17953
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 25 October 2001 ______
The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.
The President offered the Prayers.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Report
The President tabled, in accordance with the Ombudsman Act 1974, the annual report of the Ombudsman for the year ended 30 June 2001.
The President announced that she had authorised that the report be made public.
TABLING OF PAPERS
The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt tabled the following paper:
Annual Reports (Departments) Act 1985—Report of the New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission for the year ended 30 June 2001
Ordered to be printed.
PETITIONS
Morisset Policing
Petition praying that a permanent police presence be returned to Morisset, received from the Hon. Michael Gallacher.
Children in Institutions
Petition praying that the House undertake an inquiry into the treatment of all children in institutional care in New South Wales as recommended by the Federal Parliament's August 2001 report into child migration, entitled "Lost Innocents: Righting the Record", received from the Hon. Richard Jones.
Woy Woy Policing
Petition expressing concern about the proposed loss of general duties police officers from Woy Woy Police Station and praying that the House seeks the assistance of the Minister for Police to reinstate those police officers, received from the Hon. Michael Gallacher.
Council Pounds Animal Protection
Petition praying that the House introduce legislation to ensure that high standards of care are provided for all animals held in council pounds, received from the Hon. Richard Jones. Circus Animals Petition praying for opposition to the suffering of wild animals and their use in circuses, received from the Hon. Richard Jones. Wildlife as Pets Petition praying that the House rejects any proposal to legalise the keeping of native wildlife as pets, received from the Hon. Richard Jones. 17954 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
CRIMES (SENTENCING PROCEDURE) AMENDMENT (ASSAULTS ON AGED PERSONS) BILL
Second Reading
Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.
COUNCIL FOR ABORIGINAL RECONCILIATION FINAL REPORT
Debate resumed from 26 September.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.09 a.m.]: I conclude my contribution to this debate by making some additional comments. I note that an amendment has been moved to the motion moved by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. It seeks to omit the word "supports" in the first line and substitute the word "notes". The motion would read, "That this House notes the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation ...". The Christian Democratic Party supports that amendment.
The comprehensive report comprises almost 200 pages. Therefore, it is difficult to say that the House supports everything in it. I would suggest that all honourable members probably support the majority of it, but there are questions about strategies, how to achieve reconciliation and how to know, if it is possible, that reconciliation has been achieved and that the process has concluded. One of the uncertainties in this debate is whether reconciliation will ever be concluded. How does one measure the conclusion of the reconciliation process? How does one say that we have achieved reconciliation and that we can now move on to other matters as a truly united Australia? The report contains references along those lines by a number of participants in the process. Page IX in the introduction section of the report states:
The Council believes that if the document and strategies outlined in this report are acted upon, Australia will have a solid claim to asserting itself as a reconciled nation. We would be getting close to the council's vision of:
A united Australia which respects this land of ours; values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage; and provides justice and equity for all.
That seems to be a very fitting description. We support that. Mr Kerry Blackman, one of the members of the council, is a very good friend of mine. We have nominated him as the Christian Democratic Party Senate candidate for Queensland. He is a fine, outstanding Aboriginal Christian leader. His name, Blackman, certainly describes him. He is about six feet six inches tall and he is a very impressive man. He is quoted in the report as saying:
Reconciliation is overcoming racism. To me it is about change—change in thinking, change in attitude and change in behaviour. It's about equity, fairness, justice and peace. It's trying to build a bridge across a sea of hate from the pain of the past on both sides to build a better future for all Australians to enjoy.
It will be a challenge for the voters of Queensland to put aside any prejudices and elect another Aborigine to the Senate at the forthcoming election. Some fine and outstanding members of the Federal Parliament have come from the Aboriginal community. It would be a very good thing for the Queensland people to elect an Aborigine to represent them in the Senate. We support the principle of the report and the amendment.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [11.12 a.m.]: One would be especially hard pressed to find a person in this Parliament or, for that matter, any Parliament in this country, who is more in favour of Australians truly being one people—I feel especially strongly about this issue. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho often suggests things that I would nicely describe as being feel good, and in general I have supported in principle much of what she has said. This motion relating to Aboriginal reconciliation calls upon us to support—but the amendment suggests that we simply "note"—the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation to the Prime Minister entitled "Reconciliation—Australia's challenge". Unfortunately, much of the detail of the report is not consistent with what I represent or believe, so I would not have been able to support the motion. However, as it has been amended by the Hon. Don Harwin, I am happy to note the report.
I believe the motives behind the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho's moving the original motion were well intended. It is simply that I disagree with the path the original motion lays out before us. I have serious misgivings about the implications of adopting things such as treaties between people who are all of the same citizenship, as well as the acceptance of any statements that claim one group of Australians has a special place over everyone else. As previously stated, I could not be more in favour of all Australians living together 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17955 peacefully and productively as one people under one flag, hence the name of the party of which I was a founding member—One Nation. However, I find much of the report the motion calls for us to support to be divisive and separatist rather than cohesive and unifying.
The whole process of what is being described as reconciliation is flawed firstly in its title, for one cannot reunite, hence reconcile, people who have never been united in the first place. Much more importantly, the process is flawed by virtue of there being no objectives that once seen to have been achieved will signal reconciliation having occurred. In this House on 4 April last year I described the nonsense of this process, which completely lacks any recognisable objectives that will allow us all to know when this so-called reconciliation has been reached. I will not repeat the content of the speech I gave on that day. Suffice it to say, it is unfortunately clear that very few people, if anyone, supposedly battling for so-called reconciliation have any idea of the objectives that must be reached. One cannot have a plan without first comprehensively articulating the outcome one wishes to achieve.
An objective or series of objectives must be understood before a plan of how the desired outcome is to be reached can be commenced. This process is missing from the approach to reconciliation. Is it any wonder that the reconciliation process has been so unsuccessful, even in the eyes of its proponents, when one comes to the realisation that those same people wanting to action what they call "The roadmap for reconciliation" do not even know where they are going? What possible chance do they have of getting there? In June I asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs a question on this issue:
Could I get an impression from you as to your understanding of what it is that will occur socially to signal that reconciliation has been reached? In other words, what are those objectives that will be seen to be achieved when one can say reconciliation has now been achieved?
The Minister said:
I think when all people black and white in Australia, and other colours, have the same opportunities as each other and the same outcomes coming from those opportunities, there is no racism, and that there is in that sense no need for special programs.
I thank the Minister for his eminently appropriate and intelligent answer. It was concise and essentially to the point. Of course, the answer given by the Minister fairly describes a much better situation than we have currently, and it rightfully includes all Australians as appearing to benefit from the outcome. His answer, while only a few words, goes beyond so-called reconciliation and the professed plight of Aboriginal Australians and, quite frankly, is descriptive of an outcome all decent, fair-minded people would desire. Many of the problems relate to an unrealistic expectation that has been given to Aboriginal people and an unrealistic understanding of their history, so-called uniqueness and place in the scheme of things. For example, when compared to other groups there is nothing especially more romantic, noble or spiritual about the Aboriginal people. If there is anything unique about the Aboriginal people, it is that they were most likely the last people on earth still living in the Stone Age, and even then they were brought out of that period only by Anglo-Celtic intervention.
How many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission [ATSIC] commissioners and officials, with their salaries and expenses running into hundreds of thousands of dollars, would swap their jet-setting lifestyles, luxury homes and prestige vehicles for a Stone Age tribal existence? How many of these same so- called leaders of Aboriginal Australians would trade their expense accounts, hotel rooms and five-star restaurants for a hunter-gatherer life, sneaking up on goannas and hoping to come across a slow kangaroo? These Aboriginal elite, so-called leaders, have created the biggest gap between the rich and poor that can be found in any part of Australian society.
These moguls of the Aboriginal industry have vast funds and the backing of every conceivable social and welfare agency in this country and yet their credibility, accountability and management are dubious on the best of days. Most of what is now being pursued, supposedly on behalf of Aboriginal people, is material gain of a kind more related to current non-Aboriginal civilisation rather than Aboriginal history. It is wrong for us to dishonestly put Aboriginal history on some kind of pedestal and pretend there was something incredibly special about Aboriginal civilisation. Before the arrival of white civilisation, in general terms, Aboriginal people were hunter-gatherers who eked out an existence, often in very harsh environments, with their efforts concentrated simply on surviving. In some ways this Stone Age existence parallels how most people live their lives today—that is, just wanting to do the best they can and live as well as they can. Those who drive this debate of reconciliation, Aboriginal rights and so on have painted an inaccurate picture of the past and deluded unsuspecting Aboriginal Australians as to their rights and what they can expect the future to hold. In doing this, these do-gooders who see themselves as 17956 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001 social justice heroes have been largely responsible for increasing and entrenching the hatred many Aboriginal Australians unnecessarily feel for what they call the white man's world and the non-Aboriginal Australians who occupy that world.
