70 per cent of taxpayers' children are in government schools, but 30 per cent of taxpayers' money goes for government schools. I fear that a commitment from the Commonwealth to a high-quality public education can no longer be taken for granted. I say fear because I do not yet know the detail of how this bill will impact on schools in New South Wales—fear because, even though this is States grants legislation with major ramifications for schooling in New South Wales, I have not yet had the courtesy of a letter, a briefing or a discussion from Dr Kemp; fear, because there are too many unanswered questions in the 125 pages of legislation before the Federal Parliament. What we know is that in his second reading speech Dr Kemp stated that this legislation "will appropriate in excess of $18 billion for the coming 2001-2004 quadrennium.” Dr Kemp recently claimed at a keynote speech to heads of independent schools that: Consistent with the historic role of the Commonwealth as the main provider of public monies for non-government schools, under the States Grants legislation for 2001 to 2004, $11.6 billion will go to non-government schools. In fact, in total, more than $13 billion will go to non-government schools over the next four years. In New South Wales, non-government schools will receive $4.4 billion, while government schools will receive only $1.8 billion. Let me make it perfectly clear: There is no such thing as the "historic role of the Commonwealth" in favouring non-government schools. The Commonwealth has an historic responsibility to all schools, government and non-government. Since at least the late sixties, this has been a happy partnership. It is in our interests to ensure that this again becomes the case. But this cannot happen while the Commonwealth Government continues its policies of division, and while it continues to fund one sector at the expense of the other. This bill unilaterally sets aside the longstanding partnership in favour of a model where the Commonwealth seeks to distance itself from financial responsibility for government schools. Rather than promoting co-operation, Dr Kemp is promoting competition between sectors. Dr Kemp's ideological agenda seems to be that the market should reign supreme in education. He seems to believe that government has no place in promoting a good society through high-quality public schooling. Dr Kemp has said that his bill "acknowledges the right of Australian parents to choose the most appropriate schooling for their children". He would be right, except for his implicit message that public education is neither a valid choice nor the most appropriate schooling for their children. I dispute that. I strongly support the right of parents to choose. But where I disagree with Dr Kemp is that I believe public education is not only a valid choice but an excellent choice. It is an excellent choice, deserving of the Commonwealth's full commitment. I now turn to the detail of the concerns I have with the Commonwealth's legislation. The Commonwealth is introducing a new socioeconomic status-based funding model. Dr Kemp claims that "funding will be distributed according to need and schools serving the neediest communities will receive the greatest financial support". It sounds like a laudable proposal. But a number of flaws are already evident. Dr Kemp and his department continue to refuse access to the details of the actual funding levels for non-government schools and how much the system will actually end up costing the taxpayer. So much for transparent, objective and equitable funding. From our initial analysis, it would seem that the wealthiest schools will receive a disproportionate share of the funding increases. By 2004 it appears that schools currently in category 1—that is, the wealthiest of 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7951
schools—could receive an average funding increase of around 90 per cent for primary school students and 60 per cent for secondary school students. Commonwealth funding for some of those category 1 schools could double or triple as a result. I have heard anecdotally that some wealthy schools have such little need for the additional funding that they will be putting taxpayers' funds straight into trust accounts to build yet more wealth. On the other hand, it seems that poorer non-government schools in category 10 may receive on average only a 10 per cent increase for primary students and less than 5 per cent for secondary students.
For that reason I welcome Federal Labor’s announcement that if a Beazley government is elected it will abolish the enrolment benchmark adjustment, known commonly as the EBA. I have said a lot about the EBA. I have continually made the case nationally that it is divisive, inequitable and unfair. Federal Labor's announcement demonstrates again that Labor is the only party committed to a fair go for all Australian children. Last week Dr Kemp had a golden opportunity to kill off one of the most damaging election issues for the Howard Government. Instead, he reaffirmed his unblinking commitment to the EBA.
Dr Kemp needs to recognise that schooling is about more than cost shifting. It is not an exercise in intergovernmental accountancy, but an exercise in ensuring that every Australian child has access to high- quality, adequately funded education. Under the Commonwealth's proposals, funding to non-government schools will increase by 55 per cent from 1999 to 2004. Dr Kemp's EBA has already taken more than $37 million from government schools in New South Wales alone. If Dr Kemp's EBA is applied for the next four years, it will mean that Commonwealth funding to government schools will decrease by 2.13 per cent.
As I have stated repeatedly, I have no wish to deny additional funding to needy non-government schools. However, the Commonwealth's socioeconomic status legislation not only provides most of the windfall to already wealthy non-government schools, but it does so at the expense of public education. Dr Kemp claims that his bill "represents a major investment in the future of our society". He claims that the bill "guarantees financial security for all schools". That is simply untrue; it only guarantees the financial security of some non- government schools. Unless the EBA is removed and the Commonwealth redresses the inequities in this bill, it will be a major investment in only a small part of our society.
Finally, let me turn to the issue of accountability in this bill. For many years educational accountability has been managed multilaterally. The Commonwealth, States and Territories are jointly developing a national accountability framework through the Ministerial Council. This bill will give the Commonwealth Minister power to demand and enforce accountability unilaterally and arbitrarily. As Minister for education in this State, I challenge his right to do that. [Time expired.]
Mr O'DOHERTY (Hornsby) [4.08 p.m.]: As I listened to the Minister read his preprepared speech I thought for a moment I was in Hobart at the Labor Party conference.
Ms Megarrity: Never!
Mr O'DOHERTY: There was a time when I, as a journalist, was invited to Labor conferences. But the honourable member is probably right: I will not be invited again. Nor would I want to go, because I like listening to speeches that have substance in truth. What honourable members just heard is the first shot in a Federal election war being fired by the Minister for Education and Training on behalf of his increasingly desperate Canberra colleagues, who say they are going to roll back the GST. Where does all the GST revenue go? It goes to the States.
So they would roll back the GST that is given to the States. But then they say no, they will not cut the money that goes to the States. So they are saying that they will roll back the means for collecting the revenue but they will not cut back the amount of money that they will give to the States. Therefore they will have to make up the shortfall in another way. Federal Labor has not costed its proposal. It has not said how it will make up the revenue shortfall. Yet the Minister for Education and Training, the Premier and other Labor members who were in Hobart are prepared to accept that everything will be just fine and dandy, that there will be no more taxes, that the tax cuts will continue, and that funding for New South Wales will continue. That does not add up. Labor knows that the GST roll-back is a dud policy that is bad for New South Wales, and particularly bad for schools in New South Wales.
I will pick up on several comments of the Minister, who was heard in silence. First, the motion asks for more details about the way in which individual school categories will be funded under the new socioeconomic status [SES] arrangements. The Minister said that he does not have that information and that he has moved this 7952 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000 motion in order to learn how individual schools in individual categories will fare. The Minister confidently asserted at the end of his contribution that the wealthiest schools would be better off, yet he said at the outset that he did not know what the figures were.
Second, some of the details that the Minister seeks are readily available. The Commonwealth bill is public legislation that was presented in the House of Representatives and may be accessed on the Internet. The Commonwealth Government's submission to the Senate inquiry is available publicly. I have a copy of that document, which I can make available to the Minister's office—it can probably also be accessed on the Internet. I am mystified as to why the Minister must come to the House to seek information that he can obtain easily from any of those public forums or meetings of the Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, which is the proper place to inquire about school funding matters and the proper forum in which to debate relations between the Commonwealth and the States. That is what we said when the Minister tried desperately to raise this matter when the House last sat.
Third, it is odd that the Minister claims to be angry and concerned about private schools by virtue of the fact that they are not public and that people might choose to make an investment in their children's education—a notion that the Minister apparently derides and that Labor continues to deride in a divisive and disgusting fashion. The Minister is concerned that wealth might come into the picture and that people might choose to go without in order to educate their children in non-government schools. The SES model of funding that the Commonwealth is moving towards addresses that point. It assumes that, historically, it is not fair that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have been less able to choose their children's education than people from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. The new Commonwealth funding arrangements state that Commonwealth funding will be directed according to the socioeconomic status of the children who attend a school. That is more equitable for the people whom the Minister purports to represent.
Despite the Minister's statements about wealthy private schools, despite the fact that the Commonwealth's bill makes it easier for parents from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to provide non- government education for their children by granting more funding to schools that serve such communities and despite the equity that is built into the Commonwealth's plan, the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training now disagrees with that initiative. He is all over the shop; he does not know where he is coming from. Fourth, I am concerned about the actions of the Minister and his Labor colleagues in creating divisions in our community by deliberately distorting the truth about how schools are funded in Australia. It is a matter of public record that the Commonwealth Government provides general financial assistance grants to the States, and that principle continues under the new GST arrangements. Revenue is guaranteed at the same level as before and will increase over time. Unless Labor is elected federally and rolls back the GST, more money will be available to New South Wales under the GST.
Mr Richardson: What did Della Bosca think about it?
Mr O'DOHERTY: John Della Bosca does not think that Labor's roll-back is a good idea; he thinks the GST is good the way it is and, in fact, should be extended to food. I wonder what the Minister thinks about that. As I said, general Commonwealth financial assistance grants to the States—which are continuing under the GST arrangements—are allocated by the States to public education. There is direct Commonwealth funding to both government and non-government schools. Historically, the arrangement is that the general funding that the Commonwealth makes available to the States is divided by the States and allocated primarily to government schools. Therefore, the Commonwealth's direct grants to non-government schools are proportionately higher than its grants to government schools while the States provide proportionately higher direct assistance to government schools than to non-government schools. The proposition of the Minister and his colleagues is divisive and dishonest. It would be equally wrong for me to condemn the State Government. For example, I could say that the State Government is terrible—this is a plausible argument based on truth—because it gives students attending non-government schools only 25 per cent of the funding that those same students would receive if they attended government schools. That is the truth of the matter; it is exactly how the formula works as a result of the historic arrangement under which the Commonwealth provides general money to the States for police, schools, hospitals and so on. The States allocate a large proportion of education funding to government schools and a smaller proportion to non- government schools while the Commonwealth operates inversely. In balance, it is a fair system that has served Australia well. A most important principle that the Minister fails to recognise is that this arrangement is driven by enrolments. Since 1997 enrolments in non-government schools in New South Wales have risen by 15,000 while 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7953 enrolments in government schools have risen by only 252. The Minister has failed to address those declining enrolments in public education, which is a major concern for people involved in both the government and non- government education sectors in New South Wales. The Coalition believes that those two strong sectors are vital in providing a secure future for Australia.
Only the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training wants to deliberately distort the argument and pretend that funding is causing the drift of students away from public education. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am on record as saying that I think the enrolment benchmark adjustment [EBA] is being implemented inappropriately; I think it could be used better and I have made clear the Opposition's views on that both in this place and elsewhere. The EBA relates only to the movement in the proportion of students between one sector and another; it does not come into play if student numbers are not dwindling in one sector and rising in another. It does not say, "Here is a bucket of money, go and find more students". It says that because enrolments in government schools are declining and enrolments in non-government schools are increasing, the Commonwealth and the States must shift funding accordingly, otherwise students will attend poorly funded schools while parents continue to exercise their choice. The New South Wales Government's position on this matter is deliberately divisive. It is causing division in the community on the basis of untruths and for that it must be condemned. I move:
That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That this House:" and inserting instead:
1. Calls on the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training to reveal his plans to support public education in the face of declining enrolments;
2. Calls on the Minister for Education and Training to end his divisive perpetration of myths about school funding; and
3. Calls on the Minister for Education and Training to reveal the terms of reference of his inquiry into non-government schools and provide an assurance that the inquiry is not motivated by the same attempt to divide the community.
Mr STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.18 p.m.]: The contribution from the honourable member for Hornsby demonstrates why he is no longer the shadow spokesperson for education: he does not have a clue. The honourable member should get his facts right in this very important argument. It is not about distorting the truth; it is about having the guts to put the truth on the table. The Commonwealth States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill is yet another blow to public education and training in Australia. We must recognise that fact—I am sure that most Opposition members understand it. It joins a litany of other Howard Government policies in damaging and dividing the Australian community on the crucial issues of schooling, training and higher education.
For the benefit of honourable members, I will catalogue the Commonwealth Government's four-year crusade to undermine and decimate public education and training not just in New South Wales but throughout the nation. Since 1996 the Commonwealth has cut funding to universities by almost $1 billion—$1,000 million has been ripped unmercifully from the hands of our universities. That has had a devastating effect, forcing universities to close and to sell campuses simply to meet recurrent expenses. In addition, the Commonwealth lowered the higher education contribution scheme [HECS] repayments threshold and introduced differential HECS. This is not just a major substitution of publicly funded effort for private funding, it has proved to be a major disincentive for students from poorer areas to attend university.
Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who deserve to go to university now cannot do so. The Commonwealth introduced upfront fee-paying undergraduate places to allow the rich to buy into universities at the expense of the poor. Dr Kemp, in his infamous leaked Cabinet minute, wanted to make all undergraduate places full fee-paying, financed with student loans at real rates of interest. The prospect of $100,000 university degrees rightly aroused the ire of the Australian public, and the whole idea was canned after a huge outcry from the public.
The Commonwealth has not taken its axe only to universities. Since 1996 the Federal Minister has cut $420 million from vocational education and training [VET] by ceasing growth funding. In New South Wales alone the cuts amount to more than $180 million. Rather than paying for growth Dr Kemp has forced the States to create growth through what he terms efficiencies—a brave new world approach to education. Dr Kemp has said that the States are mad if they think they are going to get growth funding for the next three years.
As my colleague the Minister for Education and Training recently announced, independent national figures reveal the number of new apprenticeships and traineeships in New South Wales has increased by 57 per cent—more than 20 times the national average. Over the past five years the number of enrolments in TAFE New 7954 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
South Wales has grown by more than 40,000. Expert estimates show that the VET system could grow by up to 5.7 per cent per year for the next three years, which could cost States and Territories around $1 billion extra. Despite this, the Commonwealth stubbornly refuses to fund growth. With no growth funding the States and Territories are left with one of two alternatives—to either halt growth or cut quality. This means that Dr Kemp will be responsible for shrinking the national VET system or presiding over a quality crisis. This catalogue of cuts brings me to schooling. As the Minister has already argued, not all schooling will be cut. Only public schooling will continue to suffer the barb of Dr Kemp's cuts. The enrolment benchmark adjustment [EBA] has shamefully already taken more than $60 million from public education around the nation. Government school enrolments around the nation continue to rise, yet Dr Kemp continues to cut funds to government schools. Last week in Hobart Federal Labor announced that if elected it would abolish the EBA. I strongly welcome the announcement and look forward to a future Federal Labor Government instituting that initiative. The Minister has already said that public education is a valid and excellent choice. I echo those sentiments. Dr Kemp's legislation in effect will put a nail in the coffin of a strong and vibrant public education system, one we are all very proud of. As universities and TAFEs have to close their doors because of a lack of Federal funding, I fear that in some parts of the nation government schools may have to follow suit. That would be sad and shameful. I add my voice to the Minister's calling on Dr Kemp to make this bill fairer and more equitable for the sake of all Australians and to have a system in place that provides quality education, but not at the expense of public education in this great nation. Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [4.23 p.m.]: The Minister's speech and his motion smack of hypocrisy. I was a little bemused when I read paragraph 1 of the motion, which states:
Calls on the Commonwealth Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr David Kemp, to reveal the detail of the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 and to amend the bill to fairly fund government schools. If the Minister does not know the detail of the bill, how can he call on the House to amend the bill to fairly fund government schools? If he already knows the detail, he should have revealed during his contribution to this debate that he had that knowledge. I was bemused also by the contribution of the honourable member for Bankstown. He spent three minutes and 35 seconds not talking about the enrolment benchmark adjustment or schools, but talking about TAFE, universities and every other level of education. The motion focuses strongly on schools and on the issue that the Minister has opened up for debate by his announcement of an inquiry into non-government schools, that is, standards in our education system and the reason that parents choose to send their children to one type of school and not to another. I have said in this place many times that I support the notion of choice in education, and the Minister in his contribution also said that he supported choice in education but that he had considerable concerns about what was happening to the government sector. The honourable member for Bankstown said that schools were going to close. Since time immemorial schools have closed when enrolments have fallen. Last Friday night in the Strangers Dining Room I hosted a reunion of my class from North Sydney Boys High School—a State school. I asked those former students how many of them had sent their kids to State high schools and about 60 per cent of them had. However, North Sydney Boys High School is the only State high school left in the North Sydney area. The others have closed because of the changing demographics of the area—not because of a lack of Federal Government funding. The honourable member for Hornsby, in his amendment to the motion, called on the Minister for Education and Training to end his divisive perpetration of myths about school funding, and they certainly are myths. The Minister should ask himself why, since 1997, enrolments in non-government schools in New South Wales have increased by 15,120 while enrolments in government schools have increased by only 252. A paper written by Jennifer Buckingham of the Centre for Independent Studies and published only last week, on 1 August, addresses misconceptions about the nature of private schooling and explores the reasons why private and public schools differ. Ms Buckingham writes:
Fact 1: Private schools do not drain money from public schools.
Fact 2: Private schools have spent less per student that public schools.
Fact 3: Private schools are not "elitist".
Fact 4: Private schools achieve better results than public schools.
Fact 5: Private school students have better post-school outcomes.
Fact 6: Parents choose private schools for many reasons, not just academic performance. 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7955
The Minister should explore that list of reasons in his inquiry, and I hope the outcome he achieves from that inquiry will be beneficial to the State school system that I have supported since I was in primary school. The other act of hypocrisy that the Minister has perpetrated in the House today relates to funding. He referred to the EBA and alleged that the Federal Government has taken $22 million out of the State school system. Honourable members should look at the amount of $70 million that the Government is spending on the Conservatorium of Music, over and above the money that would have been spent had the previous Government still been in office and had the Conservatorium of Music been moved to the Rozelle Hospital site. The hypocrisy of this Government is on display for all to see. [Time expired.]
Ms MEGARRITY (Menai) [4.28 p.m.]: I have had the privilege of experiencing first-hand the day-to- day operations and achievements of public education across my electorate. In this place on a previous occasion I have mentioned that, without exception, each and every school in my electorate is delivering dedicated and innovative quality education for our children.
Last Friday I had the pleasure of welcoming the Minister to Bangor Public School. Once again I was very proud of the achievements of that school. I know that the Minister enjoyed his visit and was equally impressed by the efforts of the school community. I join with the Minister and my colleagues in condemning the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill currently before the Federal Parliament. That bill will deliver yet another blow to public education; it sets out Federal funding for all schools for the next four years, yet it contains scant details about the impact on State and Territory schools.
As the Minister said, of the $18 billion earmarked for schools under the proposed legislation, non- government schools will receive $13 billion while government schools will receive just $5 billion. The absurdity continues because some of the wealthiest non-government schools will receive a much greater increase than the neediest non-government schools. At the same time, government schools will receive little or nothing as a result of the continued application of the enrolment benchmark adjustment [EBA] that we have heard much about today. Dr Kemp has taken $22 million from New South Wales government schools this year alone.
Mr Stewart: How much?
Ms MEGARRITY: Dr Kemp has taken $22 million. All up, the EBA has cut a total of $37 million from New South Wales, which is almost $17,000 per school. Further, this loss will grow to an estimated $50 million a year by 2004. It is unbelievable that while the EBA continues to have a significant impact on public education, it does not receive a mention in the States grants bill. The EBA is based on false assumptions of State savings arising from shifting enrolments. The Commonwealth fails to acknowledge, however, that State and Territory governments have responsibility for the provision of education. They are responsible for maintaining a quality education system that is accessible to all, including those in the most acute personal or social circumstances.
State governments undertake the provision of education. Surely the Commonwealth Government's role is to fairly assist with funding for all schools. It must acknowledge that State cost structures do not change proportionally with each enrolment lost to non-government schools. In other words, the level of resources and infrastructure does not change proportionally to changes in student numbers. The Carr Government is certainly not about to close schools or reduce teacher numbers due to the impact of a Federal Government funding mechanism that is flawed, unfair and divisive.
While incremental shifts in enrolments to non-government schools are occurring, State and Territory governments cannot and will not reduce the overall level of schooling service available to students in rural, regional and remote communities in a way that directly reflects those shifts. With this legislation, the Commonwealth seeks to distance itself from responsibility for government schools. The bill appears to represent a view that the Commonwealth's primary responsibility is to non-government schools. That is a change of major significance—there is no such understanding. In principle, and on the basis of effective social policy, the Commonwealth's responsibility for non-government schooling is not greater than its responsibility for government schools.
The Howard Government's attitude to government schooling stands in stark contrast to the policies of Kim Beazley and Federal Labor which were announced last week. A Beazley Labor Government will abolish the EBA and reinvest the money in government schools, where it belongs. The introduction of education priority zones will create a genuine partnership between the Commonwealth, the States and local communities to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged students. As a Federal election approaches, the difference will 7956 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000 be even clearer between the Coalition, which sees education as an exercise in cost-shifting—and we have certainly seen evidence of that today—and Labor, which sees education as an investment in the future. In the meantime, I join with my colleagues in calling on Dr Kemp to answer the unanswered questions in the latest plank of his ideological crusade—the States grants bill.
Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone—Minister for Education and Training) [4.33 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions, particularly the honourable member for Bankstown, the Parliamentary Secretary for Education and Training, and the honourable member for Menai. I thank her again for the wonderful time I enjoyed in her electorate last Friday when I visited Bangor Public School, which gave me an outstanding reception. I had a great time mixing with the teachers, students and parents, who showed their appreciation of the Carr Government's commitment to public schools in this State.