Many Aboriginal Australians feel their lives and futures were stolen from them through contact with white civilisation. That, of course, is nonsense of such a degree and of such depth that my time today does not allow its proper exploration and exposure. On a recent trip to the Australian National Museum I took great interest in the Aboriginal exhibitions and what it was that many Aboriginal Australians had to say of themselves. One particular lady, Carol Kendall, left this sentiment with the title "Koories come in all colours":
I know I'm a Koori, I've learned from my kin, But sometimes I'm questioned, on the colour of my skin.
I'm questioned on this by, both black and white, My culture and my identity, are my legal right.
My Aboriginality, I've searched for so long, But the doubt of others, make it hard to belong.
If you wouldn't make judgments, on just what you see, Then maybe by chance, you'll see the real me.
Whether Miss Kendall meant her verses to simply relate the difficulties she was having in people recognising her heritage or whether she was going further and relating the difficulty many of us have in simply being seen for who we really are is something of which I am not certain. One thing is clear: Miss Kendall was seeking for her identity to be understood and recognised. I suggest that her identity would never be in question if we could come to terms with our all being Australians, nothing more, nothing less, nothing extra—just Australians regardless of ancestry and not confused by the continual parade of the supposed positiveness and wonder created by all these divisive desires for separate racial identities. Another of the sentiments expressed in the exhibit that caught my eye was one from Geoff Clarke. It read:
The way forward is improvements in citizenship entitlements—health, housing, education, employment, serve to make progress towards a level playing field but the ultimate goal must be commitment to respect the specific rights of indigenous peoples.
Most of this statement should sound warning bells as to Mr Clarke's agenda. While I acknowledge that many Australians of Aboriginal descent live under terrible conditions, something however they do not have a monopoly on, they are actually eligible for more entitlements than all other citizens. So just how much more in the way of entitlements does Mr Clarke expect? Much more worrying however is that Mr Clarke states:
... the ultimate goal must be a commitment to respect the specific rights of indigenous peoples.
Firstly, Mr Clarke and everyone else of his mindset should understand that there is no such thing as an indigenous person in the manner he believes such exists. I was born here and by the accurate definition as related to human beings I am just as indigenous as Mr Clarke, who incidentally has less Aboriginal blood in him than he has in him the blood of other nations. So, by his own flawed definition, is Mr Clark perhaps part indigenous? What on earth are these specific rights for the people Mr Clarke wrongly attests are indigenous? I will happily debate on any occasion the obvious fairness attached to the principle that no one group or individual should have access to any rights not able to be accessed by others. It is the ilk of Mr Clarke who would divide people and give special privileges based on race, not me or those who hold views similar to mine.
Without doubt one of the greatest difficulties facing Aboriginals of Australian descent is the lack of quality of their leaders. I cite in particular Mr Clarke, Chairman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, who was recently asked to stand down due to a number of allegations that he was a rapist. He was correct not to stand down under those circumstances because he has the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. However, I question how Mr Clarke, who has a criminal record as long as your arm and is well known for his documented violent nature, ever got the job in the first place. But, of course, Mr Clarke is not on his own. His deputy chairman, Ray Robinson, who has the nickname Sugar Ray—certainly not for his sweetness—actually is a convicted rapist and also has a criminal record as long as your arm. Between the two of them it would be a competition as to who had the most convictions.
Last, but certainly not least, let us not forget the recently retired Northern Territory Aboriginal leader who in 1959 was sentenced to hang for the rape and murder of a nine-year-old child. With leaders such as these and those who are intimidated by the likes of Clarke, Robinson and the convicted murderer from the Northern 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17957
Territory, what possible hope do Aboriginal Australians really have? I have a lot of time for what I believe the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho is attempting to do in the spirit of goodness, but ultimately I think little good will come of the so-called reconciliation process as it stands. The process and the majority of work that is in theory being undertaken to advance the lot of Aboriginal Australians will, I believe, simply lead to greater problems for others to solve.
The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [11.26 a.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contribution to the debate and their kind words. The Hon. Don Harwin, the Hon. Ian Cohen, the Hon. Richard Jones, the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, the Hon. Ian Macdonald, the Hon. Janelle Saffin, Ms Lee Rhiannon, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. David Oldfield have all made important, relevant and I am sure sincere statements on the motion. However, at the outset I will quickly comment on the contribution of the Hon. David Oldfield. I have to say that my opinion differs from his opinion. Although I respect his opinion, I disagree with most of what he said and I think he made some outrageous and ignorant statements. However, I am pleased that several members of this House have been supportive of reconciliation for years now. I think we all recognise—
The Hon. David Oldfield: Point of order: The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho claimed that I made ignorant statements. I would like her to give us those statements rather than just give us adjectives.
The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: To the point of order: Which standing order is this under?
The PRESIDENT: Order! No point of order is involved. I have ruled previously that it is not appropriate for members to use points of order to make debating points. If the member feels that he has been misrepresented, he may at the appropriate time, under Standing Order 70, seek to make a personal explanation in relation to the matter.
The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I think we all recognise that a lot of work still needs to be done before we can confidently say that we have reached a point where we are truly reconciled.
The Hon. David Oldfield: Have you ruled on the point of order, Madam President?
The PRESIDENT: Yes, I ruled that no point of order was involved. However, I advised the member that he might like to seek to correct the record under Standing Order 70. More appropriately, he may seek to intervene under Standing Order 71, which states:
No Member may speak more than once to a Question before the House, except in explanation or in reply of some material point on which he has been misquoted or misunderstood …
The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: The Hon. David Oldfield is making a point, but I do not have time to respond. The Hon. Don Harwin spoke about the bipartisan nature of reconciliation and how it is truly an unstoppable force. I know that he has participated actively in supporting reconciliation and took part in the walk for reconciliation across the Sydney Harbour Bridge last year. I accept his two amendments. In amendment No. 1 he has deleted the word "support" and inserted instead the word "notes", because it is controversial. Although it would be appropriate if this House supported the recommendation in the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, I accept that there are many different perceptions of how reconciliation can be achieved and that some of the suggestions in the final report are controversial. On this point, I recognise that both the Government and the Opposition have certain reservations about the concept of a treaty. I wholeheartedly support the second amendment moved by the Hon. Don Harwin, which states:
(7) this House commits itself to pursuing reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians.
This amendment expresses one of the basic principles of the final report: that the process of reconciliation continues. The Hon. Ian Cohen spoke about the significance of the reconciliation walk across the harbour bridge in May last year. I agree with his view that the symbolism of the walk is not enough. We need practical measures such as indigenous economic self-sufficiency. I also agree with the honourable member's statement that the Government needs to take strong leadership on the issue of reconciliation. He also mentioned the Bangarra Dance Company and other amazing showcases of Aboriginal art and culture. It is time to value indigenous culture and heritage.
The Hon. Ian Cohen's belief in the need for a treaty which will help acknowledge past injustices is important, and I strongly support it. In my view it is only through discussions of what the treaty will mean for 17958 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
Aborigines that it will become a reality, because it is very controversial. The Hon. Richard Jones spoke about the importance of this motion at this time, when racism is at a new height, and about the need for strong leadership. I thank the honourable member for making that important point. He spoke about reconciliation which deals with healing the past and, like the Hon. Ian Cohen's view, it is the substance of the term "reconciliation" that is important. That means addressing social and economic issues.
It is clear that the Hon. Richard Jones has a great interest in Aboriginal art, which is known around the world. I agree with his view that Aboriginal culture is very rich and that we can all learn a lot from it. Different cultures encompass different art. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans spoke about the plight of members of the stolen generation in this country and the need for a reparation tribunal to acknowledge their pain and suffering. Again, this is a controversial issue. By now we are all familiar with this country's shameful history of forcibly removing indigenous children from their families, which was the subject of a motion I moved in this House last year. Honourable members may recall that that motion provoked lengthy and passionate debate.
On at least one other occasion in this Chamber I have indicated my support for the idea of a reparation tribunal. Such a facility would provide a forum for members of the stolen generation to tell their stories without the costs, delays, technicalities and trauma of the court system. This is an important part of the healing process. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans also discussed Senator Aden Ridgeway's reconciliation bill, which seeks to implement a number of the recommendations contained in the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. I am sure that I speak for many honourable members when I say that I hope the legislation is successful. The Hon. Ian Macdonald and the Hon. Janelle Saffin reaffirmed the Government's commitment to addressing the inequalities and inequities experienced by indigenous people in this State.
The Hon. Janelle Saffin in particular referred to a number of issues, including the representation of Aboriginal people in Parliament, the need to re-examine our concept of Australia Day and the proposal for a treaty between Aboriginals and other Australians. I take this opportunity to commend the Hon. Janelle Saffin for her passionate and committed stance in relation to Aboriginal issues. As honourable members may be aware, the issue of a treaty has been the subject of some controversy over the past few years. Critics of a treaty argue that the word itself is divisive as it refers to an agreement between nations. I for one agree with the Hon. Janelle Saffin's approach to this issue. A treaty is simply an agreement between people that includes an element of consent. It is a symbol, if you like, which embodies an acknowledgement of past wrongs and injustices, as well as the importance of peace and the beginning of a new relationship.
Ms Lee Rhiannon discussed the importance of bipartisanship in relation to reconciliation issues and the need for clear leadership in the fight against racism. She noted that the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation came into effect as a result of the rare unanimous vote of the Federal Government in 1991. I agree that party politics have no role to play in the reconciliation process. Having been an original member of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation—I was a member of the council for 10 years, but the council is now defunct—I am firm in my belief that reconciliation requires a commitment from all Australians in order to be truly successful. After all, reconciliation is about nation building. It is about bringing together all Australians regardless of race, culture or creed.
I concur with Ms Lee Rhiannon's view about the importance of leadership in the reconciliation process. It is for this reason that Prime Minister John Howard's repeated refusals to apologise to the stolen generations on behalf of the Government and the nation are so disappointing. Just like a reparation tribunal, an apology to the stolen generations represents a vital step forward in the journey of healing for Aboriginal people in this country. I thank Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for his contribution today. He referred to the vision of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. Members of the council are guided by the vision statement. I totally agree with the honourable member that we must move on and finally achieve that vision.
I hope that Kerry Blackman will eventually be elected to the Senate. He is a great guy and we have had good times together. As the Hon. Janelle Saffin said, it is time we had Aboriginal representatives in Parliament, and I wish Kerry Blackman all the best. There is still outstanding and long-term unfinished business that needs commitment, leadership, vision and support by governments, individuals and communities across Australia in order to be properly resolved. We need to come together to build trust and develop further respect between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians.
The work of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation has been a major step in moving towards reconciliation. Helping to put reconciliation on the national agenda was no mean feat, and the council's role in this cannot be underestimated. In my view it is because of the council that the word "reconciliation" has become 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17959 familiar in households, schools and community groups throughout Australia. However, it is essential that the word "reconciliation" and discussions as to what it means continue. I repeat what former Governor-General Sir William Deane said:
Our nation will be diminished if we do not achieve reconciliation.
Members of this House need to ensure that reconciliation is talked about in the public sphere—in this House, in the party room, in the media, everywhere. If we do not take this issue on as our own, there is little hope for the future of reconciliation. A couple of weeks ago I spoke with Shelley Reys, who co-chairs Reconciliation Australia with Fred Chaney. Shelley is committed to the organisation and is passionate about achieving goals towards reconciliation in her term as co-chair. Already she is finding it difficult to do this in an environment in which, just over one year after the reconciliation walk across the harbour bridge, the concept of reconciliation has almost disappeared from the public arena. I hope that Reconciliation Australia will be successful in putting reconciliation back on the national agenda.
The issue of a treaty is a major stumbling block for many people on both sides of politics. Nonetheless I strongly believe that I will see a treaty, or at least concrete measures towards a treaty, in my lifetime. My vision of Australia in the next few decades is one in which we move forward together, recognising the unique history and culture of our indigenous people and resolving the past through an agreement, or perhaps a treaty. Once again I thank all honourable members who contributed to this important debate. I hope that all levels of government see fit to support and implement the recommendations in the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. Reconciliation is Australia's challenge.
[Personal explanation]
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD, by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 71. I understand from what the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho said that she must have misunderstood what I said. In the course of her remarks she made it very clear that I had made a number of ignorant statements. I call upon her to suggest what those statements were, rather than simply use the adjective "ignorant", and others. Unfortunately, she chose not to explain in what way the speech I made was ignorant. I am sorry for that, but I certainly suggest that it would be a good thing for both the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho and me if she read my remarks in Hansard. If she does so, she will find that, rather than being ignorant, those remarks were quite the opposite. They were very well informed, based on experience, based on information that I have gathered over a great deal of time, and based on my experience in many areas related to Aboriginal people, including having at one stage been the Federal Government's Abstudy adviser. I am hardly a person who is either ignorant or uninformed on such matters; rather, I am the opposite—I am very informed on such matters.
[Time for debate expired.]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (HETEROSEXUAL DISCRIMINATION) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 26 September.
The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [11.41 a.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Coalition in debate on the Anti- Discrimination (Heterosexual Discrimination) Amendment Bill. The object of the bill is to amend the Anti- Discrimination Act 1977 to make it unlawful for persons to discriminate against others on the ground of heterosexuality. The bill inserts part 4D, which will parallel the existing provisions of the Act dealing with discrimination on the ground of homosexuality. As stated by the Hon. Elaine Nile, the bill was introduced into this House because of the report of the Anti-Discrimination Board which states that the board had no power to investigate complaints of heterosexual discrimination that it had received. Furthermore, the Hon. Elaine Nile informed the House that the Australian on 18 January reported that the executive director of the Law Reform Commission stated:
Under present legislation, discrimination against homosexuals, as well as several other minorities, is prohibited in NSW. But there is no provision to ban discrimination against heterosexuals. 17960 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
Legislation that has prohibited discrimination against people based on disability has been expanded by other statutory provisions which protect people against discrimination based on medical conditions such as HIV-AIDS and homosexuality. We live in a truly democratic society in which the law attempts, as best as it can, to ensure that there is no discrimination against people. We take pride in the fact that we have such laws in a multicultural society comprising a diversity of people from 230 or more ethnic groups. However, it is surprising that the law has not provided sanctions against people who discriminate against others based on heterosexuality. The Hon. Elaine Nile said that a substantial percentage of the population of New South Wales—she claims it is 98 per cent—is excluded from the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act. The Hon. Elaine Nile also stated:
If members vote against this bill, they will be saying it is all right to discriminate against heterosexuals.
I believe that honourable members will seek to be fair about the need to pass this legislation and will support the bill to ensure that all citizens, all Australians, are treated equally before the law—indeed, not simply all Australians, but all people who live in this country and who are subject to Australian laws. I commend the Hon. Elaine Nile for taking this initiative to bring to bear the importance of and necessity for legislation to provide for the protection of heterosexual people. The Opposition supports the bill.
The Hon. IAN COHEN [11.46 a.m.]: I have to say that I am somewhat surprised by what was said by the Opposition spokesman who preceded me in this debate. I think that members of the Opposition have missed the whole point of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. I believe it was one of the great achievements of the Wran Government. The Greens strongly oppose the bill that has been introduced by the Hon. Elaine Nile.
The Hon. Elaine Nile: Shame!
The Hon. IAN COHEN: No, it is not a case of shame. She is missing the whole point of the Anti- Discrimination Act and she is missing the whole point of the direction it has taken in advancing society to protect those who are part of a minority and who are discriminated against. This bill is missing the whole point of why the Anti-Discrimination Act was introduced in the first place. The bill before the House deals with 98 per cent of the population—hardly a minority. It is a perversion of the original Act to bring forward this bill to protect 98 per cent of society. The action taken by the Hon. Elaine Nile misconstrues the very worthwhile aims of the original Act that was introduced by the Wran Government in 1977 and is typical of the narrow- minded agenda of the members of the Christian Democratic Party. It is also typical that in New South Wales an historic step forward in human rights has been misconstrued.
When the original Act was passed in 1977 it included discrimination on the grounds of sex, race and marital status. It was a response to community demands for women's rights and recognised that racial discrimination should be unlawful. The whole purpose of the Act was to recognise that certain groups in society are disadvantaged by unfair discrimination and that people should have some redress when they are the target of discrimination. Subsequently other grounds of discrimination, including homosexuality, disability and religion, were included in the Act. It is interesting to note that in 1983, when discrimination on the grounds of homosexuality became unlawful, sexual activity between men was still illegal. Finally, in the following year, homosexuality was removed from the Crimes Act. It must not be forgotten, however, that this Act still contains a discriminatory age-of-consent provision. It is still illegal for a 17-year-old male to have sex with another male, and there is still other discrimination against people in same-sex relationships. Despite what people believe, the fight against discrimination on the ground of sexual preference has not yet been won. Despite racial vilification legislation there have been many reported incidents in recent times of people being vilified because they belong to an ethnic or religious minority. In particular, people of Muslim appearance have been targeted and women wearing veils have been attacked on public transport. This problem is becoming increasingly worse having regard to the current international situation. The introduction of this bill attacks the very reason why the original Act was created: to protect such vulnerable minorities in society. A significant amount of intolerant and offensive discrimination is occurring in our society, but this bill completely misses the point about the nature of such discrimination. Heterosexuals are not a disadvantaged group. This bill is not capable of addressing any social problem, and the Hon. Elaine Nile has not provided the House with any justification for introducing it. The Anti-Discrimination Board has not asked for the law to be changed so that it is able to handle complaints from heterosexual people. The bill is insulting to the people who are disadvantaged by unfair and unlawful discrimination. It is a pity that the Hon. Elaine Nile does not put her energies into assisting these people, who are the real victims of discrimination. It appears that she is incapable of respecting the needs of vulnerable people in society. Instead, she uses this place to advance her own narrow, intolerant agenda. She uses 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17961 legislation that she has consistently opposed to score a political point. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile have consistently campaigned against gay and lesbian people in our society. The Greens strongly support antidiscrimination legislation, but we strongly oppose the bill.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You have a go at the Niles, but it's not all right to have a go at anyone else. You are discriminating against the Hon. Elaine Nile.