I will address a couple of issues raised by the honourable member for Hornsby. First, he made a nonsensical assertion that on the one hand I moved this motion because of the apparent lack of detail concerning the socioeconomic status [SES] legislation introduced by Dr Kemp. On the other hand, he attempted to take me to task for raising some of the issues that appeared to flow from the legislation. I have studied the legislation in as much detail as I can and the Government has looked at every item available to it. However, I want Dr Kemp to be frank about the detail that prompted him to frame the legislation in such a way and the motivation behind the contents of the legislation.
I am very conscious of the fact that sometimes what appears to be the case is not necessarily so. I had anticipated that the honourable member for Hornsby would say that those matters should be discussed at meetings of the Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs [MCEETYA]. If the honourable member had listened to what I said originally, he would know that some time ago I wrote to Dr Kemp asking him to convene a special MCEETYA meeting to specifically discuss the States grants legislation. In my letter to Dr Kemp I stated:
As this legislation will have a significant impact on the administration of education in all states and territories, I find it somewhat surprising that there has been no consultation at a ministerial level on this Bill.
I spelt that out to him. Further, I wrote:
I have conferred with my colleagues—
and I mentioned a number of State Ministers—
who also inform me that they have not been consulted on the changes in this legislation.
While I understand that senior officers in DETYA [Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs] have offered to brief senior officers in state and territory departments, my colleagues and I are of the view that these changes are of such considerable significance that they require the courtesy of a briefing at a ministerial level.
This serious matter relates to a minimum of $18 billion being allocated to schools. It is evident from the legislation that the major beneficiaries of the SES-based legislation will be non-government schools. What is even more revealing is that the major beneficiaries will not be the needy non-government schools but the wealthiest non-government schools, some of which will receive double or even triple the amount of funding they currently receive. Time does not permit me to detail how the Commonwealth legislation will work. However, it is pertinent to point out how the SES legislation relates to entire suburbs as opposed to individuals. For example, the children of the wealthiest family in the poorest street will still receive funding at the highest level.
There are many anomalies in the legislation. In relation to the enrolment benchmark adjustment honourable members opposite ignore the fact that when there is a change in enrolments a per capita adjustment is needed. The Government does not argue that point but argues against the additional adjustment based on the proportion of funding, which is taking additional millions of dollars away from the neediest public schools in the State to fund some of the wealthiest schools in the State. We will not tolerate that. The Government rejects the amendment.
Question—That the words stand—put.
The House divided. 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7957
Ayes, 53
Ms Allan Mr Greene Ms Nori Mr Amery Mrs Grusovin Mr Orkopoulos Ms Andrews Mr Hickey Mr E. T. Page Mr Aquilina Mr Iemma Mr Price Mr Ashton Mr Knowles Dr Refshauge Mr Barr Mrs Lo Po' Mr Scully Mr Bartlett Mr Lynch Mr W. D. Smith Ms Beamer Mr McBride Mr Stewart Mr Black Mr McGrane Mr Torbay Mr Brown Mr McManus Mr Tripodi Miss Burton Mr Martin Mr Watkins Mr Campbell Ms Meagher Mr Whelan Mr Collier Ms Megarrity Mr Windsor Mr Crittenden Mr Mills Mr Woods Mr Debus Ms Moore Mr Yeadon Mr Face Mr Moss Tellers, Mr Gaudry Mr Nagle Mr Anderson Mr Gibson Mr Newell Mr Thompson
Noes, 29
Mr Brogden Dr Kernohan Mrs Skinner Mrs Chikarovski Mr Kerr Mr Slack-Smith Mr Collins Mr Maguire Mr Souris Mr Debnam Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr George Mr Oakeshott Mr Tink Mr Glachan Mr O'Doherty Mr R. W. Turner Mr Hartcher Mr D. L. Page Mr Webb Mr Hazzard Mr Piccoli Tellers, Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Mr Fraser Mr Humpherson Ms Seaton Mr R. H. L. Smith
Pairs
Ms Harrison Mr Armstrong Mr Hunter Mr J. H. Turner
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to.
COUNTRY POLICE STATIONS STAFFING
Matter of Public Importance
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [4.50 p.m.]: I wish to speak about the important matter of country police numbers and the longevity of country police stations, particularly small police stations comprising one or two officers. With the staging of the Olympic Games in Sydney, the Government is determined not to exceed its budget for Olympic security. As a direct consequence, the impact on country areas is that approximately one-third of country police officers will be assigned to Sydney for Olympic policing duties and a significant number of one-officer police stations will close.
The Opposition has called on the Government to clarify its position and to state whether closed stations will reopen. The Premier and the Commissioner of Police are on record as saying that the stations will reopen. We are most concerned that the Premier and the Police Commissioner will not attest to the reinstatement of full police strength at country police stations following the Olympic Games. Many country stations have been 7958 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000 operating under strength even before the relocation of officers. The revelation that the Government has imposed a staff freeze on policing numbers—that is, a freeze on the replacement of officers who have retired or resigned—impacts particularly on country areas.
The staff freeze was imposed on 30 June and will last until 30 November. During that five-month period not only will a third of country police officers be relocated to Sydney but the loss of many officers because of retirement, resignation or long-term sick leave or stress leave will denude the strength of country police commands. An extended freeze until 30 November, when action to replace police officers can commence, is far too long a period for country police commands to be deprived of their full strength. In many cases replacements will not be made until next year.
During question time today the Opposition asked the Premier to guarantee that police numbers will be brought to full strength immediately following the Olympic Games. I again seek that guarantee from the Minister for Police, in the absence of the Premier giving a guarantee earlier today. The Opposition again seeks a guarantee that every police station that has been closed because of the relocation of officers for the Olympic Games will be reopened and that a full strength police service will be delivered to country areas. I restate that I do not refer to the existing strength but to the full authorised strength of our Police Service in country areas. Many commands are already under strength even before the depletion of policing numbers for the Olympic Games. We seek a guarantee from the Minister during this debate about the reinstatement of full police strengths when the Olympic Games are over.
The Opposition also seeks a guarantee from the Minister that the Carr Government's promise prior to the last election to provide an additional 2,100 police officers will be met by the expiration of this term of the Government. If the Minister has confidence in his Government and his Police Service he should guarantee that the 2,100 additional police officers will be provided, that country staffing will be increased to full authorised strength, and that the police stations that have been closed will be reopened. Such guarantees would allay the fears of people in country areas, although they would not allay their fears associated with the loss of policing during the Olympic Games and through to 30 November.
The Government must explain how it proposes to maintain present security levels in country areas. On several occasions the Premier has stated that there will not be an erosion of law and order and security in country areas, despite the removal of one-third of country police officers. The Government has made the extraordinary statement that there will not be a loss of effective policing or a reduction in the level of security and law and order in country areas despite the reduction of one-third of country police officers during the three months of the Olympic Games and the five months of the staff freeze. No-one believes that policing levels will not be diminished by the reduction of country staff by one-third.
It does not allay our fears to receive an answer in the questions on notice paper published today that the special policing arrangements that have been put in place include the cancellation of police leave, the suspension of police training programs, the reduction of police attendance at court and the use of the police assistance line to attend to non-urgent crime reports from the public. That last point in particular exposes the thin edge of the wedge and the ultimate agenda of the Carr Government to shift policing to online assistance.
As members who represent country areas keep telling the Government, it is no good closing the police station at Tottenham, for example, and expecting the nearest police station, at Bourke, which is 200 kilometres away, to provide any form of effective policing for those affected communities. I agree completely with the remarks in today's Sydney Morning Herald by Tottenham farmer Mr Noel Bennett. Referring to the absence of police at Tottenham police station, which has already been closed because of the Olympic Games, Mr Bennett hit the nail on the head when he said:
I know they have to get police numbers up for the Olympics but I think there are other alternatives rather than forcing communities like ours to bear the brunt. It's just so unfair.
That strikes at the very heart of the Government's conduct of its Olympics program. We already know of the official blow-outs and we are bracing ourselves for the Olympic Games, which will cover the period of highest financial risk. But the Government is being less than truthful about the indirect costs and the way in which the costs of staging the Olympic Games are hidden or lost in the budgets of government departments, such as the Police Service. Police are being reassigned and, in this case, the cost is being borne by country communities. That cost is not considered to be a direct contribution to the Olympic Games but merely a service that is forgone in country areas. The closure of courthouses is another such example. It is a service forgone. So far as country people are concerned, it is their contribution to staging the Olympic Games. 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7959
What is needed is a little honesty and truth in budgeting, a little truth about the real cost of the Olympics, and a little care and concern and embracing of governmental responsibility—in this case, to provide effective and truthful policing, and to put in place measures that make a genuine and believable contribution towards ensuring that the level of country policing is not diminished to approximately one-third, as the Government intends to do.
Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [5.00 p.m.]: The Leader of the National Party referred to an incident in Tottenham which was reported in today's Sydney Morning Herald. I can inform the House that the Tottenham resident, Mr Bennett, who is the subject of the article, reported the theft of tractor equipment to his local police station yesterday. Tottenham police station was unattended and the call was diverted to Bourke. Contrary to the news report, I am advised that the police officer who is stationed at Tottenham was not on Olympic duties but was in Sydney taking delivery of a brand new police car. Police advise me that Mr Bennett was told that the local officer would be available to take the report upon his return from Sydney, and Mr Bennett was satisfied with this. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!
I can advise the House unequivocally that the closure of police stations for the Olympics is temporary—for the duration of the Olympics only. By 1 November these temporary closures will cease and police stations will reopen. This had been envisaged, planning has been ongoing since 1998, and it should come as no surprise to the Opposition. When former Premier Fahey put in his bid for the Sydney Olympics he said, "Security for the Olympic Games will be co-ordinated by the New South Wales Police Service," and the Labor Opposition, the present Government, agreed to that. That is exactly what Commissioner Ryan is doing. Structural changes such as amalgamation of local area commands are part of the Games plan, along with the assistance of officers from interstate and overseas police services. Commissioner Ryan has the support of the Government, and I urge the Opposition also to support Commissioner Ryan.
We must acknowledge that the Sydney Olympics and Paralympics will place an extraordinary demand on policing throughout New South Wales. It is a challenge that the New South Wales Police Service is determined to meet. General policing and community safety will not be compromised during the Olympic Games. Under Commissioner Ryan's plan, police will maintain day-to-day frontline policing duties to ensure community safety during the Olympic period.
New South Wales police have two priorities during the Games period: to maintain regular policing services and to provide security for the largest peacetime event in the world. To meet those priorities, amalgamations in strategic local area commands have been planned for the duration of the Games. Each command has identified general policing, public order and crime management issues that might arise during the Games, so that a plan that best addresses each area's local policing needs can be implemented. Commissioner Ryan has stated repeatedly that country New South Wales will not be discriminated against as police are required to move to Sydney for the period of the Games.
Proof of this Government's commitment to country policing is best illustrated by the reintroduction last year of the allocation of probationary constables to regional New South Wales. I am proud to be able to inform the House that approximately one-third of all attestation classes are now sent directly to rural New South Wales. Following the last attestation, about one-third of the 339 new police officers, approximately 112 officers, were sent to regional and rural New South Wales. This not only boosts dozens of local country communities but gives new officers new opportunities and a broader foundation on which to build their careers as police officers.
Commissioner Ryan has closely considered the differing needs of all communities for his Olympic security plan. It is a plan designed to make the best use of all non-Olympic policing resources during the Games. It will not change policing in local area commands; it is an amalgamation of command structures and administrative functions. I repeat: these are temporary arrangements only, for Olympic purposes.
The Leader of the National Party asked what other initiatives are in place to minimise the impact on policing in rural New South Wales during the Games. Other initiatives include suspension of all training courses; suspension of leave; police attending critical court matters only; and the use of the police assistance line. I think the Leader of the National Party made a mistake. He should understand that as people are calling the police assistance line in increasing numbers, there must be a minimum policing presence at the line so that it is available for non-urgent matters and people are able to rely on it.
Mr Souris: Farm theft is not urgent, presumably? 7960 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
Mr WHELAN: Mr Bennett was very happy to report the matter to Bourke and to wait until the officer from Tottenham police station returned to Tottenham after he had been to Sydney to pick up the brand new police vehicle.
Mr Souris: That's not what he is saying in the newspaper.
Mr WHELAN: They are the facts. I suggest that the Leader of the National Party phone Mr Bennett to confirm what I have informed the House. He should not believe everything he reads in the Sydney Morning Herald. As I have said, the plan has been developed over a long period. The temporary and limited closure of police stations has always been envisaged. Planning has been ongoing since 1998 and should come as no surprise to the Opposition.
As I indicated to the House, following the last attestation, probationary constables are now being sent to rural New South Wales, a decision made by the Government. After the last attestation probationary constables were allocated to rural New South Wales as follows: 18 to the Southern Rivers region, comprising Albury, Cootamundra, Deniliquin, Goulburn, Griffith and Wagga Wagga; 19 to the south-eastern region, comprising the Far South Coast, Lake Illawarra, Monaro, Wollongong and Shoalhaven; eight to the northern region, comprising the Coffs Harbour-Clarence region, the mid North Coast, the New England and Oxley regions, Richmond, the Tweed and Byron regions; 29 to the Hunter region, comprising the Hunter Valley, Lake Macquarie, the Lower Hunter, the Manning Great Lakes region, Newcastle and Waratah; and 24 to the western region, comprising the Barrier, Barwon, Canobolas, Castlereagh, Chifley, Darling River, Lachlan, Mudgee and Orana.
The honourable member for Tamworth will understand this analogy. Each year when the very successful Tamworth Music Festival is held, police from all parts of New South Wales go to assist the local police in Tamworth. Tens of thousands of people visit Tamworth for the music festival, and the local police simply do not have the available resources to protect those visitors and the local community. The New South Wales Police Service allocates resources, including overtime, police vehicles, and so on, to Tamworth to assist the local police and the local community. The Olympics will be 100,000 times bigger than the Tamworth music festival and will involve crowds of much greater magnitude than Sydney or Australia has ever seen.
Mr Souris: You haven't been to the Country Music Festival.
Mr WHELAN: No, I have not, but—
Mr R. H. L. Smith: Ask him about Tuscany.
Mr WHELAN: I have not been to Tuscany. That is another reason one should not believe everything one reads in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Mr Tink: What about the caravan?
Mr WHELAN: I do not have a caravan. That is another issue you could resolve.
Mr Souris: Don't worry about that. Just guarantee the resumption of authorised strength.
Mr WHELAN: I do not want to embarrass the Leader of the National Party. However, two years ago authorised strength was abolished. It was abolished by statute, and he supported it. I do not intend to educate the Leader of the National Party about policing issues, but authorised strength was abolished.
Mr Souris: That's your answer? Mr WHELAN: It was abolished. I will not resurrect it for you. If you are going to ask me to tell you the actual police numbers in New South Wales, we can have an argument about that. However, there are now more front-line police available throughout the whole of New South Wales than there ever have been. The Leader of the National Party knows as well as I do that each and every budget year funding goes into that budget for the 100 additional police that are required. The figure in New South Wales that the Government is going to meet is not 2,100, it is 2,110. We are on track and we will meet that commitment. We have met it for the past two years. We have had funding in the budget each and every year, and that will continue. We will increase the number of front-line 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7961 police in New South Wales, plus we will have funding for 1,000 by the date set out in our electoral commitment. We will meet that commitment. There will always be ebbs and flows in police numbers—between 600 and 700 a year—as result of retrenchment, retirement and natural attrition. The Government will meet its commitment by ensuring that, at the appropriate time, we have record numbers of police officers. People leave the Police Service for one reason or another. After the Olympics and after 1 January the number of officers leaving the Police Service will increase because of personal circumstances and increased superannuation rights. The Government will take action in that regard. [Time expired.]
Mr TINK (Epping) [5.10 p.m.]: I strongly support the Leader of the National Party in his concern for country policing in New South Wales, particularly during the Olympics period. According to a recent announcement by the Government about country policing arrangements, 23 one-man police stations will be shut during the Olympics—that is, 23 police officers will be lost from country New South Wales. Why cannot the Government, even with one month left before the Games, take steps to attract 23 interstate police officers to carry out Olympic security duties at Homebush or in Sydney and thus release the 23 constables back to their one-man country police stations? The Victorian police force must have 10,000 police, the Queensland police force has 7,000, the West Australian police force has 5,000, the South Australian police force has 5,000, the Northern Territory police force probably has 2,000 and the Tasmanian police force has 2,000.
Disregarding police numbers in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, there must be at least 20,000 police officers throughout the rest of Australia. Yet the Minister for Police is suggesting that 23 police officers cannot be found from those 20,000—I do not know what sort of minuscule fraction of 1 per cent that is—to keep 23 one-man stations operational in this State. The Minister must be joking! The Government has not properly tried to attract retired police. I am absolutely livid about this issue. A piddling little advertisement was placed in an obscure magazine, but the Commissioner of Police should have cut radio and television ads, over a reasonable timeframe, to encourage retired police officers to assist during the Olympic Games. I would not have objected to that.
The Minister, through incompetence, has put beyond reach in this State the use of retired police on policing duties. However, even with one month left before the Games, the Minister still has time to ring his ministerial colleagues in other States in an endeavour to attract at least 23 police officers out of 20,000 to allow 23 country New South Wales police to return to their one-man stations. That is not a big ask. He has one month to do it. If the Minister gets his act together it can still be done. That practical step can be taken, and it should be taken. Tottenham is clearly on that list. Tottenham police station will lose its police officer during the Olympic Games. The points made by the Leader of the National Party about travelling times to Tottenham from other centres, including Dubbo, remain valid and, I am afraid to say, they will be valid for the whole Olympics period.
One interstate police officer—one of 20,000—would be sufficient to overcome difficulties with travelling and response times associated with Tottenham. Another 22 officers, if the Minister could bring himself to find them, would solve the problem throughout country New South Wales. In the context of policing generally, the cat was let out of the bag the day after the Police Association annual conference. I attended the conference and used the figures to demonstrate that there would be 30 fewer police officers during the Olympic Games than there were at the time of the election. The following morning the commissioner, when asked about this by Philip Clark on radio station 2BL, admitted that basically the figures were right. In other words, far from getting the extra 2,110 police officers that the Minister repeatedly talks about, in four weeks there will be 30 fewer police than at the time of the election. That information comes from no less an authority than the Commissioner of Police.
The figures are not getting better, they are getting worse. The Minister talks about probationary constables going out to the bush, but recent statistics provided by the Police Association show that one of the highest resignation rates is among probationary constables. About 20 per cent of all resignations during March were by probationary constables, and another 30 per cent were by constables. In other words 50 per cent of all resignations in March were by people who had been in the Police Service for less than two years. The situation is out of control and is going backwards. If the Minister would only pick up the phone and get a little bit of help from his friends interstate, these one-man country police stations could be manned. He has time to do it. Do it! [Time expired.]
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [5.15 p.m.], in reply: The Griffith branch of the New South Wales Police Association wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 31 March pointing out the anticipated shortfall and other problems associated with small police stations. The Griffith branch is still waiting for a reply. No doubt the reply will be similar to the Minister's response a moment ago—a 7962 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000 bureaucratically written speech. The Minister's reply, although nicely delivered, did not come to grips with the problem. Will we get our cops back? Will we be allocated our full police strength? The Minister should not muck about with definitions. Will we get the police numbers we are already meant to have? Will police be returned to full strength in country areas? The Minister obfuscated the issue, as did the Premier during question time.
The Government, following its response to this debate, is no further ahead in guaranteeing country communities that police operation levels will not be diminished or are capable of being reinstated. It is a very simple question that requires a simple answer: yes or no. But, once again, we have not been given an appropriate answer today. Wanaaring police station is another example of what is happening. Where is Country Labor on this issue? How can Country Labor rush about the State saying, "We are here to represent. We are here to represent", when, with its approval, 23 one-man police stations will be shut until 30 November and a freeze imposed on police numbers, hitherto unknown until today, with no guarantees from the Government? On 2 August we heard the honourable member for Murray-Darling on ABC Radio Dubbo discussing this matter and expressing his various levels of alarm.
It is all very nice for the honourable member for Murray-Darling to produce his preferred rhetoric on radio stations, but what has he done about Tottenham and Wanaaring police stations, which I understand are in his electorate, to resolve the issue and put into practice a couple of suggestions he has made? What is Country Labor's position? It is totally and utterly ineffective on this issue, as it always has been on every issue. Look at how Country Labor votes on any topic. Keep in mind that matters of public importance are not submitted to a vote. Will Country Labor differentiate its position from that of the Labor Party? The answer is an emphatic no. Once again Country Labor, which purports to offer an effective solution, is seen to be completely impotent and irrelevant. If Country Labor had any effectiveness whatsoever we would not be facing this policing problem, nor would we be at the mercy of this uncaring Carr Government and this uncaring Minister, who have no concern for the needs of residents of country areas in which one-man police stations are being shut down.
Country Labor has been a complete and utterly dismal failure. The honourable member for Murray- Darling has been rolling round the countryside, resting his head on every bar in every pub in New South Wales, passing out in several of them and lying where he falls. Meetings have been abandoned and moved to other hotels because of the embarrassment of his conduct, yet he has the hide to state on ABC radio, "I will save the police."