The Hon. IAN COHEN: I am making a clear point; it is not discrimination.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is disappointing, Ian.
The Hon. IAN COHEN: It might be disappointing for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry that I do not jump onto his side of the fence. It seems that if I am reasonable in dealing with all sides of the House, he is disappointed because I do not believe in his politics.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times.
The Hon. IAN COHEN: The Greens strongly support antidiscrimination legislation as set out in the statutes but we strongly oppose the bill. At this time, particularly having regard to the current international situation, it is vital to support people who experience discrimination. This bill undermines the fight against discrimination, and it would be an insult if it obtained the support of this House.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It doesn't undermine it.
The Hon. IAN COHEN: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile says the bill does not undermine the fight against discrimination. I am simply expressing my opinion, as members are entitled to do. If Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile wants to interject, he should make sure it is an intelligent interjection with a factual basis; he should not simply disagree. We strongly disagree on this bill. I am sick to death of hearing Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's narrow-minded prescription for intolerance against certain elements of society and his disregard for the fact that he is undermining the vulnerable members of society. His attacks on the homosexuals of this community are a considered position of intolerance.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.54 a.m.]: The Australian Democrats do not support the Anti-Discrimination (Heterosexual Discrimination) Bill. We are against discrimination in all forms. We believe that this is not an antidiscrimination bill but an anti-gay bill. People's sexuality is private. It is certainly regarded as discourteous to ask the details of people's private lives. In the old male culture, if one asked about a person's partners one was likely to get a bunch of fives and the answer, "It's none of your business, mate." A person's sexuality is a matter of privacy.
If the right to privacy is not maintained, significant consequences may flow. The incident involving Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton received a great deal of publicity. The President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, had an intern who was infatuated with him, and they had a relationship. This received a large amount of publicity. It distracted the American media and, I believe, weakened Clinton's position. The consequences were considerable. The President of the United States was not able to get his reforms to Medicare—probably the most necessary social reform in the United States—through the Parliament. Bill Clinton was not followed by Al Gore. Al Gore's conservative running mate distanced himself from Bill Clinton, and that probably cost Al Gore the election. The presidency of the United States changed and, arguably, it also changed the course of world history. The privacy aspects of sexuality are of major importance.
I believe that there is a lot of voyeurism in the discussion about people's sexuality. This is sometimes justified as showing the character of the person in power. Those who got nothing more than voyeuristic pleasure from the situation, or indeed deliberately wanted to do harm to Bill Clinton, used this so-called lofty concern about the character of the President either to sell their newspapers or television programs, or to damage him politically because they wanted to undermine the issues he supported. It is normal courtesy not to ask a person whom they sleep with or what habits they have in their sexual life. The question is never asked, and rightly so. If a person has sex in a homosexual way as opposed to a heterosexual way, that is nobody else's business. It should not make any difference to the way people are treated.
In order to stop discrimination on that basis we have an Anti-Discrimination Act. It could be argued that the Act, which was drafted in 1977, should state that there should not be discrimination on the basis of 17962 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001 sexuality, rather than specify heterosexuality. I believe that is the way the matter should have been approached. This is an historical anomaly. At that time there was a lot of discrimination against homosexuality, but the concept of a person being discriminated against for the so-called normal behaviour of heterosexuality was not considered. That is why the bill was written in terms of homosexuality rather than the more generic term "sexuality". There might be bipartisan support for other legislation to state "sexuality" rather than "homosexuality"; otherwise we might have an anti-discrimination heterosexual bill.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
EMPLOYEE ENTITLEMENTS SUPPORT SCHEME
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware that under the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme the Commonwealth has paid more than $1 million to 840 former employees of 139 New South Wales businesses that had employed less than 20 people? What action will the Minister take to provide equivalent backdated financial assistance to 830 workers, given the Minister's repeated endorsement of Kim Beazley's entitlements proposals that confirms support for taxpayer-funded coverage when businesses have less than 20 employees?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The question is absolutely fatuous and stupid. The Leader of the Opposition has been told continually in answer to about five questions that the New South Wales Government is proud that it dragged the Commonwealth kicking and screaming to get decent outcomes from a scheme that is still not funded. Kim Beazley has a fully costed and funded proposal for an employee entitlements scheme, and John Howard does not.
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I direct a question without notice to the Treasurer: Does the Government support the extension of the goods and services tax on food?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The answer to this question depends on which government the honourable member is talking about. The New South Wales Government opposed the introduction of the goods and services tax [GST], and it will oppose any attempt to extend it to food.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point or order: The purpose of questioning Ministers during question time is to extract information pertinent to their portfolios. The Minister has been asked a question about a Commonwealth tax that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his role as Treasurer of New South Wales. He was asked about Commonwealth legislation that deals with the GST on food.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: To the point of order: We are constantly being told by the Opposition that the Commonwealth GST legislation provides that there can be no change to the base of the GST without the unanimous approval of the States.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Paragraph 5 of the sessional order relating to rules for questions states:
An answer must be relevant to a question.
Certainly the Treasurer's answer is relevant to the question he was asked. The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Howard-Costello Government, on the other hand, right from the start was hell-bent on including food in the GST. I have no doubt that as sure as night follows day, if the Howard Government is re-elected it will try to impose the GST on food. Indeed the Federal Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, inadvertently gave the game away yesterday. He said:
There is no point in a broad-based consumption tax with exemptions. The headline in the Sydney Morning Herald is "Costello wants GST on food … " The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's no secret. That's what they took to the people at the last election. 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17963
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition concedes, that is no secret.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's like his wanting to stop rollback. Everyone knows that he wants to stop rollback.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Everyone knows it is the Howard-Costello policy, according to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Obviously the comments of the Federal Treasurer could not be clearer. Do not for one moment think that the States could do anything to stop it, because it would only require the Federal Parliament to amend a few lines of the GST legislation to remove any right of veto by the States. In other words, a simple deal between a Howard-Costello Government and some of the Australian Democrats in the Senate is all that is required for Peter Costello to achieve his goal to extend the GST to food. The only way to stop it being extended to food is to elect a Beazley Labor Government on 10 November.
I had hoped to make those points clear on the Alan Jones program this morning. I rang at 7.30 a.m. but unfortunately I was unable to get onto the program. I know that Alan Jones has his detractors, but I am not one of them. I like Alan Jones for three reasons: first, he supports South Sydney; second, he is a great supporter of the Australian Technology Showcase; and lastly because he is as passionate a supporter of his political party as I am of mine. I like people—Liberal, Labor or National—who are loyal, long-term supporters of their parties. Alan Jones was a distinguished adviser to Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. He was a candidate twice for the Liberal Party for this Parliament, and there is even speculation that people in this Parliament want him to run again for Parliament and assume the leadership of the Liberal Party. I, for one, would fully support that.
ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY PRIVATISATION
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is to the Treasurer, and media star. In May 1995 did the Treasurer rule out the privatisation of the electricity industry in New South Wales when he said:
Our policy is to set up publicly owned corporatised bodies which are going to beat the pants off those privatised bodies in Victoria.
Why is the Treasurer breaking that promise by moving to sell off the Powercoal mines, as well as considering the sale of Pacific Power International? Will the Treasurer inform the House how the people of New South Wales and Australia can ever trust future promises of the Treasurer and the Federal Australian Labor Party?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: If the Powercoal mines were to be sold, it would not constitute privatisation of the New South Wales electricity industry. The New South Wales electricity industry consists of a State-owned distributors and State-owned generators. I assure honourable members that the Government has no plans to privatise any of those businesses. Of course, we know that if the Commonwealth Howard-Costello Government is re-elected it will sell off the remainder of Telstra. It has already sold half of Telstra and reaped more than $30 billion. What on earth did it do with that money? I noticed in the mid-year financial statement released by the Federal Treasurer only a week ago that the net worth of the Commonwealth Government now stands at a negative $40 billion—$40 billion negative net worth! In other words, the Federal Government is technically insolvent. If it were a company it would be in liquidation. Its financial situation is worse than the combined financial situation of HIH Insurance, One.Tel and Ansett Airlines. A negative net worth of $40 billion after it sold off half of Telstra. By comparison, I am pleased to point out, the New South Wales Government has the highest net worth of any government in Australia. It now exceeds $90 billion net worth.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question. Does that now mean that the Australian Labor Party has core promises and not non-core promises?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The one thing that the Australian Labor Party stands for is the protection of jobs. That is why the unions have been talking to this Labor Government about the protection of the Powercoal jobs because they know that is what we stand for.