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! I adopt a ruling of Speaker Ellis that a member in reply may only respond to what other members have said in the debate, and may not introduce new material.
Discussion concluded.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
______
SMALL BUSINESS PROPRIETORS PROPERTY PROTECTION RIGHTS
Mr PRICE (Maitland) [5.20 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House a matter of concern in my electorate associated with the right of small business proprietors to protect themselves and their property from the threat of theft or from theft itself. Unfortunately, over the past several years Maitland has had a history of reasonably continuous serious juvenile crime. Between 1995 and 1999 an additional 27 police officers were appointed to the Maitland district, and another six officers were appointed to the district at the end of last year, yet the problems persist. Police response times vary according to the shift-to-shift demands. In recent times a new commander has been appointed, Superintendent John Trott, who formerly was a member of the Waratah patrol. He has an excellent record of improving police activities within areas under his control and I look forward with some hope to a different approach being adopted to policing juvenile crime in my electorate, particularly within the city of Maitland.
Mr John Lee, a Maitland video store operator whose premises are not far from my electorate office, experienced difficulty recently when apprehending a young thief who removed videos and other property from Mr Lee's premises. The issue highlights the right of an owner to protect his or her property, to make a citizen's 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7963
arrest and, if necessary, apply reasonable force. The difficulty seems to relate to the interpretation of "reasonable force" when the term is applied to business premises. Last year this Parliament passed improved legislation which clarified definitively the use of reasonable force by a person protecting his or her residence, but some concern or confusion persists on the part of police in view of the court interpretation of "reasonable force" as it applies to protection of a business.
Everyone has great sympathy for Mr Lee in the action that he took. We are all somewhat horrified that although he admitted using force to apprehend one of the two thieves, he is the one who received a sentence and the thief is the one who received a caution. I share that concern, as indeed does the Premier. I understand that the Premier this morning made a statement to the media expressing his concern and has announced the formation of a task force which will involve the Retail Traders Association, the Police Service, the Attorney General's Department and the Government's legal advisers in an attempt to come up with a better interpretation than currently exists. Mr Lee's experience exemplifies what I suggest is a major problem in many locations. It is not possible to have a police officer on every corner 24 hours a day. A system is needed to enable proprietors, provided that they have proof of the theft, to take reasonable steps to apprehend a criminal without placing themselves in physical danger, and to ensure that no serious physical danger is posed to the person apprehended.
It is most important for the Government to seek clarification of this matter. If necessary, the Government should ensure that the current definition is made much clearer, is able to be interpreted actively by the police and, most importantly of all, is able to be interpreted by small businesspeople who seem to be affected most. The case to which I have referred also highlights that it is imperative for all small shop owners to take note of the police education program which is available in all areas. Crime prevention strategies, outlined by education officers, should be implemented wherever possible. Certainly, it is the case that some of them are expensive, but others are not and are sensible. Shop owners have an obligation to attempt to protect themselves and I am sure that their insurers would agree with that.
As the Premier has already acted, I can only endorse his actions and express my personal concern about the distress caused to Mr Lee. I hope that the example of Mr Lee's case will be sufficient to guarantee that a better interpretation is forthcoming so that such matters can be dealt with properly in the future.
CRONULLA BEACH PUBLIC SAFETY
Mr KERR (Cronulla) [5.25 p.m.]: I wish to draw attention to public safety in my electorate but first I express support for statements by the honourable member for Maitland who preceded me in this debate and who outlined to this House the difficulties confronting retailers in his electorate. I will deal with that topic in more detail during my speech. The public safety concerns to which I wish to refer relate to an area on South Cronulla Beach where a person was recently injured. Honourable members who visit South Cronulla Beach would be well aware of the sand depletion that has taken place and that there is now a rock shelf where previously sand existed outside a restaurant and swimming complex. If a small child, an older person or a person of any age for that matter were to lose his or her balance while using the footpath, currently he or she would land on rock rather than sand, with potentially disastrous consequences.
A number of footpaths in the Sutherland shire and in the Cronulla area are tracks that give rise to concern about the possibility of people falling over when using them. Some weeks ago I visited Wagga Wagga and had the benefit of inspecting improvements, especially the paving, associated with the Wagga Wagga Main Street development. I suggested that Sutherland Shire Council get in touch with Wagga Wagga City Council.
Mrs Skinner: It is lovely.
Mr KERR: As the honourable member for North Shore said, the paving is lovely.
Mr George: You should come up and have a look at Casino.
Mr KERR: I will be visiting Casino, together with the honourable member for Lismore. It is encouraging to note that local government in the Lismore area accepts its responsibility for public safety. Sutherland Shire Council should take note of what has been done. Currently there is a considerable incidence of beach-related litigation and I suggest that a sand siltation issue exists at North Cronulla. I would be happy to make available to Sutherland Shire Council or any other party a report produced in November 1998 by the Department of Land and Water Conservation entitled "Nearshore Nourishment of North Cronulla Beach— Review of Environmental Factors". 7964 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
When one examines the wall adjacent to Prince Street, it becomes obvious that a very serious situation presently exists. I urge the Department of Public Works and the Sutherland Shire Council to instruct a consulting engineer to examine the area as a matter of urgency and to provide a report. If a series of storms were to strike that area, the consequences could be quite calamitous. I urge both State and local government bodies to engage a consulting engineer to inspect the wall. I expect that the results of such an inspection will be quite alarming.
The plight of retailers, outlined by the honourable member for Maitland in his private member's statement, highlights the issue of the use of reasonable force and the interpretation of that term, which has vexed the courts for a number of years. There is a considerable body of case law on the application of force by owner- occupiers to those found breaking into homes. A number of English cases involve owner-occupiers who have been charged when they have apprehended and hurt a burglar. This problem is not a new one, it has been around for some time, but was focused upon when that unfortunate person in your electorate, Mr Deputy-Speaker, faced court. I suggest that this is not only a statewide problem but is a national problem that should have been addressed by the Attorneys-General over the years. An interpretation of what constitutes reasonable force is long overdue and guidelines should be put in place for the benefit of us all.
Mr McMANUS (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.30 p.m.]: I concur with some of the issues raised by the honourable member for Cronulla. As a regional member representing the Sutherland shire, I shall certainly take on board those questions with my colleagues in the Labor Party. However, the council about whom the honourable member is critical has been elected for less than 12 months. The issues with which he is dealing, particularly those concerning the beachfront in the Sutherland and Cronulla areas, have been ongoing for some time. I put to the honourable member and the local government representatives on that council that it is high time for them to turn their attention to local government matters, which they should have done some years ago, rather than playing political point-scoring games with the Government of the day. It is high time that some councillors turned their attention to the functions they were elected to perform. In recent times I have indicated clearly that Liberal Party members of that council have played games about what the State Government needs to do, rather than paying attention to what they were elected to do. I appreciate that the honourable member for Cronulla highlighted that point today. BULLI PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Mr CAMPBELL (Keira) [5.32 p.m.]: I should like to speak on the issue of pedestrian safety, and particularly road safety, which I shall talk about in general terms later. At this point I acknowledge the death on 22 June of seven-year-old Ella James as she travelled to school. She was crossing the Princes Highway at Bulli with her friend, Corrine Felitz. Unfortunately, the driver of a motor vehicle went through a red light at a set of pedestrian lights. There was an accident and Ella subsequently died. Corrine remains in hospital. I have spoken to the parents of both girls and place on record my condolences to Ella's parents, Steve and Annie James, and her brother, Lloyd. I restate my best wishes to Loreen and Rex Clarke for the speedy recovery of their daughter, Corrine. I acknowledge also the efforts of the principal of Bulli primary school, Jim Blissenden. Jim has led his staff and students through a tragic period. Although he is extremely distressed at the accident, he has been quite strong in supporting his staff and students. The school's parents and citizens association, led by its president, Leanne O'Brien, and secretary, Ros Murphy, has put particular effort into lobbying me, the Government and government agencies following the accident. Through its responsible, restrained and respectful action some changes have been effected to the traffic facilities at Bulli school. Work is continuing to ensure safety at that place. We look forward to the conversion into a footbridge of the railway bridge that used to serve the old Bulli colliery. That work will be undertaken by Stocklands, a local development company that owns the bridge. In the weeks after the accident the community demanded three particular actions: the institution of a 40 kilometres per hour school zone, which has occurred; the relocation of the pedestrian control signals to traffic control signals at the nearby intersection of Hobart Street and the Princes Highway, which also has occurred; and a commitment to the conversion of the railway bridge to a footbridge, which has been given. The work is yet to be done, but I am confident that it will be undertaken as soon as possible. Of course, as soon as possible is too late, but I am confident it will happen. They were some of the demands the parents and the school community made, and I acknowledge that my representations to Minister Scully have met with a confident and appropriate response. The efforts of Paul Forward, Geoff Style and Graham Brisbane from the Roads and Traffic Authority must also be acknowledged. 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7965
Ella James was a somewhat precocious, strong-willed and determined young girl who enjoyed the love and support of a tight-knit family. Following Ella's death the family, knowing that nothing can bring her back, wants our communities to really focus on road safety and especially on a review of road safety around schools. The Staysafe committee will undertake work on those aspects and I am confident the Minister will also contribute. I have had the privilege of working with people in these communities. I have learnt from them and I have heard them say quite clearly that road safety is the responsibility of everyone who uses the road.
Government has a leadership role in road safety. The community is the first to demand and require exercise of that leadership, but understands also that drivers, pedestrians and vehicle passengers have responsibility for road safety. It is up to all who use the road system to continue to restate that message and to demonstrate it in our driving. One thing that continues to amaze all of us who have been involved in the work at Bulli following Ella's death is the number of people who drive through red lights at which they should stop for pedestrians. If nothing else, I use this contribution to urge people not to do that in future.
Mr McMANUS (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.37 p.m.]: I join the honourable member for Keira in expressing my condolences on the death of Ella James. The Bulli primary school was very close to my electorate office when I was the member for Bulli. I understand fully the honourable member's concerns and acknowledge also the close-knit community that surrounds this school. It is important that the honourable member for Keira, in expressing his concerns and extending condolences to the community, appreciate that he has the support of all of his parliamentary colleagues in that region stretching from my Heathcote electorate to the Kiama electorate. Those members of Parliament are a close-knit group. When something happens to one of us it happens to us all.
I acknowledge that the Staysafe committee has moved quickly to ensure that this type of accident is not repeated. I commend the chairman of the Staysafe committee for that quick action. Indeed, as a member representing some of the northern suburbs of Wollongong, I have moved quickly to ensure that schools in those suburbs and within the Sutherland shire become active in supporting what the Government and the Staysafe committee can do to ensure this does not happen again. NORTH SYDNEY POLICE AND COMMUNITY YOUTH CLUB CLOSURE Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [5.38 p.m.]: The decision to close the North Sydney Police and Community Youth Club [PCYC] at the end of this year has shocked my local community. It is not just that the PCYC has been part of the community for so long, but it is well respected and well used by young people in the neighbourhood. It is the only facility of its kind between the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Hornsby. I sympathise with the directors of the PCYC who must ensure that the clubs are properly maintained. They have a responsibility also to make sure that they target young people at risk of antisocial behaviour and criminal activity. They must ensure that they provide an opportunity for such young people to be engaged in productive activities while developing good relationships with the police. But I am outraged that the only way that the directors of the PCYC feel they can do that is by selling the North Sydney club—in other words, selling out the young people on the North Shore to provide for others somewhere else. I am happy to support other young people elsewhere but not be at the expense of the young people of my electorate. On 17 July I wrote to the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, Minister for Juvenile Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and reminded her that she said in response to a question in the upper House on 25 November 1999 that her Government:
… has placed an unprecedented focus on the participation and consultation of young people in decisions made by government that affects their lives. Indeed, one of the central planks of the Government's youth policy is participation. Time and time again young people say that they want to be consulted about decisions that impact on their lives; they want to have a say and they want an opportunity for input. If just one young person from North Sydney had been consulted and involved, this decision would not have been made. One disgraceful aspect of this matter is the argument being put forward that North Sydney is not an area where young people are at risk. What is meant by "at risk"? It does not exist only in areas where youth unemployment rates are high or school retention rates are low. It can relate to the serious problem in my electorate of exposure to drugs. I received a letter from Mary-Louise McEncroe, youth suicide prevention project officer of Northern Sydney Health, Hillview Community Centre, who said:
Within the Northern Sydney Area we have a growing high drug use issue in the younger age group population. This was acknowledged by the recent Drug and Alcohol forum where over 50 workers of young people attended. After school and holiday programs, as instanced at PCYC, have been the vehicle to providing healthy alternatives to the surrounding drug culture which is so enticing to young people. 7966 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
North Sydney PCYC is well used and supported by many local young people, families and schools. Currently it has a membership of more than 2,000 mostly aged between 10 and 17. The club is in the black with a net income during the past two years of more than $30,000 and a sinking fund of $80,000 to provide for future capital works and maintenance of buildings and equipment. That other clubs have not been able to do the same is unfortunate but it is outrageous that North Sydney PCYC should be penalised for doing so. When I was elected as member for North Shore following my term as Director of the Office of Youth Affairs in New South Wales, North Sydney council was in the throes of conducting focus group sessions to develop a youth services social plan for the area.
The need for a youth resource centre to address a range of youth issues with particular emphasis on recreational health services was given the highest priority in the plan. From that report the Planet X Youth Centre was established, operating from a building adjacent to the PCYC. Later this year it will be relocated in the music shell in St Leonards Park but it will not replace a range of activities offered through the PCYC. The council has advised that if the PCYC closes it will constitute a major withdrawal of youth services to the North Sydney area.
I agree with that entirely and that is why I have suggested to the executive director of the PCYC that if the Government is so shortsighted that it will not invest the funds needed to provide the services for young people at risk then we should work to find a lateral solution. I have set up a meeting with the mayors of both North Sydney and Mosman councils to try to get North Sydney Council to invest some funds in a facility and then to urge the Minister for Police to make a police presence in a youth facility in our area. Otherwise, it will be our own young people who are on the streets and involved in antisocial behaviour because the Government has withdrawn a valuable service. ANDREW ETTINGSHAUSEN Mr COLLIER (Miranda) [5.43 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I speak about one of the true living legends of Australian rugby league—Andrew Ettingshausen. Andrew Ettingshausen, or ET as he is affectionately known, has just retired after 18 consecutive seasons with the Cronulla Sharks at the top level of the game. That, in itself, is a unique achievement. But it is also a testament to ET's loyalty, dedication and commitment to the club he loved—to the club he dreamed of playing for as a young boy. Make no bones about it, ET was an extremely talented and consistently high-performing rugby league centre whose services were eagerly sought by many other leagues clubs throughout his career. Just consider ET's record: he played 30 rugby league tests for Australia including four Super League tests. ET is the most capped New South Wales State of Origin player with 27 matches between 1987 and 1998. He played 354 games for the Sharks, 328 of those in first grade. ET scored 175 tries in his career—165 in first grade. ET is a product of the local juniors and a resident of the Sutherland shire. He began playing rugby league for a local club at age six, and went on to join the Sharks in 1983. He captained the first grade side from 1995 until his retirement this year. As a club member, a supporter and a league fan I have always enjoyed watching ET. He was a fast, exciting, thinking player who could turn a game with ease. ET was a perfectionist who played rugby league as it was meant to be played—with skill, spirit, determination, sportsmanship and fairness at all times. A distinguished captain, ET motivated and encouraged his team mates both on and off the rugby league field. He inspired those in the lower grades and set a fine example to local juniors. ET has earned the esteem and affection of all Sharks fans. He commands the greatest respect of players, coaches and administrators—past and present, rivals and team mates—at all levels: local, State, national and international. ET is an outstanding ambassador for the game of rugby league both on and off the field. He has contributed much to the community. When he was not playing rugby league, he willingly and freely gave much of his spare time supporting worthwhile local causes, charitable organisations and events in the Sutherland shire. This great athlete is a committed family man. His character, strength of purpose and achievements are exemplary. ET is truly a wonderful role model for the youth of the Sutherland shire and for the youth of Sydney whether or not they follow rugby league. Mr George: And for Australia! Mr COLLIER: As the honourable member for Lismore said, he is also a fine role model for the youth of Australia. On behalf of the people of my electorate, I congratulate Andrew Ettingshausen on his outstanding rugby league career. I thank him for his contribution to the Sharks and for the enjoyment he has given rugby league fans all over the world. I know everyone in the Sutherland shire is proud of ET, and that they join me in wishing him all the very best in all his future endeavours. Well done, ET! 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7967
Mr WATKINS (Ryde—Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Sport and Recreation) [5.48 p.m.]: It also gives me great pleasure to honour one of rugby league's greats, Andrew Ettingshausen, affectionately known as ET to his many supporters throughout the world of rugby league. He scored 165 tries and amassed 662 points in his career with the Sharks. He toured with the Kangaroos twice, in 1990 and 1994. He played a record number of 27 State of Origin matches for New South Wales—the most appearances of anyone in the State of Origin series. In the 18 seasons he played rugby league, he played for a single club, the Sharks: an enviable record. In round 16 of the 1999 season he became the first player to play 300 first-grade games for a single club. He now holds the record for most appearances for a single club, with 328 matches.
Andrew Ettingshausen played 328 first-grade matches which places him third on the all-time premiership list for the most appearances in first grade, behind Terry Lamb with 349 and Cliff Lyons with 332. He is currently second on the list of all-time National Rugby League premiership try scorers having scored 165 tries. Only Kenny Irvine has scored more tries. Andrew Ettingshausen's record with the Sharks is a long and distinguished one. He has played with honour and proved to be a great role model for other young footballers and sports people. He has an impeccable record with many classic and unforgettable moments such as that when he scored a match-winning try for the Kangaroos at Wembley in 1994 to win the Ashes.
He is a great ambassador for the game of rugby league. As captain of Cronulla he led his team with a fine sense of fair play and sportsmanship. With Laurie Daley he is part of the Good Guys Tour—an NRL initiative to take football to youngsters in rural and remote areas of Australia. The tour will teach kids football and promote the game. Such a tour is typical of Andrew Ettingshausen giving back something to the game he loves and to the young. He is respected among his peers, and he has contributed much to his local community. I wish him well in his retirement. I am sure all honourable members will agree that he has given much to the game of rugby league. He will be sorely missed, and not just by his beloved Sharks.
LISMORE ELECTORATE COMMUNITY EVENTS
Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [5.50 p.m.]: I am sure that I speak for everyone on this side of the House in supporting the comments in relation to Andrew Ettingshausen, or ET as we all know him. Tonight I highlight the diversity of the Lismore electorate and activities that help to make the electorate a better place in which to live. On Saturday 22 July I had the pleasure of being guest of honour at the RSM Club Community Debutante Ball. My wife, Rhonda, and I had the honour of receiving the 18 lovely debutantes and their partners. Proceeds from the ball went to support local nursing homes and the local aged community.
The following weekend I had the pleasure of attending a function called Getting to Know You. The function was started 15 years ago by Jean Matthews and her friend Norm Jones. It is about getting nursing home patients and disabled people out for a day each month to get to know each other. Fifteenth anniversary celebrations were held at the South Lismore Bowling Club. About 150 people got together for old-time dancing, morning tea and an anniversary cake, which I had the pleasure of cutting.
Ms Nori: Did you dance? Mr GEORGE: Yes, and I played the piano as well. Jean is nearly 78 herself and she has won two awards from the New South Wales Premier. It is remarkable for someone to have one award but Jean has already been recognised twice by the Premier. Jean had formed a similar group at Broken Hill. Jean and Norm formed the Lismore group for the lonely people. She felt that there was nowhere in the electorate of Lismore for people to get together. What keeps Jean and Norm going is the enjoyment of the people who come along. Jean and Norm, even at their ages, are still keen to keep the group going. It would break their hearts if it stopped. I witnessed the excitement, pleasure and enjoyment of the older and disabled people. My father-in-law was invited. He has had a stroke and is in a wheelchair but he enjoyed the dances as well. Jean and Norm have got the community together. The proceeds from the ball will flow through to the community. Norm Jones and Jean Matthews certainly deserve to be congratulated on their work. Another function held in the electorate that supports the community and that has become an annual event also celebrated its fifteenth anniversary, the Bentley Art Prize. Bentley is situated on the main road between Lismore and Kyogle. The competition is renowned throughout the area. It lasts for three days and is organised by Reg Hartley, his wife and family on behalf of the Bentley Hall Trust. Proceeds go to the Westpac lifesaver helicopter rescue service. The art is displayed around the Bentley Hall in a country market situation with wine and cheese tastings and displays of local products. The Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism is at the table. She would have been proud to attend. I will have to arrange an invitation for her to attend next year. 7968 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
Ms Nori: Only if you will dance with me.
Mr GEORGE: I will dance with you for sure. The fifteenth annual Bentley Art Prize was an outstanding success. Rosebank artist Robin Kitching won the open painting first prize with his thought- provoking Welcome to the Pentagon piece. I congratulate all the people involved on making the Lismore electorate a better place to live.
Ms NORI (Port Jackson—Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism) [5.55 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Lismore, Mr Thomas George, for his contribution and congratulate the local community on the Getting to Know You project. The fact that it has operated for 15 years must bring a great deal of joy and pride to the community of Lismore. It says a lot about the community that it takes the time and trouble to care about its elderly. It is good that the young people at the debutante ball used the opportunity to raise funds at this very worthwhile function. I am particularly pleased that the Getting to Know You function included dancing. I would be delighted to attend the function next year if the honourable member can get me an invitation.
BOMADERRY HIGH SCHOOL ROCK EISTEDDFOD CHALLENGE AWARD
Mr W. D. SMITH (South Coast) [5.56 p.m.]: One of my most pleasurable experiences recently has been to witness a South Coast high school, Bomaderry High School, win the year 2000 Rock Eisteddfod Challenge at the Sydney Superdome. The award was especially close to my heart because I taught at the school for 14 years. It was an honour for me to share this occasion as a member of the audience. And what a thrill it was to be there when the winners were announced and in fact to present the second place award to Randwick boys and girls high schools. This was a wonderful occasion. Bomaderry was among the 13 contenders from regional and city areas from public and private schools.
In the 21 years of the Rock Eisteddfod, Bomaderry high has participated in the past 11 and done very well, with a second place one year and a third place another year. This year the school chose the willow pattern story as its theme. Many of us know of the blue and white china plates that feature the pattern and the story of the ill-fated Chinese lovers immortalised as turtle doves. Although I am familiar with this ancient Chinese legend it was not until Bomaderry High School brought it to life at the Rock Eisteddfod that I remembered hearing the story when I was a youngster. To the credit of the production, Bomaderry presented a brilliant combination of traditional music with striking colour and performances. I must congratulate the 120 students, teaching staff and parents who participated.
Also deserving of congratulations are the students who had performed in previous years and came back to assist. Parents whose children performed in previous years also came back to assist in the production. This whole of school community effort allowed Bomaderry to take first place. Teachers Chris Cook, Wendy Pryce and Lynn Stubbles deserve special mention for their work in organising the event and managing the staging and the choreography. The Principal of Bomaderry High School, Jill Appleton, also deserves mention because she has been a strong supporter of the Rock Eisteddfod from the beginning. It was wonderful to see the encouragement that was given to these young people, many finding something in themselves that they did not know they had—whether it be singing, dancing, acting, painting and building sets, designing and making costumes or doing the make up for the performers. The students had the opportunity to learn the practicalities of stage production and design.
The success for Bomaderry high is another fine example of the creative talent we have on the South Coast, once again in the performing arts category. Our young people are more and more inclined to be interested in getting involved with such activities, particularly wherever the rock scene is involved. Most of the South Coast community concentrates on more conservative conventional aspects of culture and often our young people have a difficult time attracting fair attention to their own cultural interests. Thankfully, times are changing and more and more opportunities are becoming accessible in the region for young people to discover their talents. The Rock Eisteddfod in and of itself has been a remarkable showcase for young people across the nation. New South Wales has been one of the significant supporters of this event. There was talk some months ago that the event may well be cancelled, that this would be the last one. I, for one, certainly do not want to see that happen.
The message behind the Rock Eisteddfod this year was "a 100 per cent tobacco, alcohol and drug-free lifestyle". I believe it is essential that young people recognise that the modern rock scene and contemporary arts and culture do not have to revolve around a loose, substance-abuse culture. Those days have passed. The entertainment and rock business is just that: a business that demands professionalism and determination. While 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7969
we know that this seedy culture does exist to some extent, it is nothing to be admired by young people, and the Rock Eisteddfod has been making it clear to thousands of young people for 21 years that success in the performing arts industry can be achieved through ability and that it can continue with a healthy lifestyle.
I hope that the Rock Eisteddfod continues for our young people. I hope also that we will have support from the contemporary music industry, with sponsorship and contributions to events that allow young people to perform and be entertained among their peers. Most particularly, giving these opportunities to young people in regional areas can make them feel more connected to this scene. The South Coast celebrates the win by Bomaderry High School and congratulates all those involved. We look forward eagerly to next year's event. Well done, Bomaderry High School. I am extremely proud to be the member for South Coast and I am extremely proud of your victory in this Rock Eisteddfod.
Ms NORI (Port Jackson—Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism) [6.01 p.m.]: I join the honourable member for South Coast in his congratulations of Bomaderry High School. The fact that the eisteddfod has been going for 21 years and that the school has done so well in its participation in the 11 other eisteddfods during that 21-year period are to the great credit of the students, parents and staff of the school. It is fantastic that a regional high school in New South Wales has taken out that award. I take this opportunity to congratulate the staff on the effort that they have put in. That effort clearly is above and beyond the call of duty and is what makes our education system so great. The teachers, through their dedication, are giving those students something that cannot be learnt from a textbook or bought with money.
MOLONGLO MILLS CROSS RADIO OBSERVATORY
Mr WEBB (Monaro) [6.02 p.m.]: This evening I wish to speak about the Molonglo Radio Observatory, which is located in the Monaro electorate at Bungendore, near Hoskingtown, east of Queanbeyan. The Mills Cross, as it is known, has made some really wonderful scientific discoveries. However, at the present time it is suffering, like many institutions across this State and nation, from a funding dilemma. The Mills Cross has been fortunate in being able to gain funding this year, on a one-year basis, from the University of New South Wales. That university is in the electorate of the Deputy Premier, who would know from his time in the Canberra and Monaro areas of the Mills Cross.
This one-year funding has enabled the Mills Cross to continue its very important scientific work. It has one full-time radio operator, a radio astrologist, Duncan Campbell-Wilson. It is to him that we owe our thanks for much of the observatory's work. There are other part-time workers. Funding requirements mainly relate to maintenance and repairs. It is a two-axis radio observatory, covering almost a kilometre in both directions. One arm is not at present in use, but it can be returned to operation. The Mills Cross is looking to multi-task the observatory as a solar array and to be part of a massive Southern hemisphere world radio telescope network.
I would like to elaborate on some of the really wonderful discoveries and fields of scientific research in which this telescope has been involved, and the significant contributions it is making to world radio astronomy. The 408 MHz radio survey has such accuracy and precision that it is still used by many research groups around the world today as a benchmark. Some of its catalogue reference material gained from its early work stands the world in good stead today. A product of radio resource variability research was the detection of variable extragalactic radio sources, which are fundamental in space research. So too was the discovery of pulsars. In 1968 British researchers Bell and Hewish discovered pulsars. Subsequent observations made with the Mills Cross at Hoskingtown between 1968 and 1978 yielded 75 per cent of the pulsars discovered in the world at that time. One of the very significant discoveries was the Vela pulsar, one of the brightest known. The 843 MHz extragalactic and galactic plane surveys were significant contributions of the Molonglo Radio Observatory to world radio astronomy. This was the first radio telescope in the world to detect supernovae radio emissions. It was involved with a lot of other work developed around the supernova remnant SNR1987A. Other work included the detection of superluminal radio jets associated with galaxies also formed when black hole binary star systems experienced runaway mass transfer between the star and the black hole. This, I realise, is very scientific work, well beyond my sphere of scientific knowledge. However, the work is fundamental in world radio astronomy and has created international links with satellite observatories in space. The observatory has undertaken a large range of innovative technical developments and is internationally recognised for its contribution to world science. At present it has 40 per cent completed a survey to map the whole of the southern sky to an unprecedented depth. The radio telescope images from this observatory are visually dramatic and tell a story. The radio telescope work that is being undertaken is very involved. 7970 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
The Molonglo radio observatory is seeking additional and ongoing funding. It has some problems with computer and telecommunications influences in the area. However, the work it does and the images it has created are absolutely incredible. I believe the observatory is worthy of ongoing funding from the State as well as tertiary education bodies in New South Wales so that it may undertake this world-class work to avoid the need to go off shore or, worse still, close down operations because of funding shortfalls.
PORT STEPHENS LIBRARY SERVICES
Mr BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [6.07 p.m.]: For 22 years I was the teacher-librarian at Nelson Bay High School and later, after it evolved, Tomaree High School. So I must readily declare my interest in libraries and matters to do with libraries. Growth and renewal in public library services in Port Stephens over the past four years is a credit to the local staff, under the direction of Mrs Pattie Bowden, her staff and their relationship with the State of New South Wales through library development grants. This is an impressive record of State and local governments extending cultural services to regional centres. Pattie and her staff deserve congratulations for what they have done in the Port Stephens area.
The strategy adopted by Port Stephens library with many small rural centres is one that I recommend to other honourable members representing country electorates. The problem that existed in the early 1990s is now affecting many areas of the State. The growth in the demand for library services could not be met. The two existing libraries were small and outdated. Demand in other parts of this area of just under a thousand square kilometres also could not be met. In 1922 the Port Stephens area had a population of about 4,000 residents. In 1983 the population was 30,000, and by the year 2000 it was 56,000, a population that is expected to double in the next 20 years. With a current growth rate of 4 per cent, that is 1,500 new residents per year. That is a huge growth for the libraries that are attempting to provide increased services for that population.
Growth, however, did not only occur in those areas that had existing libraries, such as Nelson Bay and Raymond Terrace; it occurred throughout the smaller hamlets of the Port Stephens area. The Tilligerry Peninsula and Medowie, for example, both grew to about 7,000, with a volunteer library run at Lemon Tree Passage, with no services at all at Medowie, which is an area that has many young people. At Raymond Terrace the library was expanded into an adjoining building. On the Tomaree Peninsula a $2.2 million community centre was constructed, and that included a $1.6 million library, which was opened earlier this year. This was a wonderful addition to the Tomaree Peninsula residents. This new library has resulted in a huge increase in demand for the services provided and there has been a 173 per cent increase in membership since it opened earlier this year. The library loaned 13,500 items and registered 69 new members in a two-week period in March.
The Port Stephens community faced the problem that the capital costs of fixed library facilities and the staffing required could not be financed by either the State or by Port Stephens Council. The decision was taken to provide a mobile library for all areas that could not access the existing libraries. I will give honourable members some idea of the funding. From 1996-97 to 1999-2000 the State Library allocated an average grant of some $111,000 per year for recurrent funding in Port Stephens. In addition, $50,000 was made available in 1995-96 for some of the resources required for the mobile library.
The mobile library—the pantechnicon—cost in the vicinity of $500,000, which was funded to the tune of $100,000 from the State and some $400,000 from Port Stephens Council. To make the mobile facilities comparable to a static branch there is on-line access at all stops. Telephone datelines and electrical connections were established at each of the sites to be visited. The 13.7-metre trailer is airconditioned with a wheelchair lift and a hydraulic capsule that extends to house the librarian's desk. Up to 8,000 items are carried at any one time and patrons are able to use the computer systems to access any of the services available in a normal static library. The service visits 16 sites a fortnight in the Port Stephens area on a regular timetable. It is open to the public 54 hours a fortnight, with 96 hours of staff time on the vehicle a fortnight. In response to this service, which commenced in November 1997, there has been a huge increase in library usage in the Port Stephens area. In the first 12 months of operation more than 80,000 items were loaned, which indicates the huge pent-up demand by rural residents for such library services.
PENNANT HILLS POLICE STATION
Mr TINK (Epping) [6.12 p.m.]: I wish to raise concerns on behalf of hundreds of my constituents about the future of Pennant Hills police station. Some weeks ago I circulated a questionnaire to people in Pennant Hills, which stated: 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7971
Dear Constituent,
I am writing to seek your views about a proposal to further downgrade Pennant Hills Police Station which is currently open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
It involves closing the station at various times to allow the police there to go out on patrol.
However, there is no guarantee these police would be used solely to patrol the Pennant Hills area, especially when calls could take them as far away as Ryde or Dural.
In addition, these Pennant Hills police could be tied up for hours at a time processing arrests at Ryde Police Station.
Pennant Hills Police Station was downgraded in 1997 from a fully autonomous and locally led patrol to a satellite of the Eastwood Local Area Command based at and led from Eastwood and I am extremely concerned for the future of a manned police station at Pennant Hills if this latest proposal goes ahead.
For these reasons, I am strongly against any further downgrading of Pennant Hills Police Station from its current 24-hour status.
However, I would appreciate your views on this issue and invite you to complete and return the attached prepaid survey or send me an e-mail.
Another fold of the leaflet states:
PENNANT HILLS POLICE STATION SURVEY
Do you support Pennant Hills Police Station being open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?
The respondent is invited to tick yes or no and to make other comments. I have been receiving replies to the survey for some time and they now total 518. All but 11 replies state that they want the police station to remain open 24 hours a day, seven days a week—which is a 98 per cent response rate in favour of keeping the station open. I have tried to put both sides of the argument. The secretary of the Pennant Hills business group and I have discussed with the commander and a shopkeeper closing the Pennant Hills station to allow police to patrol and some options were floated, which I have tried to reflect in the questionnaire. The option of closing the station to allow police to conduct patrols was fairly put, but the response from my constituents is strong. The President of the Pennant Hills Civic Trust, Ron Leslie, yesterday sent me a fax about this matter in which he said:
The Trust is vehemently opposed to the closure at any time.
In the sixth paragraph, he made the key point:
Despite freeing up 2 police to patrol the area by the station's closure, the Trust believes that there is a high possibility they will be called away often to attend to duties elsewhere leaving no police at all in Pennant Hills.
That is the key issue for local people. The demand for every last police officer in the Eastwood Local Area Command is great. It is a long north-south command that covers a great deal of ground from Ryde to Dural. The area north from Pennant Hills has seen the biggest demographic increase and the most dramatic development anywhere in Sydney. There is real concern about coverage in that northern area: people are worried about police spending a lot of their time policing the Ryde area when the northern area also requires coverage. Those points must be put on the record. According to local officers, closing the station will take away that police presence completely and we do not want that to happen. Pennant Hills police station was downgraded in 1997.
My comments are on record and I will not go on about that issue today ad nauseam—it is a matter for the past and perhaps for the future. However, at present it is important to make the point on behalf of an overwhelming number of people—the survey received a good response—who want to retain a police presence. They understand that that would involve retaining two police officers on 12-hour shifts who could be out on patrol—although there is no guarantee that they would patrol anywhere in the area. That is what concerns local people. I have mentioned this matter to the Minister for Police, and I am pleased to see that he is in the Chamber. Another concern is the closure of the station to the public during the Olympic Games. I do not want to debate that issue ad nauseam as that has occurred in other forums. However, people are seeking a reassurance that that arrangement will be reversed after the Olympic Games and that the station will once again be open to the public. I will be interested to hear the Minister's response to those points.
Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [6.17 p.m.]: The honourable member for Epping courteously informed me that he intended to raise an issue relating to Pennant Hills police station. I referred to this matter in an earlier debate and, as the honourable member said, these are temporary arrangements for 7972 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
Olympic purposes. The 35 police stations that are subject to the commissioner's plan will reopen on 1 November, which is the appointed date for their reopening and restaffing. I have given that commitment to the House, as has the commissioner. As to the broader issues, I have not seen the survey to which the honourable member refers. However, if I issued a survey asking whether my constituents needed more doctors, nurses, police officers or school teachers, I am sure that 100 per cent of them would respond.
Policing is a serious issue involving community safety. I do not intend to be derogatory or to jest when I say that police officers in police stations do not save lives. These officers are far better utilised protecting the community by patrolling in their motor vehicles or on foot. That is a fact of life. The honourable member spoke highly of the police in his local area. Jack Williams, the local area commander, is an outstanding police officer—I believe one of the best in New South Wales—who is very conscious of the needs of the community. If he has made an operational decision, I would be strongly convinced that it is based on community safety, which is his No. 1 priority and concern as well as that of the honourable member's constituents. I do not ask the honourable member to comment on that point, but I believe that is why the local area commander made that decision. I will read the honourable member's speech, refer it on and seek further advice if necessary.
PARKES SHIRE COMMUNITY EDUCATION
Mr McGRANE (Dubbo) [6.19 p.m.]: I wish to highlight education in the Parkes Shire Council area. The thriving community of Parkes has celebrated four significant events in the past three weeks that highlight the importance of education and culture in regional areas. All four events involved community input and showed that the spirit of learning in the Parkes community is alive, which is reflected in turn in an overall positive attitude towards development. The first event on 26 July involved some 600 Parkes primary and infant students in an annual reading day that highlighted to students of all ages the importance of reading. The reading day is an initiative of Parkes teacher Rhonda Brain who has involved the whole community in celebrating the wonder of reading.
Rhonda also achieved a coup by securing Governor-General Sir William Deane and Lady Deane to open the annual reading day. Rhonda approached Sir William about opening the day during a recent pilgrimage to Gallipoli, where Sir William expressed an interest in finding out more about the project. Despite cold conditions that forced the proceedings indoors the day was a success, with Sir William and Lady Deane bitten by the reading bug and with the Governor-General reciting a poem by Banjo Paterson about the ups and downs of a football match played in regional New South Wales between the Kangaroos and the Emus. There is no doubt the reading bug also made an impression on the students, with Harry Potter book sales receiving a surge after the reading day in Parkes.
Also on the Governor-General's agenda during his visit to Parkes was the opening of the Parkes council library and cultural centre. Both facilities are proud additions to Parkes Shire Council's services and will play an important role in the further education of residents in the shire. The library boasts a number of computers, enabling members of the Parkes community to access information from the Internet. Traditional users of the library are also well catered for, with an abundance of books in many interest areas. The Parkes Shire Council is to be congratulated for its foresight in building the centre, which fills an important role for its constituents as they continue their journey of knowledge.
To cap off a memorable day in Parkes, the Governor-General also turned the first sod for the Sir Henry Parkes Pioneer Museum project, which highlights the father of Federation, Sir Henry Parkes. It is an ambitious project but one that will be important for generations to come, showing the sacrifices that men such as Sir Henry Parkes made in making Australia what it is today. The fourth significant event in Parkes' development as a centre of education excellence was the opening of a special education unit at Parkes High School on 2 August. The Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. J. J. Aquilina, performed the official opening with the Federal member, Mr Tony Lawler. The spirit the students showed for their fellow students who have special needs was genuine, and it was evident that the process of integration into mainstream education of special needs students is beneficial for mainstream students and special needs students.
The unit is state of the art and will set new standards for special education in the electorate of Dubbo. The efforts of the parents, community and teachers in the establishment of this unit should not be forgotten. All parties were involved in a cohesive fashion to ensure the unit was built and was functional. This effort is tangible evidence of Parkes' development and the progressive community spirit that exists in the Parkes community. Parkes continues to develop with vigour and will soon challenge more recognised centres in regional New South Wales as a place on the go and with plenty of vision for the future. 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7973
Ms NORI (Port Jackson—Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism) [6.23 p.m.]: I join with the honourable member for Dubbo in congratulating the community of Parkes on its annual reading day dubbed "A celebration of the wonder of reading". I particularly congratulate the teacher whose brainchild it is, Rhonda Brain. There are many competing activities to distract the attention of our children, and I am afraid it has been my observation that children today are not reading as much as our generation did, because we did not have television and other distractions. It is sometimes a bit of a struggle to convince the younger generation that no matter what one does academically—whether it is geography, history, science or engineering—academic success often comes down to the writing of an essay, and one cannot write an essay if one has not read and does not have spelling and vocabulary up one's sleeve. I congratulate the community, and that teacher in particular, on recognising the importance of reading and the importance of enthusing our young ones from an early age about the wonders and rewards of reading.
Private members' statements noted.