CASINO CONTROL AUTHORITY The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Gaming and Racing. Is it a fact that not one of the five members of the New South Wales Casino Control Authority is required to have qualifications or experience in the field of law enforcement or criminal investigations? Given that the object of the authority is to ensure that “the casino remains free from criminal influence or exploitation”, will the Minister advise why the Casino Control 17964 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
Authority does not include a representative from the Police Service? In light of recent allegations of organised crime and drug abuse at the Star City Casino, will the Minister further advise what steps he will take to ensure a greater police presence in New South Wales casinos and the Casino Control Authority?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am not able to give the honourable member an answer to what is substantially a policy question about the portfolio of the Minister for Gaming and Racing. I will ask that Minister to provide an answer as quickly as possible.
LIGHTNING RIDGE OPAL FIELDS
The Hon. IAN WEST: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources. Will the Minister advise the House what action has been taken to improve the appearance of the opal fields at Lightning Ridge?
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: Lightning Ridge's opal fields are an important mineral industry in New South Wales. There are more than 6,000 current mineral claims at Lightning Ridge. All those claims have been granted, subject to a range of conditions, including environmental matters. Unfortunately, over time, the environment in this remote region has suffered. The Government is acting to redress those past practices. We have launched a campaign to encourage opal miners and prospectors to keep their mineral claims and opal prospecting licence areas tidy and free of rubbish and litter. Miners and prospectors are being encouraged to remove rubbish and litter from the opal fields.
This weekend will see the Coocoran Metal Clean-Up Day to the west of Lightning Ridge. It is expected that dumped cars, trucks, fridges and caravans will be removed from the claims area. The Lightning Ridge community supports this campaign. The Glengarry-Grawin Sheepyards Miners Association, for example, already has in place a system so that old car bodies can be stockpiled and then picked up for recycling by scrap metal merchants. The Department of Mineral Resources is also reminding holders of mineral claims and opal prospecting licences about the strict conditions of their titles. The department will be rigorously reinforcing those conditions over the coming months. Mineral claims and opal prospecting licences can be cancelled and security deposits can be retained to fund remedial action if miners and prospectors fail to heed this campaign.
Currently, more than $7,000 a year of forfeited security money is used in the clean-up. As part of the campaign, information about the clean-up will be handed to each person obtaining new mineral claims and opal prospecting licences, and anyone renewing a minerals claim. The Government is working with the community to encourage proper removal of rubbish and litter. Walgett Shire Council has also been asked to help by providing additional rubbish bins throughout the opal fields. The community has been warned that serious breaches of the conditions of mineral claims and opal prospecting licences can lead to the cancellation of those titles. The Government is serious about regulating the mining industry and it is serious about protecting the environment.
PENRITH PANTHERS RUGBY LEAGUE CLUB AMALGAMATIONS
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Gaming and Racing. Has the Minister seen the report in the Daily Telegraph in the last two days relating to the expansion plans of Penrith Panthers Leagues Club? In particular, did he see yesterday's article reporting death threats, bomb threats and other violence surrounding the proposed amalgamation of Port Macquarie RSL Club with Panthers? Is he aware that a meeting of Port Macquarie RSL Club members, called on 11 October to discuss the amalgamation, had to be aborted because of a bomb threat? Is the Minister concerned about the disruptive effect that this proposed amalgamation is having on the Port Macquarie community? Is today's Daily Telegraph report correct in claiming that Panthers is seeking to amalgamate with 16 other clubs? Is this contrary to the intention of the Minister's foreshadowed legislation limiting mergers to four clubs? Will the Minister order an inquiry by the Director-General of Gaming and Racing into the proposed amalgamations by Panthers Leagues Club and the circumstances surrounding the Panthers proposed amalgamation with Port Macquarie RSL Club? The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I saw the press reports to which the honourable member is referring. I can say with some certainty that the Minister has also seen them. However, we have not had an opportunity to discuss them. I will ask the Minister to prepare a response as quickly as possible and provide it to the honourable member. 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17965
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. In view of the Minister's frequently repeated comments in this House that the rate of GST could be increased by a simple change of the legislation, is that Labor's secret plan? The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No. It is Peter Costello's simple plan. The Commonwealth Government has been trying to hoodwink the Australian people into believing that the GST rate cannot be changed without the consent of all the States. The truth of the matter is that all that is required for that veto to be removed from the States is for a few lines of the Commonwealth GST legislation to be amended by the Howard Government and by the Democrats in the Senate. I notice that no members of the Australian Democrats are presently in the Chamber. I have no doubt that is precisely what Howard and Costello will do. POST-OLYMPICS INVESTMENTS The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Minister advise the House of the new investments confirmed in New South Wales since the Sydney Olympic Games? The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: That is a good question from the Hon. Michael Costa who, of course, was a supporter of that great Olympic project. That is one of the reasons why that great project was delivered on time, on budget and without any industrial action. The Hon. Duncan Gay: Did you write a letter to Nick Greiner thanking him? The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: On many occasions I have acknowledged the role of Nick Greiner, John Fahey and Bruce Baird, not only in deciding to bid for the Games but in winning the bid in Monaco. Nick Greiner is always the man who gets the credit for bidding for the Games. John Fahey and Bruce Baird get the credit for winning the bid. Michael Knight gets the credit for staging the Games and building the infrastructure. And I was the poor sucker who had to pay for it all. But it was all paid for! Every last cent was paid for, or provided for, before the Games were over—a proud accomplishment of this Government! [Interruption] The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti should not provoke me with silly interjections. He just gives me an opportunity to tell the people of New South Wales what a sterling job this Government is doing and what a bipartisan and generous person I am to my political opponents. The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why didn’t you mention regional New South Wales? The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Regional New South Wales played a great role at the Olympics. I am proud that many of the Olympic subcontractors who came from New South Wales not only won Sydney Olympic contracts; many of them are well in line for contracts in relation to Beijing. In Australian terms, Sydney terms and country New South Wales terms I know that we will do well at the Beijing Games. I particularly want to thank my colleague the Hon. Henry Tsang, who is not present in the Chamber, for the work that he is doing in promoting Australian capability to the Chinese authorities for the 2000 Beijing Games. He has done a fabulous job in China, as he has throughout east Asia generally. He is a great advocate and ambassador for New South Wales and a great asset to this Parliament, and indeed to the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament. I am pleased to report that, over the last 12 months, new investment valued at more than $630 million has been committed to New South Wales. Recent substantial investments encouraged and facilitated by the Department of State and Regional Development have included Avax Australia, which is establishing a manufacturing and research facility to produce anticancer vaccines, a very important endeavour. It has included Reuters news services new Asia-Pacific Customer Relationship Management Centre, and Exodus Communications' new Internet data centre at Pyrmont, involving capital expenditure of $28 million and creating 25 jobs. These investments represent significant wins for New South Wales in the face of strong competition from Singapore and Hong Kong and highlight a trend among multinationals to locate their regional operational hubs and headquarters in Sydney. According to a Commonwealth Government figures—note Commonwealth— 64 per cent of the 283 Asia-Pacific regional headquarters established in Australia in recent years have chosen Sydney as their location. [Time expired.] 17966 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I ask the Treasurer a supplementary question. Will the Treasurer provide some more detail about the critical role that industrial relations played in that?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: In the banking sector, 34 of the 38 foreign banking groups established in Australia have based their national headquarters in Sydney. All up, 40 of the 51 banks with head offices located in Australia have based them in Sydney. In recent years more than 150 companies have set up their regional headquarters in New South Wales, delivering new jobs for New South Wales. These include Oracle, with 255 jobs; IBM's Asia-Pacific e-commerce centre, with 465 jobs; American Express, delivering a tremendous 1,100 jobs; and Krone, based on the Central Coast, with 70 jobs. A year after the success of the Sydney Olympics, the New South Wales Government remains committed to promoting New South Wales as an attractive investment location and assisting our export-ready companies to access new markets. We are able to do that because New South Wales has a great industrial relations record. We have a talented, highly-skilled, multicultural work force, and we have an industrial relations system that is second to none—and we do not want it wrecked by industrial relations adventurism by some stupid Liberal-National Party Government. PERISHER VALLEY SKI LODGE LEASES The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment. Is the Carr Government going to give the head lease for the Perisher-Smiggins-Guthega area to Kerry Packer and, if so, for how long? Will the traditional leases of clubs and other hotels and lodges be retained by their owners and deal directly with the National Parks and Wildlife Service? If not, why not, and why are the different ski areas not awarded to different lessees to create some competition to give consumers a chance in a needlessly expensive recreational sport? The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The question is similar to a question asked by the Hon. Malcolm Jones yesterday that I referred, as I will this question, to the Minister in the other place for a response as soon as possible. MEDICARE ALLIANCE The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer clarify whether Federal Labor's $545 million commitment to its Medicare alliance is conditional on his Government entering into a risk-sharing agreement with the Commonwealth on the joint Medicare account for New South Wales? If so, does this mean that his Government has agreed to share the cost of future expenditure blow-outs in all major programs encompassed by this account, including the Commonwealth medical and pharmaceutical benefits programs? If not, what is the Government's understanding of how these accounts will be managed to avoid cost shifting? The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: A new Beazley Commonwealth Government will honour the commitment it makes under the Medicare arrangements entered into with the States. That is a huge change. Because what we have seen from the current Federal Government is that a Medicare agreement is entered into in good faith, with all the States and the Commonwealth signing up, and then, when it suits the Commonwealth Government, it tears it up. There was a provision in the Medicare agreement that in a dispute between the Commonwealth and the States over the indexation applied to the increased demand for public hospital services, it would be referred to an independent arbitrator. It was referred to an independent arbitrator, who happens to be Mr Ian Castles, the former Commonwealth statistician. When his report agreed with the States, the Commonwealth Government tore up the Medicare agreement. The key difference between a Beazley Labor government and the Howard and Costello Government is the Howard and Costello Government's pathetic track record of dishonouring its commitments not only to the Australian States but to the Australian people. The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Treasurer make available to Parliament details of the Medicare alliance commitment, or is it just an agreement in principle? The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I would be delighted to make available the Medicare agreement, which the Howard-Costello Government tore up.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SERVICES
The Hon. RON DYER: I ask the Special Minister of State, and the Minister for Industrial Relations a question. Will the Minister outline recent initiatives that will improve industrial relations services in New South Wales for both employers and employees? 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17967
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Government is making a conscious effort to assess the level and effectiveness of the services it provides to the people of New South Wales. One example of this commitment to improve service and access to levels of government departments and agencies comes from the Department of Industrial Relations. In June the director-general of the department initiated a review of the Compliance Services Division. This division has primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with the State's industrial legislation, including the Industrial Relations Act. The review involved extensive consultation with staff and their representatives and looked at the period since 1995.
The following recommendations, identified in the review, are now ready for implementation. The effectiveness of service delivery in regional New South Wales will be greatly improved by increasing the number of industrial inspectors in regional areas; faster resolution of individual industrial complaints, linked to an increased focus on educating the employer and employee involved; the introduction of best practice models and benchmarks in all inspectorate services; a greater number of appropriately targeted industry campaigns, using stronger emphasis on partnerships with employee and employer organisations; a rapid response capability for urgent workplace incidents; and continued education activities aimed at assisting small and medium-size businesses. These initiatives are indicative of the forward-looking approach that the Government has always adopted, particularly in the challenging area of industrial relations. It is especially noteworthy that the theme of collaboration and partnership with relevant industry bodies, already dominant in the department's activities, will continue to drive most of its programs and services. I look forward to keeping the House informed of the success of these various initiatives.
CLUSTER BOMBS
The Hon. IAN COHEN: I address my question to the Treasurer. As Leader of this House, which recently spent a day speaking on our troops' involvement in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, will he now condemn the use of cluster bombs employed by the Western Alliance as an indiscriminate weapon and a form of terrorism against the civilian population?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am not aware of the issue of cluster bombs but I can assure the House that this Government supports the military coalition that is fighting against terrorism.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: As does the Opposition.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: As does the Opposition. As I pointed out in my remarks the other day, we also support the humanitarian coalition that Prime Minister Tony Blair has called for. We certainly wish all our troops success in their mission and a safe and speedy return. They are undertaking a very important mission and the world will be a much safer place if their mission is successful.
WHOOPING COUGH IMMUNISATION
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that up to September this year 2,800 cases of whooping cough had been reported, that most notifications for whooping cough are from adults, and that most very young children contract whooping cough from those adults? If so, why has the Minister not instituted an immunisation program with the available adult whooping cough vaccine to prevent a worsening of this epidemic and prevent the deaths of small children?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti asks a serious question. Whooping cough is a serious matter. I remember that when I was a child there were always advertisement on trains and buses advising people to have their children inoculated against whooping cough. I assume I was inoculated. I do not know the current situation. However, I will refer the question to the Minister for Health for his response.
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: I ask a supplementary question. I have asked a number of questions on this issue previously but no answers have been provided. In an answer the Minister for Health stated that the vaccine was to be made available in April of this year and then proposals would be made for an immunisation program against pertussis for adults. Where do these proposals currently stand?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I do not know but I will find out. 17968 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth. Will the Minister advise the House what activities the members of the Premier's Youth Advisory Council have undertaken this year?
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Youth Advisory Council is the primary link between young people and the Government. Young people between the ages of 12 and 24 make up one-third of the New South Wales population. Indeed, when I was in Coffs Harbour last week at a crime prevention forum which I launched I was reminded once again by a very powerful presentation by Bishop Druitt College of the importance of making space for young people and of listening to what young people have to say. Students of Bishop Druitt College made a very thoughtful presentation about issues relating to young people. Nonetheless, the Hon. Amanda Fazio did not ask about that; she asked about the Youth Advisory Council. The Government meets the needs of young people through funding for both universal services used by young people and targeted services and programs. Youth services include the provision of youth centres, recreational facilities, health services, drug and alcohol services, crisis accommodation, education and training programs, and migrant services plus mainstream services such as schools, hospitals and public transport. I have reported to the House on many occasions that participation of and consultation with young people in decisions that affect their lives is a key part of the Government's commitment. The Youth Advisory Council is a group of 12 young people from across the State who are appointed to give advice to the Government about issues that impact on young people. As part of that role, they undertake consultations with young people across New South Wales. It is true that this year has been particularly busy for the council as it has been consulting with young people across New South Wales to assist in the review of the New South Wales youth policy. The themes of the review have included the involvement of young people in community organisations and the community generally, the ability of youth workers and youth services to support marginalised young people, the use of public space by young people, the entertainment and transport needs of young people, and opportunities for young people to put forward their views. To date, the council has consulted with young people in Campbelltown, Umina, Windale, the Clarence Valley, Port Macquarie, Dubbo, Condobolin, Broken Hill and Moree. I have had the opportunity to participate in some of these consultations. Having young people talk with other young people is effective because it means that the young people being consulted are more likely to open up and be honest in their views. This week the Youth Advisory Council will be consulting with young people from the far South Coast. The council has also consulted with young people from Tamworth, Parramatta and Wollongong through the Youth Action and Policy Association conference and the New South Wales student representative councils. By the end of the year the Youth Advisory Council will have visited more than 15 locations and spoken with up to 500 young people as part of the policy development process. Members of the council have also represented the views of young people to a number of committees, conferences and forums. Young people in our State have plenty of experiences and ideas to contribute to the community. The Youth Advisory Council is one effective way used by the Government to ensure that those ideas and experiences are incorporated into government policy development. It is now time for the Government to seek out young people who are interested in being appointed to the Youth Advisory Council for 2002. The Government will be appointing young people from the register of boards and committees to the Youth Advisory Council for 2002. I will be encouraging all young people who want to have a say to fill out an application form for the register so that they can then be considered for appointment to advisory bodies and committees across government and the Youth Advisory Council in particular. I thank the Hon. Amanda Fazio for her interest in this area. "PLANNING FOR BUSH FIRE PROTECTION" DOCUMENT RELEASE The Hon. RICHARD JONES: I ask the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, a question without notice. Why has the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning and the Rural Fire Service document entitled "Planning for Bush Fire Protection" not been released? Was the document exhibited for public comment from September 2000 and due for release by the end of August 2001? Does the document contain invaluable information for land use planners, fire authorities, developers and home owners in areas likely to be affected by bush fire events? Is it crucial that the document is released before the height of the fire season? Will the Minister ensure that the document is immediately made available to householders and prospective home buyers so that they can make informed decisions about how to protect themselves and their property from bush fire risk? 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17969
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: A draft document called "Planning for Bush Fire Protection" prepared by the Rural Fire Service was released for public comment in September 2000. Following this public display, the document was revised, in collaboration with the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, to incorporate the submissions in addition to further findings from the CSIRO. These changes tighten the planning provisions with the aim of protecting life and property. I understand that the document is currently in its final stages of endorsement and is due to be released in early December.
POLITICAL OPINION POLLS
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Further to the Treasurer's comments yesterday about the Morgan poll, is he aware of the results of the Newspoll published today that shows that Labor support is eight points behind that of the Coalition? Is the Treasurer further aware that more than half of the Australian Labor Party supporters surveyed said that they do not believe the Federal Labor Party will win the Federal election, compared with 72 per cent of Coalition supporters who believe that there will be a third term for the Howard Government? Does this Newspoll confirm what we all know—that the current Federal Government will be returned on 10 November?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I have always won a lot of money by following the conclusions of the Morgan poll rather than the Newspoll.