[The Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.25 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]
DEATH OF GERALD JAMES SULLIVAN, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville—Deputy Premier, Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for Housing) [7.30 p.m.]: I move:
That this House extends to Mrs Sullivan and family the deep sympathy of members of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained by the death on 13 July 2000 of Gerald James Sullivan, a former member of the Legislative Assembly. Gerry Sullivan passed away on Thursday 13 July, just a few days short of his fifty-seventh birthday. His loss was a sad and sudden one for his family and friends, and of course for the Australian Labor Party. Apparently complications following surgery cut short a proud and productive life. Gerry Sullivan joined the ALP in 1961. He worked as a teacher for 27 years, taking up a position as a careers adviser at Warrawong High School in the mid1970s. He joined the Coniston branch of the ALP soon after and remained a passionate and active member for the rest of his life. That passion took him to victory in 1991 when he won the seat of Wollongong for Labor in a resounding 30 per cent swing—1991 certainly was a landmark year and Gerry played a major part in it. That was the centenary year of the Australian Labor Party and 100 years since the first Labor representative of the Wollongong area was elected, in 1891. Gerry won the seat on the strength of his commitment to core Labor values: caring for the young, the sick, the aged and the disabled; promoting a better quality of life through equal access to quality education; and protecting and promoting the rights of workers to a quality, responsive workplace. Labor has held that seat strongly since 1991 and this is no small tribute to a dedicated man. In his maiden speech to this Parliament on 23 October 1991 Gerry spoke of how very proud and honoured he was to represent the electorate of Wollongong. In that speech he said:
I would like to take this opportunity to place on record that I see my task here as representing the hopes and aspirations of the electors and residents of Wollongong. They have much to hope for and they have many things that they aspire to get. It is my task to see that those things are put in place. Gerry rose to the challenge he had set himself and achieved a great deal for the people of the Illawarra. He was particularly active in fighting for greater health funding for Illawarra families, both in his capacity as a member of Parliament and, before that, as the Chairman of the Illawarra Area Health Service. As the board's first chairman, his commitment and contribution to the development of health services in the region was unrivalled. His work, including the opening of Shellharbour Hospital in 1986, has reaped lasting benefits for the families of the region. Gerry followed that with a distinguished and active parliamentary career that helped to build up services for the people of Wollongong and the Illawarra. Improved local facilities in health, education, community and police services all owe a debt to Gerry and his tireless endeavour to improve people's lives. In that sense, his capacity to lobby a Minister for a better lot for Wollongong families did not distinguish between Labor or Coalition governments. I know because, as Minister for Health, I received many enthusiastic representations from Gerry; he was very dedicated, and would never give up. In Opposition he made the same calls on Ministers of the Coalition Government. He spoke, again in his maiden speech, of providing an environment in which people can live honestly and at ease—a strong and worthwhile sentiment to which we can all aspire. I am sure that all members of the House join with me today in acknowledging the legacy of his work and in applauding his longstanding commitment to the Illawarra. Gerry's memory will live long in the Illawarra 7974 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000 and in the halls and Chambers of this Parliament. Gerry is survived by his wife, Rhonda, his son, Hugh, and his daughters, Katherine and Alanna. Our thoughts remain with them as they work to come to terms with the terrible loss of a loving husband and father. I ask all members of the House to join me in extending our deepest condolences to Gerry's family and friends. Mr Speaker, I ask you to join me in paying tribute to the life of someone determined to make a difference to the lives of others. Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove—Leader of the Opposition) [7.36 p.m.]: It is with great respect that I speak to this motion of condolence to mark the passing of Mr Gerry Sullivan, a former member for Wollongong. Gerry Sullivan was born in 1943 in Binnaway, New South Wales, where he was raised. He was educated at the Binnaway Central School, continuing at the Coonabarabran Intermediate High School. He completed a teacher's certificate at Sydney Teachers College, a Bachelor of Commerce degree at the University of Wollongong and gained a Graduate Diploma of Accountancy, also at the University of Wollongong. With teaching qualifications in place, Mr Sullivan moved to the Illawarra in the mid-1970s to take up a post as a careers adviser at Warrawong High School and dedicated 27 years of his career to education and learning. Mr Sullivan was a committed educator and worked hard with great dedication to his community, which inevitably led to his becoming a member of Parliament. His past community involvements included being a member and Treasurer of the Wollongong Hospital Board, Chairman of the Illawarra Area Health Service Board, Chairman of the Illawarra Health Fund, and founding member of the Illawarra Steelers Rugby League Football Club. With a very obvious commitment to the Australian Labor Party, Gerry joined the party in July 1961 and held a number of positions as delegate to State and Federal electorate councils, including Cunningham Federal Electorate Council, Wollongong State Electorate Council and a position on the Wollongong Municipal Committee. He made a major contribution to development and planning of the health services in the Illawarra area. Notably, in 1984, Gerry initiated the development of the master plan for Wollongong and Port Kembla hospitals, which involved a clearer definition of their roles. Gerry was elected to Parliament as member for Wollongong on 25 May 1991. In fact, we came into this Parliament together. He won his seat in a decisive victory over the Independent and former Lord Mayor Frank Arkell in that election and was re-elected on 25 March 1995. In his first speech to Parliament Mr Sullivan spoke of his pride and honour in representing the people of Wollongong, having lived in the area for some 20 years. He spoke of the 87 nationalities that were represented in the Wollongong district at the time of his election. Consequently, Wollongong has a very strong sense of community with so many families sharing in the migrant experience. In his first speech in this House, he said: …I see my task here as representing the hopes and aspirations of the electors and residents of Wollongong. They have much to hope for and they have many things that they aspire to get. It is my task to see that those things are put in place. And that is what he strove to achieve in his time in Parliament House. On a personal note, I always had a very friendly relationship with Gerry. He was one of the few people in this House of whom everyone would say always spoke well of people. I never heard him say a bad word about members on this side of the House—that is not always the case, as we know. Gerry was a gentleman and conducted himself in a dignified way in this House. Also, he was dignified in his departure from Parliament after a factional brawl brought his parliamentary service to an end. He continued his strong commitment to the Labor Party, remaining an active member of the Coniston branch. We were all very shocked to hear of Gerry's death. On behalf of the entire Coalition, I extend my deepest sympathies to Gerry's wife, Rhonda, his son, Hugh, and his daughters, Katherine and Alanna. He will be missed. Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.39 p.m.]: Prior to about 7.30 p.m. on 25 May 1991, when Gerry Sullivan won the seat of Wollongong from the incumbent Independent, Frank Arkell, it was generally thought by the ALP machine that Gerry had little chance of success. In fact, a then Labor staffer, Mark Latham, was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald as having made the rash promise to walk naked down the length of Pitt Street at midday if Gerry Sullivan won the seat of Wollongong at the ensuing 1991 election. Gerry did win, and to the best of my knowledge this undertaking has not been met. If Gerry were here tonight he would say, "Mark, it's never too late." In my political party the conventional wisdom is that if you cannot write down an election plan you do not have one. I have seen Gerry's 1991 election plan, which was written down. It was coherent and logical, and it worked. Gerry went about winning the Wollongong seat in his own inimitable way. He knew there was hostility from the media in the Illawarra, and after a few approaches it became obvious that he would not get much coverage. Undeterred, Gerry—along with his campaign team, including his family and his campaign director, Warwick McMillan—proceeded to run a local issues-based campaign. Gerry and his team believed that Arkell was the triumph of style over substance. Perhaps it would have been easy to adopt the political tactic made famous by Richard Nixon of using pejorative terms to vilify an opponent. But that was not Gerry's style. 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7975
Gerry held the view, both privately and publicly, that a person's sexual preference should not be a weapon in the armoury of a political campaign. As a former speaker of the American House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill, once said, "all politics is local." And that is precisely the approach Gerry adopted in his 1991 campaign. I suppose it is always hard even for the media, just as it is for politicians, to acknowledge when they have made a mistake. The body politic dictates that one must fit a mould: one cannot be too fat or too thin, too short or too tall, too bald or too hairy, too serious or too flippant, depending on the alleged crime the flock is making against one at that point in time. Gerry was always happy to break the mould.
In the preselection process prior to being the Labor candidate for the 1991 election, Gerry beat a fellow left wing candidate in the rank and file ballot, despite that fellow candidate having a lot of powerful backing from Sydney. I enjoyed the meals that Gerry and I shared at Mar's Steakhouse in Pitt Street. Alas, it is no longer there. Perhaps that is just as well because I suspect that future meals would have been held at Kok Restaurant in Enmore, in which Gerry's daughter Katherine is a partner. I enjoyed my conversations with Gerry, which ranged from Alexander the Great crossing the Bosphorus in about 334 BC and the methods he adopted to control territories as he pushed forward into the Persian empire and to the edge of the known world over the next 10 years to the relative merits of different brands of modern day motor vehicles.
I enjoyed the fact that Gerry broadened my horizons in art. A few years ago the Art Gallery of New South Wales held an exhibition of paintings that were part of the Guggenheim collection. Gerry prevailed upon me to go across to the Art Gallery with him. I was surprised by his depth of knowledge about these paintings. He had obviously done his homework. Following Gerry's funeral in Wollongong on Friday 21 July Wes Davoren, a former member for Lakemba in this place, said he was surprised that no-one had mentioned Gerry's deep knowledge of Gilbert and Sullivan. The greatest debt I owe Gerry Sullivan was that he introduced me to the joys of Gregorian chants.
Gerry certainly was not one-dimensional. He had a range of interests. One could have a conversation with him on a myriad of topics. Perhaps for me this was best exemplified by the fact that although he eschewed organised religion he was, I think, a very spiritual man. He had a very good grasp of the precepts of liberation theology as it emerged from South America in the 1970s and the early 1980s. He certainly had a preferential option for the poor. However, the conversations with Gerry that I enjoyed best were the ones that analysed the psychology of those who practise in politics. Gerry subscribed to the theory that there are few whole people in politics. He argued that politicians were individuals who were either desperate to escape their past or driven to prove themselves. I think Gerry was the exception which proved the rule. The more I got to know Gerry, the more I think he was a whole man. He was perfectly happy with who he was. Gerry's daughter, Katherine Sullivan, in her eulogy to her father, summed up the essential element when she said:
I did often wonder why he bothered, why he seemed to bash his head against the wall for what I saw was very little thanks, but he really believed in community, about responsibility ahead of rights and about helping without meddling. I believe he was a man with just one face, in public and in private. Before those he admired and those he didn't, he was always Gerry Sullivan.
Katherine also quoted the artist Laurie Anderson, who said:
On the day I buried my father they burned a library.
Gerry had a wide range of interests. He certainly had eclectic tastes. This place was the better for his being here. He certainly could mix it in the Conniston pub on a Friday afternoon. He could relate to people. That was ultimately the performance measure that he saw as most important in a politician.
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [7.46 p.m.]: I offer my personal condolences to Rhonda, Katherine, Allana and Hugh Sullivan, Gerry's immediate family. I do so also on behalf of the National party. Gerry had quite a strong affinity with rural New South Wales, having been brought up in the Coonabarabran-Binnaway area. He also taught at Singleton High School in the town where I reside. On several occasions I had the opportunity to reflect on matters that pertained to those towns. Gerry kept up quite a good network of friends and acquaintances in all those areas and often he would brief me on the perspective of issues of the day, particularly as they pertained to roads in the Coonabarabran-Binnaway area or his support for the reopening of the Binnaway to Gwabegar railway line as a tourist railway line. He was very active in that fight, which continues; perhaps one day it will be successful.
I had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Public Works with Gerry Sullivan during the last Parliament. As honourable members know, serving on parliamentary committees is one of the best features of this place in terms of getting to know, understand and form good friendships and acquaintances with 7976 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000 members of Parliament on the other philosophical side of this place. And so it was with Gerry Sullivan in relation to that committee. I enjoyed getting to know Gerry a lot better as a result of serving on that committee. When the committee visited Wollongong in relation to Lake Illawarra, which was a very passionate issue for Gerry, I remember fondly having dinner one night with Gerry, his wife, Rhonda, and other committee members. Again, I got to know the man and the family on a more personal basis.
We can all understand and sympathise with Gerry and his family when circumstances within his party resulted in him not being selected to represent the seat of Wollongong. That is a path that potentially we all tread. Gerry was greatly disappointed. This is a time to reflect on his life and, in particular, his parliamentary service; to state our affection for and our lasting remembrance of him; and to express collectively and individually in a non-partisan way our sympathy and condolences to Gerry Sullivan's family—Rhonda, Katherine, Alanna and Hugh.
Ms ALLAN (Wentworthville) [7.49 p.m.]: Condolence debates in this Chamber are often the most difficult to contribute to because we have to speak from the heart. In politics we do not get that opportunity too often. However, it is not as difficult to participate in this type of debate as it is to organise and participate in a funeral for a husband or father. I take this opportunity to congratulate Rhonda, Katherine, Hugh and Alanna and other family members for the wonderful funeral service for Gerry that took place a couple of weeks ago.
I was a colleague of Gerry Sullivan. He was an extremely active member of the environment caucus committee, of which I was the shadow Minister and then Minister. He was also a member of my factional alliance within the Australian Labor Party, and I had many opportunities to sit around tables and to travel with Gerry Sullivan. I agree with everything that has been said about Gerry Sullivan. He was an outstanding participant in this Chamber and a very good politician. He was a good politician because he loved politics. Gerry's love of politics at every level throughout his life came through strongly at the funeral service. As the children were growing up they were greatly aware of their father's and mother's political interests. His colleagues at Warrawong High School were greatly aware of his political activities and interests and later many people were aware of the work he did for them as a member of Parliament.
As the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Premier said, Gerry was an extremely active backbencher who made many positive suggestions about the policy directions that Ministers should pursue. Sometimes Ministers wanted to hear about them; at other times they did not. One suggestion in particular I would like to mention relates to Gerry's own background and his love for rural New South Wales. There would not be an all-weather passable road at Coolah Tops National Park if it had not been for Gerry Sullivan beating on my door to say "What is the point of creating a Coolah Tops National Park if you cannot get to it when it rains? Frankly, the road is not good enough." I was not aware of that until I went to Coolah, but Gerry knew, because he grew up there.
One pleasant memory that was mentioned at the funeral was the back-to-Binnaway weekend that took place earlier this year. I gained the impression from comments made by his family that Gerry enjoyed the weekend and loved being there with all his family. Gerry was one of those politicians in this place who spoke about his family. The names Katherine, Hugh, Alanna and particularly Nina, his mother, speckled his conversations. Gerry championed causes that were unpopular with the current Government. He was a strong advocate for the Port Kembla community and its fight against the reopening of Southern Copper. Unfortunately, that did not win Gerry Sullivan any friends in this place. Nevertheless, anyone who lives near the incinerator that is located in that area would probably be as passionate about the issue as the members of the Port Kembla community, who were ably represented by Gerry Sullivan.
Gerry's death shocked me greatly. As has been said, he faced a double whammy of bad luck in this place. He did not win preselection by the Australian Labor Party to contest the seat of Wollongong at the last State election. The period leading up to the election, and perhaps since, was probably a painful time in Gerry's life. That was one reason I particularly tuned in to the comments at the funeral that he thoroughly enjoyed the back-to-Binnaway weekend. It seemed that by Easter this year at least Gerry Sullivan was fairly relaxed about that issue. However, I also know that he was keen to return to politics and that he would have loved another opportunity to be part of this place.
Gerry's family should be proud of the contribution he made not only to them and their upbringing but also to the community and this place. He was a vital force within it. Not everyone always agreed with Gerry. At times he was happy to pester members, particularly Ministers, to achieve an outcome. As we all know, pestering does not earn too many reward points in politics. Nevertheless, it earned Gerry Sullivan considerable respect 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7977 from his colleagues. Col Markham was not in Australia for the funeral; and is not in Australia at present. Col, too, found it difficult in the lead-up to the last State election. While it may not have been as bad tor him as it was for Gerry, I know from conversations I have had with Col about the issue that he did not try to make the situation worse. No-one can speak for others, but I am sure that Col is genuinely concerned and disappointed about Gerry's death. Gerry Sullivan leaves an outstanding legacy: his family—and family is the main legacy we leave on this planet. Gerry Sullivan will not be forgotten in this place.
Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [7.56 p.m.]: I join with other members in this House to express my condolences to Mrs Nina Sullivan, Rhonda, Gerry's two daughters, Katherine and Alanna, and his son, Hugh. I do not do so from the same perspective as the honourable member for Wentworthville but as a fellow backbench parliamentarian. I liked Gerry and knew him well. I remember Gerry as a fellow with a broad smile and someone I liked to have a beer with at the bar. Although in politics we may be on opposite sides of the House, we are all here for the same purpose and we respect one another's ambitions for our electorates. No-one other than Gerry's family would realise the sacrifices he made as a member for eight years in this place.
I was disappointed and sad when Gerry found out that he was not going to represent Wollongong at the last election. As a member of the Opposition, I believe he graciously stepped aside and accepted his fate within his political party. He obviously had a great love for his party. Whilst I did not agree with his philosophies, I could still argue with him at the bar, have a chat with him and interject across the Chamber, because it was fair play with Gerry and we had a mutual respect for each other. This is not an easy place to work. As we sit tonight, other people are at home with their families. During his eight years of service in this place he did not have the opportunity, as members who reside in the Sydney metropolitan do, to go home at night during sittings and share some time with his family.
I am particularly sorry that because of electoral business I was unable to attend his funeral. When I heard of his death, at 57 years of age, I was very sad that after having worked for eight years in this place he had such a short time to enjoy his retirement and time with his family. I liked Gerry as a man, and I believe he was a great asset to this Parliament. He was one of us. He was down to earth. You could enjoy a joke with him; there was always banter across the Chamber. I know that I often fight with the left wing of the Labor Party on some issues. However, I respect the Labor Party's position, as I would hope the Labor Party respects our position, and as Gerry did. Again I say to his mother, his wife, Rhonda, and their children, Katherine, Alanna and Hugh: Please accept my condolences.
Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [8.00 p.m.]: It is with great sadness that I speak to this condolence motion on Gerry Sullivan. I extend my personal and collective condolences to Gerry's wife, Rhonda, their three children, Katherine, Hugh and Alanna, his mother, Nina, whom I saw at the funeral service, and his sisters, Robyn and Judi, who spoke so very well and movingly at the Wollongong City Crematorium on 31 July about early family life. I also extend my condolences to Gerry's close friends in the Labor movement in the Illawarra, particularly Warwick McMillan, who was his campaign director and who also spoke on that day. It was fairly obvious that he and Gerry had grown up politically together.
In a very well-constructed ceremony—and I pay tribute to the family for that—Gerry's two fellow teachers who spoke at the crematorium that day also contributed to everyone's understanding of what made Gerry tick and the way he contributed to the Illawarra. Certainly his family and friends appreciated the presence that day, in a very large crowd that overflowed the chapel at the crematorium, of serving members of Parliament, former members of Parliament, trade union leaders and the Assistant General Secretary of the Australian Labor Party.
I came to know Gerry very well during the period from 1995 to the end of 1998 because my office in this place was next to his office. I came to respect the great strength of his opinions and of his commitment to the Labor Party, to the Labor movement, and to the collective principles of the trade union movement. During that time I also came to know Rhonda very well because she often visited Gerry in the Parliament, especially after her retirement. I never had to ask after their children because they would tell me, without being asked, of their successes and achievements. Gerry was very proud of his family, and I know that they are proud of him.
This afternoon just outside the Chamber I met Pat Rogan, the former member for East Hills. Pat and Gerry knew each other well. Pat asked that his condolences also be expressed to the Sullivan family. Like Pat Rogan, Gerry loved a good joke and a good yarn. I miss them both in this place. Pat resigned in 1999, but Gerry lost his endorsement in one of those deals that political parties do occasionally, which in the end bring no credit to political parties. Gerry made a significant contribution in this place as a member of various committees, 7978 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000 including the Standing Committee on Public Works, the Public Bodies Review Committee and the Library Committee, and was trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund. That also very much reflected his intellectual interests. He was also a member, as I was, of the Joint Select Committee upon the Process and Funding of the Electoral System.
As reflected in the speeches he delivered and the activity he undertook in this place, Gerry's community activity included his involvement with the Wollongong Crisis Centre, the Illawarra Health Coalition, the Illawarra Area Health Service Board as chairman, and the Steelers Rugby League Football Club. We had some great stoushes about the relative worth of the Steelers and the Knights. He was also a life member of the University of Wollongong Students Union and the Wollongong Sports Association. Again, that reflects the widespread interests and activities that he undertook. Gerry was extremely involved with local history as an interest, and I will reflect on that in a moment. A couple of other controversial and interesting characters preceded him in the seat of Wollongong. His immediate predecessor in local government was Independent Frank Arkell, but Eric Ramsay preceded him in the seat of Wollongong, as did Rex Connor, who was well known in the Federal sphere.
In Gerry's first speech to the House—I note that he did not call it a maiden speech; he was very astute in 1991 and referred to it as his first speech—he pointed out that he had lived in Wollongong for more than two decades and regarded himself as having made his home there, as had many others who came from all sorts of other places in Australia and from overseas. He spoke of the cultural diversity of the Illawarra area, which was home to 87 nationalities yet had a very strong sense of community. But perhaps his proudest achievement was that in 1991, with the help of his team, he re-established Labor representation in the Wollongong electorate. He was particularly proud of that, because in 13 of the previous 26 years the Wollongong electorate had not been represented by Labor. He saw his main task as representing the interests of his electors and residents in Wollongong. He paid tribute to his campaign director, Warwick McMillan, and his family when he gave his first speech.
Gerry was a proud teacher. He really did believe that teaching was the top of the professions. I know that many members, particularly on this side of the House, have been teachers and would share Gerry's sense of loyalty to and identity in that profession. Gerry had a great sense of history. In his first speech he referred to James McGowen and the things that he was doing in the Chamber more than 100 years earlier. His first speech happened to coincide with what he called the second general strike in New South Wales; the first had occurred in 1917.
Gerry was a Binnaway boy. I do not know how many times in conversation he referred to Binnaway. Binnaway was Jack Renshaw's town, and Gerry had a great sense of identity with Jack Renshaw and Binnaway. Jack Renshaw was a Labor legend and was a hero to Gerry. I am sure Gerry's family would understand Gerry's depth of feeling for Binnaway and the identity it gave him throughout his life. Gerry had a strong connection with the Hunter area, where he taught at Newcastle and Singleton high schools. The Leader of the National Party referred to the people around Singleton who still remember his contribution to the community, in addition to his contribution to the high school. Gerry and I often chatted about people's memories. He could remember many of the students he taught. If they came up to him 20 years later, he could still remember their names.
Gerry was also a passionate trade unionist. He spoke about the Industrial Relations Bill, which was debated in the Chamber in 1991 when the Liberal Government was in office, and condemned its aims to eliminate unannounced visits to workplaces by union officials and to eliminate access to the Industrial Commission for the arbitration and conciliation processes. He spoke against the creation of enterprise agreements, awardless part-time work and draconian penalties for unions and unionists. He said:
Ultimately, what it is really all about when we strip away the adjustments … the reallocation of wealth and income away from those who can least afford to suffer that loss.
Trade unionism and the collectivism of workers looking after their interests through the Labor movement and the Labor Party were at the heart of Gerry's commitment to life and his commitment to politics. He also cared for people who were disabled and down on their luck in society. In his first speech he said:
I believe a State government is judged on the simple criterion of how it treats and cares for the young, the aged, the sick and the disabled.