TOURISM INDUSTRY
The Hon. TONY KELLY: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Minister update the House on Government initiatives to assist the New South Wales tourism industry? The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: My colleague the Hon. Tony Kelly has asked a very important question. Last week the Government announced measures to assist the New South Wales tourism industry—an industry that has been adversely affected by recent international and domestic events. Tactical campaigns promoting interstate car travel in New South Wales and short-haul air travel from Asia, Japan and New Zealand are key features of the New South Wales Government's $15 million strategic plan to assist the industry. The plan also contains a World Hot Spot Events program, offering Sydney and New South Wales as a safe alternative to international conference organisers. The tourism sector is worth almost $20 billion to the New South Wales economy and employs some 167,000 people. More than 70,000 of those jobs are in regional locations throughout New South Wales. This new package comes on top of the almost $15 million that the Government has already spent on tourism promotion in New South Wales. Of the $15 million, about $8 million is an additional budget injection to assist this $15 million campaign. The new package will support a critical industry at a critical time. The impact of the attacks in America and the domestic aviation situation has been immediate. Sydney airport traffic was down 33 per cent in the first two weeks after 11 September, and some 60,000 hotel room nights in New South Wales have been cancelled between now and Christmas. In the short term revenue is projected to fall nationally by some 9.7 per cent, which equates to a fall off in revenue of almost $2 billion in New South Wales. The Government responded to these challenges by reviewing all tourism-related programs. The $15 million plan I mentioned includes an additional $8 million over two years to assist the local industry. This will be coupled with support that is already provided to enable Hazelton air services to continue flying. There is a need and an opportunity to quickly stimulate domestic travel in New South Wales to reinforce a focus on local travel rather than overseas holidays and car travel rather than air travel. There is also a real opportunity to target the short-haul international visitor markets that regard Sydney, Australia and indeed regional New South Wales as safe, desirable and good-value destinations. We will certainly promote ourselves in these markets. This new package, which is of course the initiative of my colleague the Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism, the Hon. Sandra Nori, is indicative of the New South Wales Government's support for the tourism industry. ATTACKS ON CHILDREN The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Police. Is it a fact that a kidnap attempt was made on a nine-year-old girl in Sydney on a busy intersection in St Johns Road, Glebe, last Saturday by a teenage male? Is a fact that police have renewed 17970 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001 warnings for children and parents to be vigilant against such attacks? What action is the Government taking to protect children on the streets of New South Wales? Will the Government include warnings for parents on radio and television?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am not aware of the incident, which obviously is a very serious matter. I will be very happy to take it up with my colleague the Minister for Police and obtain his response.
WORKERS COMPENSATION PREMIUMS
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is he aware that WorkCover is billing businesses for the total cost of claims following completion of individual cases? What action is the Government taking to ensure that workers compensation insurance is in fact insurance and that WorkCover is not double dipping by collecting premiums and billing businesses for the total cost of claims?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I think the Hon. Rick Colless has two concepts confused. Those costs of claims actually represent premium variations, but I will provide a detailed answer to his question.
MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENTS RESEARCH
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question is to the Special Minister of State. Will he advise the House of the actions the Motor Accidents Authority has taken to improve our understanding of the involvement of young motorcycle riders in crashes?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As part of the 2001-02 Motor Accidents Authority Road Safety Research Grant program, the authority approved funding of $20,000 for a four-month research study. The research will investigate motorcycle crash patterns for New South Wales riders aged 17 to 25 years. The study is being undertaken by RCSC Services which carries out research and statistical consulting in the fields of social and behaviour research, road safety and market analysis. The researchers will consult with key stakeholders in New South Wales and in other States and will develop recommendations where appropriate countermeasures may be useful in New South Wales.
The Motor Accidents Authority is attempting to establish why young people on motorcycles are overrepresented in crash figures and what measures can be taken to reduce those accidents. The Motor Accidents Authority's research, its efforts to promote road safety initiatives such as the Arrive Alive campaign and its association with the South Sydney Rugby League Club are to be applauded.
STUDENT VIOLENCE MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Leader of the Government and Treasurer, representing the Attorney General, a question without notice. Is it a fact that the New South Wales Privacy Commissioner, Mr Chris Puplick, is upset by the order for him to stop his investigation into the invasion of the privacy of the Cecil Hills schoolboy during an alleged controversial shooting incident which was raised in Parliament? Why has Mr Puplick received this direction? What are the limitations on the Privacy Commission's ability to investigate invasion of privacy complaints?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am not aware of the issue to which Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has referred but I will refer the question to the appropriate Minister and obtain a response.
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Does he recall stating, "Then there's how you make it simpler for small business. No one is going to believe you can do this. The only thing you can do is give more exemptions. But that makes it more messy", as was reported in the Bulletin magazine on 18 July last year? Has he conveyed his concerns about the effect on the Federal Labor Party of a goods and services tax rollback on small business?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: If there are any questions of a Treasury nature, of course while I am in the House they ought to be directed to me. I have made the Government's position on the goods and services tax abundantly clear and I have pointed out today that if by some mischance a Howard-Costello Government is 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17971 returned on 10 November, as surely as night follows day, the GST will be extended to food. We know that because not only did Mr Costello give us a pretty strong hint about it yesterday but also the Leader of the National Party in this House today said, "That's no secret. We all know about it."
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The question clearly was asked of the Special Minister of State, not the Treasurer. Madam President, I ask you to instruct the Treasurer to sit down and allow the Special Minister of State to answer.
The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: There is no point of order at all. If I want to, I can take every question for every Minister. I do not do that, but when there is a Treasury question, if I am in the House, I take it. That is the proper procedure. All we are seeing now is the Opposition's embarrassment about the proposal to extend the GST to food. Of course, what the backbenchers are worried about is that the Leader of the National Party put his foot in it when he acknowledged that everyone on the Coalition side of the House knows that Costello and Howard are going to extend the GST to food. That is why they are so embarrassed.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: To the point of order, Madam President.
The Hon. Michael Egan: That is why the Leader of the Opposition is taking points of order. Why doesn't he sit down?
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: To the point of order: There is nothing in the standing orders that would prevent the question being asked of the Assistant Treasurer. He does not have the courage to stand by his earlier comments. If he wants to, he can defer to the Treasurer but he has remained mute because he does not have the courage to stand by the comments that he has made publicly.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. It is tradition in this House that the Leader of the Government may answer all questions at all times. It has certainly been the tradition that the Leader of the House has answered questions that he has wished to answer.
CAULERPA TAXIFOLIA CONTROL
The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. What action has been taken to control the spread of caulerpa taxifolia?
[Interruption]
The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: Members of the Opposition are behaving in a very infantile manner. This is question time and honourable members are entitled to seek and obtain information. The standard of behaviour being adopted by the Opposition is appalling—absolutely appalling. Members of the Government would never be guilty of such behaviour. We have respect for the House and for the decorum of the House.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. However, I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times. The Minister may proceed.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: The New South Wales Government is working with the community to find a solution to the pest plant caulerpa taxifolia. We are also undertaking a series of trials aimed at controlling this weed. The pest plant has been identified in Lake Conjola, Port Hacking, Careel Bay at Pittwater, Lake Macquarie, Botany Bay, and in Burrill Lake and Narrawallee Inlet on the South Coast. A number of measures to control the weed have already been completed by New South Wales Fisheries scientists. Unfortunately, they have had only limited success. Attempts to control the plant overseas have proved to be extremely difficult, so we need to be sure that control measures are effected.
Earlier this month a further series of trials attempting to smother the weed began in Lake Macquarie. These trials are being carried out on about 100 square metres of seabed using a range of materials, including jute matting. New South Wales Fisheries scientists are carefully monitoring these trials to see how successful this method is at killing the weed and stopping its spread. This technique has already been used overseas with mixed success. The New South Wales Government has already introduced a range of measures to control the spread of the weed. This initial action was aimed at encouraging the community, and recreational and commercial fishers, to report sightings of the weed. We have asked the community to take precautions around infestations so as not to spread the plant inadvertently with boats and fishing equipment. 17972 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
Bans on net fishing have been placed in affected areas. Sites are clearly marked with buoys to encourage water users to avoid anchoring in these areas. An extensive education campaign, including signs, brochures and community meetings, has been carried out by New South Wales Fisheries. The Government is leaving no stone unturned in its efforts to control this innovative pest plant, which has established itself in New South Wales waters.
WARRINGAH COUNCIL RATEPAYER COMPLAINTS
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Mineral Resources, representing the Minister for Local Government. When will the Minister respond to the overwhelming outrage of the Warringah community that their local council has been brought into disrepute because it has the highest level of ratepayer complaints and because some councillors have benefited financially from decisions made by councillors? Will the Minister now institute a public inquiry pursuant to section 740 of the Local Government Act in order to sack Warringah council?
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I could not hear the honourable member's question because of the rowdiness of the Opposition.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask members to remain silent while questions are being asked. I find it extremely difficult to hear members standing in the position at the table occupied at the moment by Ms Lee Rhiannon. I ask the member to repeat her question.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: When will the Minister respond to the overwhelming outrage of the Warringah community that their local council has been brought into disrepute because it has the highest level of ratepayer complaints and because of the actions of some councillors who have benefited from decisions made by that council? Will the Minister now institute a public inquiry pursuant to section 740 of the Local Government Act in order to sack Warringah council?