He then went on to talk about community services and health, and a whole range of activities that he had been involved in during his time in Parliament, and particularly Wollongong Hospital. A little earlier the honourable 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7979 member for Wyong spoke on this condolence motion and referred to Gerry Sullivan's eclectic interests. One would not believe the number of topics that Gerry spoke about in Parliament. They included the Residential Parks Bill, renewable tenure of grave sites, the Kembla Grange Turf Club, the Nan Tien Temple, intertidal zone invertebrate harvesting, the Wollongong Hospital clinical services building, the Lake Illawarra Authority, slag recycling and school athletics championships. His speeches in the Parliament were littered with talk about schools—Port Kembla Public School, Warrawong High School and Illawarra Senior College. They go on and on.
He spoke about flooding, home invasions, public transport, the steelworks, literacy, employment in the Illawarra, ethnic services, Aboriginal reconciliation, euthanasia, the national competition policy, retread tyres, the physical futures of children, teachers' salaries and conditions, the Southern Copper plant, the Firearms Bill, public housing, hospital waiting lists, waste minimisation and management, and so on. In a private member's statement in 1998 he spoke about the transrapid high speed train proposal. The proposed train route from Sydney to Canberra was to go through the Illawarra and he wholeheartedly supported that proposal because it would benefit the Illawarra region. The Minister for Gaming and Racing, the Minister at the table at the time, made this brief reply to his private member's statement:
The honourable member for Wollongong can be relied upon to raise any and every matter that is in the best interests of the Wollongong area.
That comment sums up Gerry's tremendous contribution to this place and the area he represented. In 1995, in another private member's statement, he spoke of the Wollongong Hospital clinical services building some six months after the Carr Government had been elected. He said:
I rise to say hallelujah because at long last construction of the clinical services building at Wollongong Hospital is under way after 15 years of hard work and representations.
When Gerry said that in his great big deep voice people in this House and around the building stopped and listened. "I rise to say hallelujah" is indicative of the quality of his representation and his enthusiasm for the work in which he had been so intimately involved before he came into the Parliament. Those qualities made him a valuable member of this place. On that occasion the Minister for Education and Training was the Minister at the table and he stated:
I have much pleasure once again acknowledging the efforts of the honourable member for Wollongong who, time and again— like all Labor members of the Illawarra region—makes representations on behalf of his constituents… Finally Labor electorates are starting to receive justice.
The Carr Labor Government is doing the right thing by the people of Wollongong and the hospital. I congratulate the honourable member; he has worked so hard to achieve these improvements. Gerry's final speech on 18 November 1998 was a private member's statement about the Wollongong Crisis Centre, to which he had referred in his inaugural speech. He paid tribute to the Wollongong Crisis Centre on the occasion of its twentieth anniversary celebration. The Wollongong Crisis Centre had only recently become the only residential detoxification and rehabilitation centre in Australia to achieve quality accreditation through the community health accreditation and standards program. Gerry was an erudite, intelligent and tasteful man, even if he was not always tactful. He loved music and art, as the honourable member for Wyong pointed out. Gerry was a very proud teacher, a very proud socialist and a very proud trade unionist. He was a very proud father and husband. We miss him. In this condolence motion we honour his contribution to the New South Wales Parliament. We especially honour his commitment to his beloved Wollongong and the Illawarra, and his achievements for his people. We acknowledge his great political passions of health and education. I say to his family: Be proud of his contribution to New South Wales and Australia, and remember well his love for you. Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [8.14 p.m.]: I support this condolence motion moved by the Deputy Premier. Gerry and I came into the Parliament together in 1991, he representing the Illawarra area and I representing the northern beaches. We came from diametrically opposed political allegiances, although we shared many views on our aspirations for our communities. We also shared a bit more than that. Gerry was certainly a politician but he was very much a teacher and an educationalist. When talking to him about different issues, it was evident that those passions continued to bubble through his soul. He was very committed to education and to improving the lot of young people. Before I came into this place I was trained as a teacher. I was also trained as a lawyer, but I have always considered myself as a teacher who happened to end up as a lawyer who happened to end up in 7980 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
Parliament. Therefore, Gerry and I had many things we liked to talk about, and we did. Over the years I formed the view—and I say this knowing that Gerry's two daughters, his son, his mother and his two sisters are here tonight—that he was a gentleman. They are very fortunate to have had such a man as a father, a brother and a son. Earlier this evening, when some members of the Coalition were talking about their recollections of Gerry, the one abiding common theme was that Gerry was a gentleman. After having served eight years in this place there can be no greater attribute than for members on the other side to still say, "He was a gentleman". It demonstrates that Gerry was a very worthwhile human being.
Gerry did good things for his local community because he had a passion for helping people, and that is part of what makes someone a good teacher. But his passion extended beyond teaching; he wanted to help those around him in a broader sense. He went about that task through the auspices of the Labor Party. He was very much a left-wing man, as I understand it, which is probably why so many of his views and mine were in accord. That will probably get me into trouble, but on social issues the purity of the Left can be a great asset to debate. Gerry had that purity of heart. He was a man who was very much committed to doing what he could for his community.
I was shocked and saddened to hear that Gerry had died. When I became a member of Parliament I did not expect that while still a member I would hear of the passing away of colleagues who came into this place with me. Unfortunately, a number of colleagues have passed on while I have been in this place. I remember discussing the issue with my wife and I can assure Gerry's family that every Coalition member is saddened by his passing and the effect it has had on his family. I know that his mum is about to turn 90 or is in her ninetieth year. It is against the natural order of things to have one's son pass away and I express my sorrow and sympathy to Nina Sullivan in particular, as well as to his wife, Rhonda, and his three children, who are also here tonight. It must be hard for his children to listen to this condolence motion, but at least they are able to witness the fact that so many members from both sides of politics wish to speak about Gerry. That emphasises what a great person their dad was. As a number of other people have said tonight, Gerry was never short on words when it came to his children. He was very proud of all three, of their achievements and the way in which their lives are developing.
I also convey my sympathy to Judi, Robyn and Brian Sullivan, who are Gerry's two sisters and brother. I note that Judi and Robyn are present in the Chamber and I convey to them the sympathy of all honourable members of this House. We are sad that Gerry has passed away. He passed away before his time and that is also very sad. Members of his family are facing a difficult period, but they can derive strength from the knowledge that Gerry contributed greatly to public life and was so well thought of that all honourable members present in this Chamber share the sadness felt by members of his family. Our thoughts are with Gerry's children as they contemplate their dad's contribution to their family and to the community.
Mr CAMPBELL (Keira) [8.20 p.m.]: It is with the same sense of sadness expressed by other honourable members who preceded me in this debate that I support the motion moved by the Deputy Premier. Some weeks ago it came as something of a shock when a journalist from Wollongong phoned to ask me to comment on the death of Gerry Sullivan. I said, "I will have to phone you back after checking this out because I don't believe you." I made a couple of calls to friends of Gerry and was able to confirm what I had been told. That was how I learned of Gerry's death. When I phoned the journalist, my immediate response was obviously to express shock and sympathy for Rhonda and sympathy for Gerry and Rhonda's children. My response to the question "What will Gerry be remembered for?" was that Gerry Sullivan will be remembered for his contribution to the health system in the Wollongong-Illawarra region.
As honourable members who preceded me in this debate have already mentioned, Gerry was the inaugural chairman of the combined Illawarra Area Health Service. He worked very hard to enable people to understand that the region did not have a series of individual hospitals but, rather, was working towards an integrated health system. I had the opportunity of serving on the local health board. I was appointed in the late 1980s and that was when I first met Gerry. He was trying to break down the barriers between individual hospitals and was endeavouring to set in place a strategy to improve the health system in the region. Subsequently, Gerry and I were candidates in the 1987 local government election for Wollongong City Council. In that instance, I was successful in being elected to the council but Gerry was not.
In 1991, as all honourable members know, Gerry defeated the former nemesis of the Australian Labor Party of local politics in the Illawarra region, the late Frank Arkell. In 1991 I defeated Frank Arkell as Lord Mayor of Wollongong city. In performing our respective roles, Gerry and I carried out a great deal of work together. Gerry was the State member of Parliament and I was the Lord Mayor of Wollongong. On occasions, 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7981
Gerry exhorted me to be part of a delegation to approach the then Deputy Premier, and Minister for Health on health issues. As other honourable members who preceded me in this debate have already mentioned, that is something that occurred frequently.
Honourable members would realise that by the time the Australian Labor Party won government in 1995, Wollongong Hospital had consisted in part of a huge hole in the ground but became what was pretty much the basis of an improved health system for the region. I recall one windy day during the 1991 election campaign that Gerry and I stood on a hill just above the crematorium of all places, which is quite ironic, to lambaste the then State Government and the then State member of Parliament for not patching up Berkeley Road with some 3 x 3 funding. It is interesting that participation in this condolence motion has stimulated recollection of one of the opportunities I had to support Gerry's campaign in the 1991 election.
The other issue on which Gerry made a huge effort and carried out a lot of work was improvement of water quality and the usability of water in Lake Illawarra. It would be inappropriate not to acknowledge the contribution Gerry made to the improvement in water quality in the region. Gerry also contributed a great deal of effort to ensure that Wollongong was provided with an entertainment centre. While he was working on the entertainment centre and encouraging the Government to provide funding for that project, he was also working on smaller projects such as fencing or lighting at suburban junior sporting facilities.
I well remember at meetings of the health board and on other occasions such as ALP fundraising events becoming aware of Gerry's eclectic interests, which have already been referred to during this debate. Many times he and I spoke about rugby league but, equally, Gerry would extol the virtues of Australian folk music or a particular exhibition. It is that diverse range of interests that I will remember. As honourable members consider this motion and go about their work in the future, I urge them not to forget that Gerry celebrated and loved the fact that he worked and lived in a community comprising people from such diverse ethnic backgrounds.
An examination of Gerry's first speech in this Parliament will confirm that he spoke about the 87 different nationalities constituting the Wollongong community. In earlier years, Edna and I and Rhonda and Gerry attended many Macedonian, Greek or Italian functions representing our constituents and acknowledged the contribution made by people from different cultural backgrounds to the very exciting place which is the city of Wollongong. Edna and I have written to Rhonda and personally conveyed our condolences, but during this debate, on behalf of the people I represent as well as on behalf of my family, I say to members of the Sullivan family present in this Chamber that they have our sympathy. I acknowledge the significant contributions to a whole range of different aspects of life in Wollongong made by Gerry Sullivan but, to my mind, the area health service and the development of a first-class health system in the Wollongong region are achievements for which Gerry Sullivan will long be remembered.
Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [8.26 p.m.]: I endorse the sentiments expressed by honourable members who have preceded me in this condolence motion. I was elected to this House at the same time as Gerry, on 25 May 1991. Gerry had a great commitment to the Wollongong electorate and his constituents—for that matter to the entire Illawarra area. In 1991 he wrested the Wollongong electorate from the then formidable, and now infamous, Frank Arkell. Gerry and I developed a firm friendship. He and I sometimes shared confidences about the vagaries of internal ALP politics—Gerry being a member of the Left and I being a member of the Right. In common with all other honourable members of Parliament, Gerry was very proud of his election to this Parliament. He was even more proud of members of his family and that pride was evident in his frequent references to them. Gerry often spoke in affectionate terms of his good friend who was also his campaign director, Warwick McMillan. I recall that Gerry gave Warwick credit for his tremendous victory over the late Frank Arkell in 1991. The redistribution that occurred prior to the 1999 election had a very unfortunate outcome for Gerry: It is true that politics can be cruel indeed.
The circumstances of the redistribution are well known to honourable members, particularly those on the Government side of the House. Even though Gerry must have been bitterly disappointed, he accepted what happened as a loyal member of the Australian Labor Party. Gerry Sullivan was a good bloke. We shared both the good times and the not-so-good times in this House and he will be very sadly missed. On behalf of my family I extend to his wife, Rhonda, his children, Katherine, Hugh and Alanna, his mother, Nina, and his extended family our deepest sympathy and our condolences on the passing of a fine husband, father and son.
Mr STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.28 p.m.]: It is with great sorrow that I participate in this condolence motion. In doing so, I acknowledge the comments already made by other 7982 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000 honourable members about Gerry's history and his contributions. I will refer simply to the experience I shared with Gerry in coming into this House very much as a layperson. I was unaccustomed to a life in politics, to life in this House and to the difficulties and traumas that one faces in this Parliament. For four years I sat next to Gerry on the backbench during question time and formed a strong bond of mateship with him. I often travelled with him as a member of various parliamentary committees. I travelled with him to Korea for a couple of weeks where we had an eating competition, which I think I won—but very narrowly.
Gerry was also photographer on that trip. I was going to sue him for defamation because he took photos of my face that I thought could not be real, but I later learnt that was my face and there was not much I could do about it! He did his best with the lens! He was a sincere person. Like everyone else, I was deeply shocked to hear of his passing several weeks ago. Unfortunately, I was travelling away the next day and could not attend his funeral a week later. I deeply regret that. He was the sort of person with whom one could strike a quick and sincere bond. He spoke from his heart and sometimes that got him into trouble, and I can relate to that. He deeply believed in people. Despite all the rhetoric it was not hard to see that Gerry was a humanitarian. He sincerely believed there was truth in people and through that belief I guess he sometimes was a little gullible. We all fall victim to that. This place sharpens one's awareness, however, to some degree he resisted and believed in the sincerity of both Opposition and Government members and that it would lead to the true course of the heart.
In the four years or so I spent with him in this place I learnt a lot from talking and chatting with him in the back rooms, having the odd beer with him, travelling with him to Korea and on parliamentary committees. What I learned from him was probably 10 times what would normally be achieved in four years. I guess in similar ways to me Gerry fell victim to factional brawls. At the end of the day he left politics because of that. I nearly did.. Even though we were from different factions we had similar problems. I understand what he went through and I feel he was very much cheated in that process. It is probably too late to say that now, but that is my sincere feeling.
His wife, Rhonda, is a beautiful woman. She is a lovely person, not only to speak to but through her experience of education, understanding of Gerry's role and contribution to it. I certainly appreciate the trauma she now faces. My heart goes out to her and her family, Katherine, Hugh and Alanna, who are present tonight. Gerry often spoke in this place about his mum, Nina, Robyn and Judi and I acknowledge their presence here tonight.. You have a father, brother and son about whom you should feel very proud not only because of his contribution to this place but also his contribution to society and humanity.
To his children I say this: My father passed away at 57, so I understand what you feel. It is something you have to accept and learn from. You will gain strength from the fact that you were part of your father and his wisdom, his love and his experiences will be perpetuated through you and what you will now do for your children. I give my heartfelt condolences to the family. My heart and prayers are with you.
Mr SPEAKER: It is most unusual for the Speaker to comment on condolence motions, but this has been the most emotional and sincere condolence motion I have had the privilege to chair.
Members and officers of the House stood in their places.
ADOPTION BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 29 June.
Ms BEAMER (Mulgoa) [8.35 p.m.]: This important bill addresses the rights of children and makes them paramount in the adoption process. The bill updates the Adoption Act 1965 and I should like to outline some of its history. In November 1992 the Law Reform Commission received terms of reference to undertake an independent review of the Adoption of Children Act 1965. Following initial consideration by the Law Reform Commission an issues paper was released inviting submissions or comment from people affected in any way by adoption, on how the law operated or how it might be improved. A discussion paper, again inviting comment on the issues relevant to the review, followed the issues paper.
Extensive community consultation has taken place and the commission interviewed many people and organisations with an interest in adoption over a period of more than four years. In addition to general issues in 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7983 adoption practice, the commission undertook special consultations in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues, and for intercountry adoption. The Law Reform Commission considered more than 270 submissions during its independent review of adoption practice.
In addition to the consultation undertaken by the commission, further consultation was undertaken by the department during its consideration of the Law Reform Commission report and recommendations to the Government. This process is clear evidence of the commitment given by this Government to consultation with the community on issues of significant legislative reform. The Law Reform Commission should be commended for the thorough approach it adopted in preparing and presenting recommendations for legislative reform.
I was reassured to hear the Minister's commitment to further consultation with the community during the making of the regulations and other requirements that will support the bill. I am aware also that during the winter recess of Parliament the Minister provided adoption agencies with an opportunity to further consider the bill. I am sure she would like me to acknowledge the opportunity for further consideration of the bill in a public forum provided by the Association of Children's Welfare Agencies and the New South Wales Council of Social Services. This is a good bill. It has the support of the Law Reform Commission, adoption agencies, the New South Wales Committee on Adoption and the adoption community, and response to the recommendations of the commission presented following extensive research and community consultation.
This bill recognises that mothers need support when making a decision about whether to put their babies up for adoption or whether adoption is the appropriate mechanism for their circumstances at the time. This bill recognises that adopted children have rights before the courts and that in all circumstances their welfare must be the central consideration. Honourable members have heard horror stories in years gone by about birth mothers who did not have support from various welfare agencies and thought that putting their babies up for adoption was their only alternative because they were not informed of any other options. Those women may not have had the support of a partner and certainly had no basic support from the Federal Government. Often they were rushed to a decision to put their babies up for adoption, and in some cases the babies were literally taken away from them straight after delivery.
I shudder when I recall stories of young mothers whose eyes were shielded as their babies were taken away from them. It was due to circumstances, through no fault of theirs, that their babies were taken from them. This bill will render such an occurrence impossible. While in practice with adoptions such a course of action has been abandoned over the past few years, the current legislation has not moved with community values. Indeed, any bill that has remained unchanged since 1965 does not reflect current community values. This bill sets out the consents that are required before an order can be made for the adoption of a child—the consents of the parents or guardians of a child who is less than 18 years of age—and that, except in specified circumstances, the consent of the child must be obtained before an adoption order is made.
The bill describes the way consents can be given, when they can be given, their form, the need for them to be appropriately witnessed, and the requirements that must be met for them to be effective. The bill provides that a parent must be given written information and be counselled before consenting to adoption. The bill includes certain additional requirements for consent to the adoption of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children before they can be effective. It removes some current unfair prohibitions with regard to who may be eligible to be an adoptive parent. Gone are the days when people are prohibited because they are overweight or too old. The key criteria now are that a person is capable of providing a child with a loving, caring and safe environment. If we want to make adoption a viable alternative, we have to remove meaningless prohibitions against people who in reality would be terrific parents.
The most important aspect of this bill is its recognition of the paramount rights of the child in adoption; a child's genetic and biological make-up as well as its being in a caring, loving and nurturing environment. The bill is a step forward so that the child is the one we seek to take care of and is paramount in our minds. As I have outlined, this bill has been distributed for extensive community consultation, since the 1992 independent review. This consultative process has not cut out the people who are most affected by adoption law. It has been inclusive of the public and of the agencies that deal with adoption. How people feel about adoption is never an easy issue. I shudder at the idea that people have to make such a big decision in their best interest and the best interest of the child. They must be assured that the child to be adopted will be taken care of under the provisions of this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [8.45 p.m.], by leave: When this bill was introduced one month ago I gave a somewhat animated response because it was introduced in defiance of direct undertakings given by the 7984 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women and the Leader of the House. On that occasion I indicated that because of the way Government members had behaved in introducing the bill, the Opposition would have long and consistent discussions into the night about it. Good sense prevailed at about 9 p.m., when the Leader of the House indicated that special arrangements would be made so that I could address the bill when it was returned to the House at a future date.
I was of the opinion that good sense would prevail and that the bill would not come back at this time but, rather, that it would be put out for public discussion. Quite simply that is what should happen. The bill actually has some very good provisions but it also contains some things about which the Opposition and members of the community are not certain. The community also is not sure about some of its provisions because, contrary to what the honourable member for Mulgoa said, there has not been a lot of public debate about the bill. Quite the opposite—there has been almost no public debate about this bill.
I acknowledge that the bill has been largely born out of a recommendation of the Law Reform Commission's report No. 81, to which I will refer later. This bill was only born about eight weeks ago because the Minister for Community Services decided she needed to put her mark on this place this session and introduced a bill whose subject needs to be revamped and addressed. Not only has the public not had the opportunity to have a proper consideration of the Adoption Bill, the Opposition has been given a sum total of a 20-minute briefing by the Minister and the Government in the week the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Permanency Planning) Bill was introduced. I made it very clear in 20 minutes that the Opposition was extremely unhappy about the way the Adoption Bill and the exposure bill had been introduced.
I had a brief 20 minutes with Mr Harvey Milson. He was not there long enough for me to find out exactly what his position was at the adoption agency. Since that time on a number of occasions I have requested further briefings but met with an absolute blank wall from the Minister. Today it got worse. I had my staff member ring the Minister's office and ask for a briefing when it became apparent that the Adoption Bill was coming on sometime today. I was given a resounding, "No, you will not be given a briefing." We followed that up with another phone call and again were told no. That time we were told that Mr Harvey Milson was unavailable, that he was in meetings all day. My staff member then took a letter down to the policy adviser to the Minister. It stated:
Dear Mr Greenhill,
In relation to our conversation of 12.30 p.m. 8th August 2000.
Brad Hazzard MP, Shadow Minister for Community Services requests a meeting urgently with Mr Harvey Milson to discuss the Adoption Bill 2000.
It is my understanding following our conversation that Mr Milson is not available to discuss the Bill with Mr Hazzard.
I note the Adoption Bill comes before the Parliament this afternoon and it is with urgency that Mr Hazzard discuss several provisions of the Bill with Mr Milson.
I can be contacted on ext. 2716 . . .
Did we get a response? Yes we did. The answer was "No, Mr Milson is busy all afternoon." But when my staff member walked into the Minister's office Mr Milson was there reading a newspaper. I am not knocking that because Mr Milson is doubtless an expert on this bill and does not need to worry about getting any more details. But the point is that the Minister, in a simplistic and silly way, has refused to give the Coalition any information on the bill.
If there is any legislation that should have the support of both sides of the House it is this sort of legislation. Yet we have a bunker mode Minister who obviously does not want us to know that she is not across the detail of the bill; and who will not allow us to get across the detail of the bill either. A further letter was delivered to the Minister's office that was under my hand. Without wasting the time of the House, I had the letter delivered to the Minister's office. It was delivered at 2.30 p.m. and signed for by an excellent and polite staff member at the front desk. It again requested as a matter of urgency that I be given a briefing. The answer was no.
After question time, when I realised that the bill was definitely coming on—it is a bill of great import to the State of New South Wales and to people who want to be adoptive parents—I went down to the Minister's office. I knocked on the door and went into the staff area and found Mr Harvey Milson hightailing it into the Minister's office. I again was told by the chief of staff that I was not able to have a briefing. 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7985
In nearly nine years in this place I have not previously recounted in this Chamber anything that has occurred outside the Chamber with a Minister or member of Parliament on the other side. Debate is conducted in the Chamber, and that is how it should be. But I am shocked, upset and angry that this Minister, who is vested with the carriage of such great and important legislation as the Adoption Bill, can behave in such a facile manner. I say to the Minister: You are letting down your side. You are letting down yourself, and you are certainly letting down the New South Wales Parliament. You are not dignifying the Parliament with your behaviour. I ask the Minister in future to think about what she is doing.
Up until the last six weeks that I have been the shadow minister I have had no negative preconceptions about the Minister. In fact, at a personal level I have been open and friendly with the Minister, and I remain desirous of having such a relationship. But I cannot allow to pass the Minister handling her portfolio in such an unprofessional, inappropriate and immature way. Sadly, this is consistent with the way she has handled the introduction of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Permanency Planning) Bill and the Adoption Bill. I place all that on the record so that when others read this speech on the Internet, in Hansard or at conferences they will know that the Opposition was trying to have an intelligent debate on the bill but was very limited in its capacity to partake in a meaningful way simply because a facile, puerile approach was adopted by the Minister. I do not blame her staff. They are probably equally embarrassed about it. I certainly do not blame Mr Harvey Milson. I heard him speak at a conference last Friday week and I believe him to be a capable, intelligent, considered and able bureaucrat who would have been able to provide a level of input to the Coalition and the crossbench had we had the opportunity of a proper briefing. Having said that, I returned to what I know of history of this bill. It is the first rewrite of the 1965 adoption legislation. In 1992 the Coalition Attorney General, John Hannaford, requested the Law Reform Commission to review adoption legislation processes. The commission produced its report No. 81 about four years ago and it has sat with the Government since that time. As I indicated briefly at the outset of my speech, I understand that about eight weeks ago the Minister must have given instructions to produce a bill. I acknowledge that the bill referred to in her second reading speech seems to be largely in conformity with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. However, there are some glaring differences, and I will address those briefly in a moment. The significance of the legislation, and what makes me so angry about the way the Minister has handled it, is that the 1965 adoption legislation was quite different from the present bill. Mothers in the thousands were having babies adopted out. As the Minister noted this morning in a conversation with Philip Clark on 2BL, and as generally reported, the number of adoptions in the State is very low now. The number the Minister reported this morning was 16. I have heard numbers up to about 29. If overseas adoptions are included the figure may be 70 or 80. But even including all the possible ranges of adoptions, the number is dramatically less than it was in 1965, when the adoption legislation was put into place. The community also has a different attitude. There was a belief that babies should be taken away from their mothers very soon after birth. There are horrific stories of mothers having the sheets raised around them and pillows placed in the way so that they would not see their babies. Effectively, the mother lost her newborn baby instantly. Shortly after the physical taking of the baby, processes were put into place to remove as much as possible of the knowledge, understanding and psychological problems associated with taking the baby. There was in effect a method of simply drawing the covers across new life and trying to convince everybody that the event had simply never happened. Those babies went to new parents. Now, years later, particularly over the past decade, we have seen the results of those policies, which, with the benefit of hindsight, we know were clearly wrong. A committee of the Legislative Council is currently conducting an inquiry into the circumstances of children and parents separated by those adoption practices. That committee is chaired by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. One of the concerns that the Opposition has about this legislation is that it has been rushed into this Chamber without adequate public debate and at a time when this very Parliament is undertaking an inquiry that, in some cases, is taking very sensitive evidence from people who have suffered from policies that resulted in their separation at birth or close to birth. If the Government were being entirely reasonable and sensible and not playing games, it would await the recommendations of its own committee to determine whether it is necessary to make any modifications to this legislation. Sadly, that will not happen because the legislation is being pushed along with undue and rude haste. Many people who have given evidence to that committee are aware that this bill was to come before the Parliament. Some of those people would like the bill delayed—not indefinitely, but long enough to ensure that 7986 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000 any sensible and worthwhile recommendations flowing from the work of that committee can be incorporated in this legislation. I ask the Minister, if she is to insist that this bill be passed through this House today or tomorrow, to at least consider delaying its passage through the upper House so that that committee can complete the taking of all evidence and the presentation of its report and recommendations. I do not expect a positive response from the Minister, who so far has exhibited a total lack of understanding of the issue. But I still raise the issue.
As I said at the outset, some aspects of this legislation are good. Some of its provisions reflect current and modern practices as well as an understanding of best practice in relation to adoptions. We now have an openness about the adoption system that makes contact possible through the register that was established by legislation in 1990, and this measure encourages further openness with adoptions. We now understand the importance of children having a sense of their history, of where they came from, for their own psychological wellbeing. They also need to know their medical history. Even if they do not want a knowledge of their roots, they do need to have an understanding of their medical history and so on. The sense of history and medical history enables children to place themselves in the world. This legislation would appear to do that, and to that extent the Opposition is supportive of the various provisions of the bill that go to those issues.
It is probably unnecessary to go through the bill in detail. However, last Friday week I attended an excellent one-day conference convened by the Association of Childrens Welfare Agencies [ACWA]. A number of people spoke at that conference. They included the Director-General of the Department of Community Services, who primarily focused on permanency planning legislation. I look forward to having a lot more to say about that legislation if we are forced to debate it in this place. I hope we will not be, because quite clearly the majority of the views expressed at that meeting were that permanency planning legislation would turn back the clock and to some extent damage the 1988 package of children and young persons care and protection legislation. We may well not have to debate that legislation because Carmel Niland indicated, contrary to various statements that the Minister has made in public, that the Minister apparently is not now wedded to the provisions of the permanency planning legislation. We will see whether we have to debate that measure at length.
In the afternoon section of the conference there was a very good review by a number of people, including Harvey Milson, who is in the gallery. Obviously, the conference could not deal with the detail of the issue, but Harvey Milson gave an overview of the bill. Catherine Gray, of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, raised a number of issues, some quite significant and others less significant. The general view would appear to be that the bill, because of the way it has been introduced and is being pushed through, definitely will require quite a few amendments. That is unsatisfactory, but it is consistent with the way in which this matter has been approached thus far.
Harvey Milson outlined the significant provisions of the bill. He said that it was 35 years since the introduction of the existing legislation. He and others spoke about the fact—repeated a number of times in the bill—that the paramount consideration must be the best interests of the child and that the legislation should reflect adoption as a service to children. The Coalition totally supports that aspect of the bill. It supports the bill being totally child centred and child focused; that is, that it focuses entirely on the best interests of the child.
A number of other significant aspects were mentioned during the conference. I congratulate the Government to the extent that it is high time that consideration is given to the views of children. This bill specifically gives rights to children in certain circumstances, subject to certain caveats, enabling them to participate in the actual adoption decision. Of course, it recognises that children of different ages and different levels of maturity may make contributions of varying weight to that consideration. The Coalition acknowledges and supports that. The bill also allows for recognition of the Hague Convention regarding obligations to children. The Coalition understands and supports that aspect of the bill. In that regard, it provides for automatic recognition of adoption orders made in countries that are signatories to the Hague Convention. That is a sound, commonsense provision. The bill also focuses on a child's Aboriginality—whether a child is from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background. The cultural heritage of a child must be considered and, if at all possible, identified and preserved. Arrangements must be put in place to ensure that children have an opportunity to experience their cultural heritage in their upbringing. The sequitur is that children will as far as practicable be placed with appropriate Aboriginal families. The Opposition would like to hear more from this Minister—anything from this Minister— about how she will ensure that her department supports Aboriginal families who will take up this burden. There are a 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7987 disproportionate number of Aboriginal children in foster care who, if the Minister gets her way, may be considered for adoption. The Opposition does not support that move with the same fervour and vigour as the Minister. Nevertheless, we would like to have some explanation of how we can guarantee support to parents who will adopt even a small number of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children.
A major concern in the sector at this stage is that adoption in this State can have wonderful outcomes for children but may also be an easy way out for a government that does not want to provide support for adopted children. In other words, an adoption order is made and the door is closed on the family home. The Department of Community Services, under direction from the Government—or perhaps a lack thereof—switches off and closes the file, probably misplacing it. It does not matter that that adoptive family may be in difficult circumstances or that the child may have suffered significant psychological damage prior to the adoption process. It does not matter that the child may have significant cultural or heritage needs. Unfortunately, at present the Government does not see its role as providing extensive support for such families. The Opposition calls on the Government to acknowledge this point. It was raised extensively at the conference and people in the sector have discussed it with me. It deserves the Government's consideration and we look forward to the Minister's response in that regard—if there is any.
This legislation is about babies, children and older people with disabilities, but I wish to focus for a moment on the circumstances to which I referred earlier. We have come a long way in the process of removing babies from their mothers. This legislation contains a requirement for counselling, which we welcome. It also requires that an explanation be given to a mother about what documents she will sign in consenting to an adoption. I raised that issue at the conference last Friday week and sought some answers to my question, but none were forthcoming because no one knew the answers. However, I am sure the Minister knows those answers. What does she envisage will happen in those circumstances?
The person who provides counselling about this major life decision—a mother is relinquishing her child and even under the new openness provisions will have limited access to that child—must be an accredited counsellor. What qualifications will the counsellor have who assumes this vital role? What qualifications will be required of the person who offers legal advice that when a mother signs the consent forms, that is it? Although there is what might be called a cooling-off period, effectively when a mother signs the consent forms, that is it. I asked that question of workers in the field and academics, and although they recognised the issue, they did not know the answer. They could not discern it from this legislation and they have not been briefed about this matter. I do not think anyone knows at this stage. Perhaps the Minister knows and, if she does, I ask her to share her knowledge with the New South Wales Parliament and the people of New South Wales. How will she ensure that mums in those circumstances receive adequate and proper counselling and advice? We have seen the horrible results of past mistakes in that area and the Opposition is keen to ensure that we all get it right this time. It is interesting to note that, under existing law, girls aged 14 or 15 cannot enter into an enforceable contract in New South Wales to buy a television. They cannot enter into a contract for a mobile phone if they are under 18 years because they do not have legal capacity. If we accept that people under 18 years of age cannot enter into those sorts of contracts, what provision is the Government making to address the issue of entering into a lasting contract to give up a child? I suspect that the Government does not have an answer to that question and I strongly suggest that that is one of the reasons why this legislation should not be passed through Parliament with indecent haste.
Clause 90 of the bill refers to the criteria that a court must consider when determining whether an adoption order should be made. We do not have a problem with most of the criteria, which appear to be reasonable. I think it is the first time that there has been such prescription for the courts when considering issues significant to the adoption process. I welcome the move down that path. A provision in clause 90 (1) (h) that does not make much sense leapt out at the Coalition. I apologise to the House for taking time to raise these issues but, as I said earlier, I could not raise them with Mr Milson or departmental staff because they would not make themselves available today to discuss the legislation. Clause 90 (1) (h) states:
In the case of a child (other than an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child)—that the culture, any disability, language, religion— we do not have a problem with any of those criteria—
and sexuality of the child and, as far as possible, that the child's given names, identity, language and cultural and religious ties have been taken into account in the making of any adoption plan in relation to the adoption. 7988 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
We welcome all that, but we do not understand why it is necessary for a child's sexuality to be considered in the context of this bill. This is a simple issue that we could have sorted out with the Government, and I have sorted out these issues before with other Ministers. The Opposition does not understand why it is necessary for those words to be included. If there is a simple explanation, the Minister might give it to us. I put the Minister on notice that in the absence of an explanation the Opposition will move an amendment in Committee to remove those words relating to sexuality. I spoke with Parliamentary Counsel tonight about our concerns with this and it was pointed out that clause 32 (1) contains a similar provision. This comes under the category of children other than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Clause 32 (1) says:
In placing a child (other than an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child) for adoption, the decision maker must take into account the culture, any disability, language, religion and sexuality of the child and the principle that the child's given name, identity, language and cultural and religious ties should, as far as possible, be preserved.
Again, we fail to see the significance of a child's sexuality. It was even suggested by one of my colleagues that what is meant by that provision is gender and that it was simply a drafting error. If it is, we would welcome an acknowledgement that it is a drafting error and would not oppose an amendment. I indicate to the House that in Committee I will move two amendments. The first will be:
Page 20, clause 32, line 7. Omit the words "religion and sexuality" and insert instead "and religion".
The second amendment will be:
Page 53, clause 90, lines 2 and 3. Omit the words "religion and sexuality" and insert instead "and religion".
The Opposition encourages an approach that takes all the other matters into account. Again, because the Opposition was unable to get any answers, we had to look at the issues ourselves, without all the support services and intelligence of the government bureaucrats who understand these issues. We looked at clause 27. This bill makes adoption by one person possible. Clause 27 (1) provides:
Basic requirements One person may, subject to this Act, adopt a child only if the person is:
(a) resident or domiciled in the State, and (b) of good repute and a fit and proper person to fulfil the responsibilities of a parent.
They are the basic requirements. There are then some age requirements that I do not think we need go into. Subclause (3) refers to the consent of a spouse. It states:
The Court must not make an adoption order in favour of one person who is living with a spouse unless the person's spouse consents in writing to the application for the adoption order.
What are the implications of that provision? On the one hand it would appear to be a good provision. It is a fairly frequent occurrence that a person who is living with a parent of a child or children desires or feels disposed, after an appropriate period, to adopt the child or children of the partner. It could be suggested that is not necessary under the provisions of the Family Law Act. Under section 5 of that Act a child is deemed to be a child of the marriage if the child lives within that relationship. Legal consequences regarding the maintenance and support of the child flow from that, but for a person who wants to take the extra step of saying to a child, "I really want you to be my child and I want to adopt you," the current law is a bit silly. Effectively, it requires the birth parent to give up the right as guardian of the child or children, at least briefly, in the process of an application to the Supreme Court, and to make a dual or combined application to the Supreme Court for the adoption of the child or children.
On the face of it that is a silly process, and if one looks at this legislation one realises that certain issues flow from trying to address it. When I was a practising solicitor I thought that was an unusual requirement, a bit ponderous, difficult, probably unnecessary, and silly. A suggestion by the Law Reform Commission has been adopted in this bill, and that is clause 27 (1) that I referred to earlier. The Coalition is very comfortable with this provision but we wonder whether the community would actively support a single parent—in other words, a person who is genuinely single, not with a partner—being given the capacity, subject only to the various provisions in this bill, to adopt a child. This raises in our minds many of the issues that have been in the public forum in the past couple of weeks. They are: What are the best circumstances for a child? Are the best circumstances for a child to be brought up by a single parent? We acknowledge that many single parents are excellent parents, loving, kind, nurturing and unbelievably caring, and will do a fantastic job. However, that knowledge must be considered in the context that 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7989
Parliament is considering legislation that will give a single parent the power to make an application for adoption of a child when that person has had no experience as a parent, other than the requirement of having known the child for a period of time, and may not have any greater capacity to provide a loving and nurturing environment than a man and woman in a loving family relationship. I understand that raising issues of that sort can inflame passions. I assure the Minister that the Coalition is supportive of single parents who are doing it tough in looking after their children; they do a wonderful job. But whether that is the desirable option, all other things being equal, is an issue that we want to address. The Coalition is not sure of the community's views in regard to this bill. We would be more comfortable if this issue, together with others that have been raised tonight—issues that I have attempted to raise with the Minister and her advisers—were subjected to a public consultation process. Earlier the honourable member for Mulgoa said that there had been a lot of public debate about the bill. I do not for one second assail her integrity or decency; she is the mother of five children and well understands the significance of parenting and the role of a parent. However, this bill has not been subjected to public discussion. This is a somewhat lesser and different bill to that put forward in the Law Reform Commission Report No. 81. That is the issue that troubles the Coalition. We seek in-depth consideration of the issues involved; we would like to know that the Parliament is getting it right and not merely putting a ministerial stamp on the bill. The Coalition would like the bill to undergo a public consultation process. Therefore, in addition to the proposed amendments to delete the aspects of sexuality of children from various clauses of the bill, I indicate that the desirability of a public consultation process alone would be sufficient for the Coalition to take the steps it plans to take. Because of time constraints there are some concerns that I have not raised tonight, but the Coalition proposes that if the Minister rams the bill through this Chamber without setting up an adequate public consultation process, when the bill reaches the Legislative Council the Opposition will seek to refer it the Standing Committee on Social Issues. I turn now to clause 28, which refers to adoption by a couple. I am a little confused, because this morning on radio 2BL the Minister was asked a simple question by Philip Clark. Mr Clark repeated the question in case the Minister did not understand it. He asked, "Can single or gay people adopt?" The Minister enthusiastically replied, "There is no discrimination on single people." Her answer was not clear regarding couples. Mr Clark then asked, "Are single and gay people precluded from adopting?" The Minister replied, "They are not precluded from adopting." Clause 28 raises some issues peripheral to her discussions with Philip Clark this morning. I am not certain of the interpretation of clause 28. Today I had another look at that provision and tried to speak to academics about it. Despite what the Minister said unclearly this morning, the bill probably does not allow for homosexual couples, gay couples, to adopt children. If that is correct, the Opposition is very comfortable with that, because we believe that the children's interests should be paramount—and that is mentioned a number of times in the bill. The Opposition understands that, regardless of sexuality, people can be extremely loving to children. However, we believe that the ideal situation—that is, for the best interests of the child—would be for the child to have the benefit of a father and a mother if at all possible. On my most earnest interpretation of it, this provision does not allow for adoption by homosexual couples; but it is difficult to know! As I said earlier, in detail, the Opposition has not been given the benefit of the Minister's wisdom. I suspect that she does not understand this provision. More importantly, I was not seeking a briefing from the Minister, I was seeking a briefing from Mr Harvey Milson. He has been sitting comfortably in this Chamber for the past couple of hours but was not permitted to spare me 10 minutes. Why is interpretation of this provision so difficult? When the bill was first debated I pointed out to the Minister that I was angry about the way in which it had been introduced into this House. I told her that a quick reading of the bill indicated that there seemed to be a problem with the definition of a "couple" in clause 23 on page 15. I referred the Minister to that clause, but I suspect that she has not looked at it. It states:
Note. Couple is defined in the Dictionary to mean a man or woman who are married or have a de facto relationship. The difficulty is with the words "man or woman". Within the ambit of the sentence I can interpret those words as not referring to a homosexual couple, but I am unsure about it. Tonight I spoke with the Parliamentary Counsel to try to work this out; he was the only person with Government authority that I could find to help me. On page 150, in the dictionary section, "couple" is defined as meaning a man and a woman who are married or in have a de facto relationship. The definitional provisions appear to be in conflict and I ask the Minister to clarify that aspect. My understanding is that the dictionary definition takes precedence over the notes in the bill. If the Minister had taken any notice of what I said to her a month ago, logically she would have sent her people away to fix the problem. However, logic is in short supply at the moment. 7990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000
Perhaps the Minister could clarify for the people of New South Wales, especially those who are interested in this matter, whether the definition on page 150 is the definition that she intended, or whether she intended the definition contained in clause 23 on page 15. If it is the dictionary definition, I believe that this bill does not provide for adoption by a homosexual couple. In accordance with the Coalition's stated position of what we consider to be the best interests of the child—that is, access to a man and a woman in a loving environment—then we would be comfortable with this provision. However, if it is the alternative, if this provision does provide for adoption by a homosexual couple, we will oppose the relevant provisions in the upper House.
Again, those factors simply add weight to the argument that this issue should be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Issues. Whilst addressing that issue, I have an obligation to point out to the House that in the course of tracking down precisely what was meant by that provision and in the pursuit of what the Coalition believes is in the best interests of children—that is, being in a loving environment and having a father and a mother—it was drawn to my attention that the preceding provision, clause 27, which as I said earlier has a good deal of merit to it in some ways, will provide for adoption of a child by one person. It has been suggested to me that that provision may be used by a couple in a homosexual relationship, because if they wish to adopt a child they do not have to apply as a couple. Rather, one of the couple would simply make the application under the provisions of clause 27, satisfy the requirements as laid down under the Act, and the court would have to consider those issues under the provisions of clause 90.
In so doing, if no mention was made of, or no focus placed on, the sexuality of the parent there is no obligation on the prospective adoptive parent to disclose his or her sexuality when applying to adopt a child. It would appear that under the provisions of this bill—prior to the amendments foreshadowed by the Coalition— the only issue of sexuality relates to the sexuality of the child. I reiterate my earlier comments in relation to clause 90 (1) (h): perhaps this issue should be discussed in the community. We have not heard a word from the Minister on this issue. Either she did not understand it or she was not aware of it. Either way, this issue should be discussed publicly, and the Coalition believes that is reason enough for this bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Issues. In some cases a relative may have known the child for many years or a person may been living with the child for many years, and the court may consider it appropriate—indeed, it may be in the best interests of the child—for an order to be made in favour of a single person, irrespective of sexuality. However, we should have the opportunity to discuss, debate and, more fundamentally, understand these precise issues. Finally, this morning Philip Clark asked the Minister, "Why have you not referred this to the Family Court?". At the dawn of the new millennium why is the Minister not allowing the Family Court, which has the best knowledge of children and families, the opportunity to be involved in determining what are or are not the best interests of the child? As a lawyer I respect other lawyers of great skill in a variety of areas. I recognise that skilful lawyers in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court may understand the noted principles associated with the law of equity, but I am not so sure that they understand how to determine what are the best interests of a child, even with the directions under this bill. The Minister's response to Philip Clark's question was, "Well, I rely on my advice, and the advice from my department is that the Supreme Court is the right place, the most appropriate place, to have these decisions made." There is an old saying that your advice is only as good as the quality of the question asked. Perhaps the Minister has not asked the right question, because the answer to the problem is not what she said. Rather, the Minister has lacked the vision, capacity, direction and understanding of just how important it is, at this stage of development in adoption law and family law, to take the long path of trying to bring adoption under the auspices of the Family Court. This morning the Minister rightly said that the Family Court is a Federal Court. At the ministerial conferences attended by the Minister—and I have done a bit of checking on this—she has not tried to get other State and Territory Ministers to agree to have this legislation made uniform around the country and to give to the Family Court the powers relating to adoption. That is what the Minister should be doing. We should not be rushing this bill through now. The Minister should be taking the initiative to bring together the other Ministers on this issue. If she did that she would have 100 per cent support from the Coalition, because we are earnestly of the view that it is time for the Family Court to consider taking over the role of determining what is appropriate in adoption cases. It is the best court to understand what is in the best interests of the child. I understand that there are issues about cost vesting legislation and the Federal-State relationship. But if the Minister simply spends her time going on television carrying on about how I am going to push for adoption as the preferred or at least highly preferred option in permanency planning rather than sitting down and discussing these substantive issues, then she is letting the side and the State down. 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7991
I look forward at some stage to a discussion with Mr Harvey Milson, whose assistance I craved today. I suggest that the Minister should allow us to have that discussion so that there can be further input in the upper House by my Liberal Party and National Party colleagues. If she chooses not to allow it, she can travel on her way with the simplistic approach she has taken thus far. We will survive. However, the Coalition is concerned that the best for the State and for the children may not be achieved. The Minister had the opportunity for the matter to be dealt with in a bipartisan way. Despite my anger at the moment, she still has the opportunity for at least 95 per cent of the bill to be dealt with on a bipartisan basis. We can make sure that this is a good bill that works in the interests of the children and the parents who will form a relationship with those children.
When the wheel turns and Labor shadow Ministers seek assistance on substantive and difficult issues, such as the adoption of children and permanency planning, if I am the Minister I will make sure that the Opposition gets a fair go and I will consider the intelligence and collective wisdom of Opposition members. I will not shut them down, I will not play silly little games, I will not shut doors, I will not tell my chief adoption agency person to sit down and not discuss the matter. I cannot imagine how that poor man felt today. He would have been embarrassed about the Minister's behaviour, and the Minister should be embarrassed about her behaviour.
Mr W. D. SMITH (South Coast) [9.52 p.m.]: It is with some degree of satisfaction that I speak in support of the Adoption Bill. Access to information about adoption is important to adopted children and to their parents. The merging of the Adoption Information Act with this bill reflects the lifelong consequences of an adoption. The fact that adoption will no longer be shrouded in secrecy can only enhance adoption as an acceptable alternative for the permanent care of children. This secrecy is the most destructive factor for an adopted person. The fact that parents can now enter into a plan that does not undervalue their continuing involvement in their child's future is to be applauded. The bill provides for two or more parties to the adoption of a child to agree to an adoption plan before an order is made for the adoption of the child. An adoption plan can contain provision for matters such as the exchange of information between the parties about a child's development and important events in the child's life, the means and nature of continuing contact between the parties and ways to foster the child's cultural identity. The court is required to take any adoption plan into account in making an adoption order, as provided in clause 90. Clause 50 provides that the parties may register an adoption plan. If they do so, it has effect as if it were part of the adoption order. The fact that a parent enters into an adoption arrangement does not remove the need to have knowledge of continuing events in the child's life. Information about significant events, health and social, educational and sporting achievements are important to a parent. To be reassured that this information will be available overcomes some of their fears. It is equally important to be able to respond to the inquisitive nature of children. To be able to request an approach to a birth parent to obtain medical or ancestral information is a huge step forward in a more open approach to adoption. Adoption information provisions for adult parties to adoption are retained, with a protective veto and advance notice provisions. These provisions will protect from unwanted intrusion. The bill gives adult adopted persons access to information about their origins and also gives birth parents and adoptive parents of adult adopted persons access to information about their children. It preserves controls that adoptive parents have over the access of adopted children to information about their origins, while recognising the paramount interests of the adopted children. The bill also gives relatives of adopted persons, both parents and other persons, access to information about the adopted person's origins in special circumstances. It protects the privacy of adopted persons and both parents through a system of vetos against contact with persons identified through access to information concerning persons adopted before the date of assent to the 1990 Act. The bill limits the disclosure of information concerning the personal affairs of persons that might unduly intrude on their privacy. The bill retains the reunion and information register which facilitates reunions between adopted persons, birth parents and other persons, if desired by the persons concerned, and also facilitates an exchange of messages between persons concerned in or affected by an adoption. I am pleased that the process of applying to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages for an authority to access information about an adoption has been changed. That change addresses confusing provisions of the Act that were difficult to administer. An application is now made to the department responsible for administering the Adoption Act. This provision will also address any confusion for children adopted from another country and allow them to access information that was preserved at the time an adoption order was made.
The psychology of an adopted person is very interesting. The major issue for an adopted person is rejection at birth. In most cases there are good reasons for a birth mother's decision to put her child up for 7992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000 adoption, but through the eyes of an adoptee the child has been given away and rejected. This is a complex notion and cannot be shown or proved scientifically. But I assure the House that a bond develops between the unborn child and his or her mother. I know this and I feel this, as I am an adopted person. The bond between the mother and the unborn child is broken and an adoptee has to contend with this broken bond forever. It feels as though something is missing in the adoptee's life and a black cloud follows him around. An adoptee feels a degree of melancholy most of the time.
The question arises: How does that feeling impact on an adoptee's behaviour? Because the issue is one of rejection, a continuum of behaviours swings between two extremes. The first extreme is compliance: wanting to please and say yes all the time. An adoptee does not want anyone to reject him again because, frankly, it hurts. The other extreme is defiance, aggression and unco-operative behaviour. An adopted person feels as though he is going to be rejected anyway so he may as well get it out of the way quick smart by alienating people. If a person does not know that he or she has been adopted those sorts of behaviours are a constant puzzle. For an adopted person, the challenge is to find that balance between the two extremes of being compliant—that is, a "yes" person all the time—and, at the other end of the scale, being quite obnoxious all the time.
Some five years ago I counselled a 45-year-old female who was an adoptee. I spoke with her for about two hours trying to shed some light on why she behaved in certain ways. She was very unhappy, and had been so seemingly forever. She had two adult children, and she told me that when she visited them she would have to psyche herself up at their front door so that she could greet them with a hug when they answered. Such was her fear of rejection, a fear that her own adult children would not hug back—a most peculiar behaviour, but certainly one that is linked with those notions of rejection. On the last day of the parliamentary session before the winter recess a letter was faxed to me by a mother whose first child had been put up for adoption some years before. I should like to read the letter to the House, for it reveals much about the feelings of a relinquishing birth mother. It reads:
Dear Wayne,
I was seventeen years old, pregnant in Sydney having travelled there from a country town where the stigma of being pregnant and unmarried was overwhelming.
Originally I went into a Salvation Army Hostel at Stanmore, but when I learned that after the birth of my child I would be expected to care for the child for 6 weeks and then hand him/her over I knew that I could not do it but also could not bring the child up alone with no Government support.
I stayed with my sister until several weeks before the expected birth when I entered the Royal Women's Hospital at Paddington's unmarried mother's accommodation.
I had several sessions with a counsellor at the hospital and I was not only made to feel totally immoral, but that there was only one option for me and that was adoption.
I was never told that I had the right to change my mind and imagine my dismay when the child's father's mother returned and blamed me for the fact that "I had given away her grandson".
I received no proper counselling, no help and no understanding. I was never allowed to see or hold my child and spent 35 years looking at blonde boys who looked like me or his father.
These feelings are ones I have held inside myself and not sought counselling because strong people just survive. I have, but at what bloody cost.
When the Adoption laws were changed so that adopted children and relinquishing parents could seek out their children and parents, I decided that while I would not put a "bar" across, I would not actively seek my child. Had I found that child, or a young man or a grown man as he has become, and he rejected me, I would not have been able to bear that rejection while I would have understood with my head, my heart would have bled.
My son actually found me and his natural sister, about 5 years ago so there is a happy ending to all of this, but the loss for 35 years was very hard to bear and to this day, there are very few people who have been entrusted with my story. You are one of them because I know you to be a person of understanding and an adopted child yourself. I believe the letter encapsulates the feelings of relinquishing mothers. Some of the matters I referred to before I read the letter perhaps show the feelings of those of us who are adopted. I believe that this bill addresses the rights of all the parties to an adoption and promotes an obligation to be open and honest in the endeavours to make the most appropriate placement for a child entrusted into an adoption arrangement. I commend the Minister for Community Services for her excellent work, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr O'DOHERTY (Hornsby) [10.04 p.m.]: The Adoption Bill is an overdue rewrite of adoption laws in this State, which have not been rewritten for some decades. I welcome the opportunity to be part of that 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7993 process, to the extent that the Opposition has been allowed to be part of that process. I do not intend to reiterate everything that my colleague the shadow Minister for Community Services has referred to. However, I make the point that when I was the shadow Minister for Community Services prior to becoming shadow Treasurer, this bill was in preparation. I can attest to the House that not once did the Government indicate to me, as the shadow Minister, that the adoption laws were being rewritten, that a bill was about to be introduced to the House, or that this issue was on the Government's agenda.
There was certainly some public discussion about permanency planning, and I intend to have a lot to say about permanency planning when that bill is debated in this House in October. However, there was no indication that the adoption laws were being rewritten. There were no briefings, no policy papers, no sharing of information—nothing like the bipartisan approach which, as I understand it, has, throughout the history of this Parliament, been the approach sought in relation to adoption matters and other matters of that nature. I decry the treatment that the honourable member for Wakehurst, the shadow Minister for Community Services, received today when he sought briefings on questions that have arisen during the course of the Opposition's examination of this bill.
Having said that, on my reading of the bill there is much about it that is to be commended. It recognises the importance of making decisions that are in the best interests of the adopted child. One of the most important provisions of the bill is that it moves away from the language of goods and chattels that treated children as possessions of their parents, which was one of the features of the 1965 Act. It was a feature that the Law Reform Commission picked up on when it wrote its Report 81 in review of the Adoption of Children Act 1965. As we have heard already in this debate, Law Reform Commission Report 81 led to the process by which this bill has now been brought before the House. Having said that, despite what Government members, including the honourable member for Mulgoa and the Minister, have said in this debate, the Law Reform Commission conducted its review quite some time ago and it has been open for public scrutiny for a number of years.
The actual reference was made under the previous Government, by John Hannaford, the then Attorney General. However, it is not correct to say that after the Law Reform Commission's report hit the decks, including recommendations about a change to the Act, anything actually happened. The current Government has not progressed it in all of its five years, until it started to draft the bill in a fairly hurried process just a couple of months ago. Certainly there has been no public discussion about the Act. If members of the public were involved in the process leading up to the Law Reform Commission's Report 81, those same members of the public had absolutely no idea that the bill was about to be introduced into the Parliament, and they have not had an opportunity to comment on it. Indeed, to support that argument, the bill that is before the Parliament differs in many respects from the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. Therefore logic would dictate that further public consultation should have taken place, but that has not occurred.
However, as the shadow Minister for Community Services has said, many provisions of the bill are commendable. Many of them put into modern, plain English principles of adoption that have been increasingly modernised—starting with the then Attorney General, John Hannaford, when he moved, in a very significant way, government policy in this State towards open adoptions. Those principles have been well received by people working in the field because they are the way that a modern society such as ours ought to conduct adoption policy. For example, children ought to have as much information as possible about their natural parents. I pay great respect to what the honourable member for South Coast said in reflecting on his personal life story. I have sat with foster agency workers as they have been through their policies to do with life story book work—something that is at the cutting edge of what they do these days in foster care. The life story book work ensures that the children who are fostered out grow up with the kind of understanding that children who live with their natural families have about who they are, where they came from and what their history is, so that they have a story to tell about themselves.
It is critical to the development of those children, and in the case of adoption it is much more difficult. I pay tribute to the achievements of John Hannaford and others in the Greiner and Fahey governments did in opening up the processes of adoption in New South Wales. In most instances adopted children are now able to have the same understanding of who they are as non-adopted children, and can go on to lead full productive lives as they grow to adulthood and hopefully become parents themselves. I want to focus on two issues that concern me greatly. I am not sure that the Government is clear on these issues either. The first can probably be dealt with more easily than the second.
The honourable member for Wakehurst has already given notice of his intention to move an amendment to omit the word "sexuality" from the bill when it becomes a criterion that the court making an 7994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000 adoption order must take into account in determining what is in the best interests of the child. It does not seem reasonable that the court should wonder about the sexuality of a five-year-old, an eight-year-old, a 10-year-old, a 12-year-old or indeed a 15-year-old child–the definition of "child" is the common English definition so that it could be anyone from birth to age 18—who is going through puberty and who is concerned about his or her emerging sexuality. There is plenty of literature to support the view that often there is a great deal of confusion among young people about these issues as they reach puberty and as they start to understand what sexuality is.
For a court to take into account at that very vulnerable point when making an adoption order the fact that a child is identifying as a homosexual could be the worst possible decision in the long-term interests of the child, because it may end any normal process of searching that would ultimately result in the child coming back to a heterosexual preference when fully mature. The notion that sexuality needs to be taken into account so far as children are concerned is absurd. I will fully support the amendment that the honourable member for Wakehurst will move at the Committee stage. That issue is probably easily dismissed because I suspect it is some kind of drafting error, or someone was trying it on. It is not even a recommendation of the Law Reform Commission in relation to a criterion to be used in assessing the needs of the child.
I do not know how the word came to be in the bill, but it should not be there. The second issue is related, but a little more complex, and deals with whether persons living in same sex relationships, but who want to adopt as a single person, will be in a position to adopt children once the legislation is enacted. On radio this morning the Minister appeared to indicate that the Government would allow children living in New South Wales to be adopted by people living in same sex relationships. In response to a question asked by Philip Clark the Minister said that it was something that was not a cause for discrimination in New South Wales under the legislation.
Mrs Lo Po': In respect of singles.
Mr O'DOHERTY: That is my point. The honourable member for Wakehurst has referred to there being two separate definitions of "couple" in the bill, but I suspect that the definition that prevails is the dictionary definition in the bill, which is basically a heterosexual couple. We would like the Minister's confirmation on that point. But the legislation is unclear where it refers to a single person adopting. There is nothing, for example, in clause 27 "Adoption by one person" that would preclude a person living in a same sex relationship from adopting as a single person. The clause does not provide a test as to whether the person adopting as a single adopter is living in a same sex relationship, is living in a heterosexual relationship or even has a relationship.
The word "single" in the bill does not refer to the person's marital status, but to his or her status as an adopter of the child. On my lay person's reading of the bill it would be possible for a person adopting as a single to adopt a child, but for that person to be living in a day-to-day, same sex relationship. If that is so we will very clearly have a law that will open the door to children being adopted by people living in a same sex relationship. I do not believe that is in the best interests of children. If we are going to debate in New South Wales what same sex relationships are about let us debate it in a more open way rather than leaving the door open by omission in a significant re-write of significant legislation; legislation that is supposed to deal with the rights of children. This should not be a vehicle by which the Law Reform Commission, Jan Burnswoods and others who support this view can see the nature of families in New South Wales slowly opening up.
The community is not ready for such a change. It is not in the best interests of the community for the legislation to be left in its current form, leaving open the possibility that same sex couples will easily be able to adopt children. The Law Reform Commission said in its report No. 81, and this is reflected clearly in the bill, that the rights of the children, what is best for the children, must be taken into account when we are considering adoption. Therefore this legislation is not a place for driving other social objectives, whether it is a social objective of the Law Reform Commission or any of the people who support the argument. In considering the objections raised to the Law Reform Commission's strong recommendation that adoption by same sex couples be possible—as we understand it the Greens in another place will move the same amendment, an amendment the Coalition will oppose—the Law Reform Commission was far too dismissive of some very significant community objections on this question. [Extension of time agreed to.]
In its report No. 81, and reports it has produced in relation to other matters, the Law Reform Commission asserts that moral and religious arguments are personal. In other papers I have read it has advanced the argument that there is no validity in any sense of community, any shared community values, any shared sense of morality among our community. Often those things that are believed by individuals and shared with 8 August 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7995 others form the strongest basis of our communities and the strongest basis of family. Without those kinds of shared beliefs we do not have a community, nor do we have a society. The Law Reform Commission is wrong to so easily dismiss those concerns of the community by simply trying to assert, as it does here and elsewhere, that any question of morality is a purely personal decision. It is far more than that and it goes to the very nature and essence of communities.
The Law Reform Commission dismisses too easily the questions raised with it about the appropriate role modelling for children who may be adopted by same sex couples. The Law Reform Commission acknowledged the argument put do it, but made no comment. But this is a critical issue, especially for young children. I do not believe there is doubt in the literature, and I certainly have no doubt, as to the necessity for both boys and girls to develop under the care of appropriate and suitable male and female role models. I believe, and I understand the literature backs me up on this, that it is most ideal for those role models to be both a mother and father. Our society abounds in cases where that is not possible for a variety of reasons, but we are not being asked tonight to make decisions about those cases.
Honourable members are being asked to approve a rewriting of the Adoption Bill. This legislation will be brought into play not in cases in which families have broken down or are experiencing stress, which will be addressed by other law on another occasion, but when the State is either asked to or is required to intervene in the life of a child to make an adoption order. This bill does not constitute a case in which the State can be morally neutral or value neutral. This is a case where the State is empowering itself with the responsibility to intervene when intervention is warranted because of the circumstances of the child who will be adopted. Therefore, the State needs to set some guidelines for the courts to follow.
Following what I believe is the attitude of the general community, I believe that the guidelines should state that, whenever possible, the State should ensure that children grow up in a family with both a father and mother constituting both male and female role models. The Law Reform Commission asserts that there is no established connection, positive or negative, between people's sexual orientation and their suitability as adoptive parents—a curious statement. There is a plethora of material on the subject of children in relationships and on relationships generally. Is the Law Reform Commission trying to deliberately confuse or obfuscate the issue by saying that there is no connection between sexual orientation and people's suitability as adoptive parents, or is it actually being glib and dismissive on an important question? I think the latter is probably the case but, in the end, the Law Reform Commission makes a judgment that amounts to not including sexuality as a barrier to adoption because that is its preference.
The Law Reform Commission has said that it makes no distinction between the ability to meet the parenting needs of children and sexuality. The Law Reform Commission makes the point that as homosexual couples exist in the community they should be available as potential adoptive parents. Upon reading the Law Reform Commission's review, one gains the impression that the Law Reform Commission is trying to create a situation in which the pool of adoptive parents or potentially adoptive parents looks like the pool of parents in the general community, or looks like the general community, but I do not think that is a valid argument. That seems to me to be exactly the argument that the Law Reform Commission says it wants to avoid in making law about the adoption of children.
In other words, members of this Parliament are not making law about the adoption of children to drive some sort of social change; rather, members of Parliament are making laws about the adoption of children so that we can meet the needs of the children and act in the best interests of the children. In my view, any attempt to drive an agenda about homosexuality and about parenting by homosexual couples through adoption law is irresponsible because it takes into account a view about society rather than looking first at the needs of children. In my view, there is a wealth of material which supports the general community's view that society is not ready for children being openly adopted by same-sex couples.
The Coalition has discussed this matter and, as the honourable member for Wakehurst has indicated to the House, the Coalition will not support any provisions of this bill which will enable adoption by same-sex couples, whether by design or as a result of bad drafting. The Minister must answer the question about clause 27 because members of the Coalition simply do not know. Members of the Coalition believe that there are gaps in this legislation that the Minister should address. Having raised those two objections, I reiterate the importance of the bill being rewritten. It is important for the legislation to be written in plain English, but not least important is that for all the families involved in adoption—99.9 per cent of families who are involved in very painful decisions do not fall into any of the categories I described during my speech—those families need to be able to read the legislation in plain English to find out how it affects them. As the honourable member for South Coast 7996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 August 2000 has already mentioned, this legislation will have profound and ongoing consequences on the entirety of a person's life. That fact must be kept in mind as honourable members create law in relation to adoption in New South Wales.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:
That this House at its rising this day do adjourn until Wednesday 9 August 2000 at 10.00 a.m.
House adjourned at 10.25 p.m. ______