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I thank Ms Lee Rhiannon for her very important question, which raises serious allegations. I am sure my colleague the Minister for Local Government will be keen to provide her with a detailed answer.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS FORUM RESOLUTION
The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS: My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Premier, and Minister for Citizenship. When will resolution 6.6.3 of the Community Relations Forum held in March 2001 relating to Industry Training Advisory Board accreditation for cultural diversity training provided by government departments and agencies be implemented? Why has it taken more than six months for the Government to act on this resolution?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Hon. James Samios always asks intelligent and receptive questions. I am sure that resolution 6.6.3 is a very readable matter, but I must apologise to the House for my ignorance of the resolution. However, I will try to do the best I can to familiarise myself with resolution 6.6.3, and indeed all the resolutions before it. And if there are any resolutions after it, I will try to familiarise myself with those as well. In the meantime, I will refer the question to the Minister responsible, who I believe is the Premier, and I will see if his recollection of resolution 6.6.3 is any better than mine.
RACEHORSE FEEDING PRACTICES
The Hon. IAN COHEN: My question is to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Gaming and Racing. Will the Minister act on recent evidence that cruel and unsatisfactory feeding practices for racehorses is causing stomach ulcers in the animals? Is the Minister aware that crib biting is caused as a horse fed in short bursts is trying to manufacture saliva to ease the ulcers? Will the Minister act to guarantee more natural feeding, for example, by way of a lucerne hay rack?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. Ian Cohen asks an interesting question to horse lovers and lovers of the racetrack alike. I do not have the answer; the question relates to a specialised area. I am sure, however, that the Minister for Gaming and Racing will know the answer, and I will ask him to provide that answer to the honourable member as soon as practicable. 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17973
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. With reference to the Minister's earlier answer that the rate of the goods and services tax [GST] could be changed by legislation— in particular as the result of a deal done with the Australian Democrats in the Senate—is that the basis of the 17- seat preference deal that Labor has struck with the Democrats for the upcoming Federal election?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I can only suggest to my friend and colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe that if she is so opposed to the GST she should resign from the Liberal Party and join the Labor Party, which is the only party that has consistently opposed the GST; it is the only party that has pledged to roll back the GST. The honourable member's party has supported the GST all the way, and her party will extend it as soon as it can.
The Hon. Tony Kelly: She is too left wing for us.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, she is not too left wing for us at all. She is actually a very intelligent woman, but she is in the wrong party.
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGISLATION
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: My question is to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House what the Government is doing to help employers understand recent changes to occupational health and safety legislation in New South Wales?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Honourable members would be aware that the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001 commenced operation on 1 September. To assist employers to understand their responsibilities under the new legislation and to explain the regulations to employers, WorkCover New South Wales is running free half-day seminars throughout the State, over a three-month period. It gave me great pleasure to personally launch the legislative information package to more than 300 people at the Central Coast Leagues Club on 17 September. I was pleased to hear the positive comments of those who attended the combined launch and seminar. I understand that the comments have been echoed by attendees at subsequent seminars.
The seminars have been exceptionally well attended. As an illustration of the thirst for knowledge demonstrated by employers wanting to know more about their health and safety obligations, 800 people turned up for the first Wollongong seminar on 24 September and a further 1,200 for a seminar in Sydney the following day. WorkCover has organised extra seminars to cope with these unprecedented levels of demand. Not many government agencies organise seminars that attract 1,200 people a day. After a two-week break for the school holidays, the program is under way again. I am advised that the overwhelming level of interest is still apparent, with 550 people attending the seminar at Wagga Wagga, 300 people at Griffith, nearly 500 people at Albury, and 640 people at Orange.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: How many questions were asked about workers compensation premiums?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: They would be more intelligent than you: they would know the difference between the two seminars. The seminars are being held in various suburbs in Sydney and in regional centres across New South Wales. They will be continuing in locations such as Batemans Bay, Wagga Wagga, Tweed Heads and Dubbo until late November.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You should go there—you would fit in well at Dubbo.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I would, and I happen to like Dubbo very much. It is a very nice town.
The Hon. Michael Egan: We had a Cabinet meeting there recently.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Yes, we did. Dubbo has a very good local member, even though he is not a member of the Labor Party. He is an effective advocate for his town and his region. Evaluation forms completed by people attending the seminars to date have reflected an overwhelmingly high level of satisfaction. 17974 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
Questions asked at the end of each seminar have also been very constructive, indicating a high level of acceptance of the new legislative framework. WorkCover is using the feedback provided by seminar participants to form its strategies for meeting the future information needs of those covered by the legislation.
To help employers meet their obligations under the new legislation, WorkCover has also developed a package of information for employers. This package, which is distributed free of charge to people who attend the seminars, includes a copy of the Act and regulations, as well as a range of explanatory materials. The packages are also available on request to employers who do not attend the seminars. Employers simply need to contact the WorkCover client contact centre to have the printed information sent out to them. WorkCover is also providing information by telephone and over the Internet. In the first few weeks of operation of the legislation, WorkCover estimated that it answered close to 7,500 phone requests for information on the regulation. It estimated that, in the same period, there was an increase of more than 300 per cent in the weekly number of hits to the WorkCover New South Wales web site.
ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: Will the Treasurer ask Treasury to undertake an assessment as to how much money would be saved by dismantling the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and merging its functions into a single transport department to include public transport? Would it not make more sense to have a single entity to eliminate bureaucracy and the waste of taxpayers' money?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, I will not. The Roads and Traffic Authority has quite a separate function to that of the Department of Transport, which has oversight of all transport functions, whether they be private, public, road, rail, air or whatever. The RTA has a discrete responsibility. It manages a record roads budget of well over $2 billion every year, because this Government does not ignore the road needs of the people of New South Wales, particularly those in rural and country areas. The former Coalition Government ignored the road needs of people throughout New South Wales, which is why we are spending record amounts of money not only on maintaining and repairing roads but on building new roads. I refer to the great Pacific Highway, which, I concede, we are funding on an equal basis with the Commonwealth Government. On my visit not only to Crookwell but also to the marvellous town of Bigga, I was very impressed with the roadworks that were occurring between Goulburn and Crookwell. Everywhere I went roadworks were being undertaken.
The Hon. John Della Bosca: But they bypassed Duncan's house. He doesn't live there anyway.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No. There was certainly an unsealed road on the way to the house of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. From what I could gather, he is the only person who lives on that road. Therefore, I am not sure that any government—Labor or Coalition—will ever get around to tar sealing his road. However, there is a lot of work occurring on the roads between Goulburn, Crookwell and Bigga. I was impressed to see where all my money is going. Crookwell and Bigga are marvellous townships, well deserving of the very significant expenditure that this Government is outlaying.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: I suspect that the Treasurer is attempting to mislead the House by implying that he has been to Crookwell. A nice person came to Crookwell and everyone liked him—all honourable members know that the Treasurer is not a nice person.
The PRESIDENT: Order! No point of order is involved. The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Point taken. If honourable members have further questions, I suggest that they put them on notice. TAUBMANS PTY LTD INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 20 September Ms Lee Rhiannon asked me a question about the Taubmans dispute. I provide the following response:
I am advised that Taubmans is now owned by South African company Barloworld Pty Ltd. They have plants in Villawood in Sydney, Queensland and Victoria, and are one of three major paint companies in Australia. At their Villawood location the company employs 122 workers, who are covered by a Federal certified agreement. The unions representing those workers are the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. The certified agreement at Villawood expired on 31 July.
Among other matters the unions sought wage parity with employees in Queensland and Victoria, claiming that the Sydney workers average $51 a week less than workers in other States. Workers were on strike for several weeks since 16 August, with 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17975
pickets in place. The company was successful in gaining an interim injunction from Justice Bryson of the Equity Division of the New South Wales Supreme Court restraining the behavior of the workers and union officials at the picket.
The matter has been the subject of a number of conciliation conferences before Justice Munro of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission [AIRC] pursuant to section 170 NA (1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, "Conciliation in Respect of Agreements". At the conclusion a conference held on Tuesday 25 September 2001 an in principle agreement was reached over a new agreement. The parties continued negotiations to formalise that agreement which involved an application to the AIRC. A new agreement has been made after workers accepted a deal which included a 10 per cent pay increase. As this is a Federal matter there is no involvement of the State Industrial Relations system.
CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 26 September the Hon. John Tingle asked me, representing the Attorney General, a question relating to the offence of carnal knowledge. The Attorney General has provided the following response:
The general carnal knowledge offences—namely, carnally knowing a girl under 10, and unlawfully and carnally knowing a girl aged between 10 and 16 years—were repealed on 23 March 1986. These offences were replaced by the offences of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 and sexual intercourse with a child aged between 10 and 16 years, respectively. These amendments were part of a legislative package which introduced a range of new provisions concerned with sexual offences against children under 10 years of age and offences against children above 10 but under 16 years of age. It should be noted that the current offences capture a broader range of activity than was the case under the old sections, through the new definition of "sexual intercourse". These offences are regularly prosecuted in the courts with many cases being successfully prosecuted to conviction.
The Crimes Act still contains three offences which deal with "carnal knowledge". They are the offence of procuring carnal knowledge by fraud, section 66; the offence of carnal knowledge by a schoolmaster or other teacher, a father or step-father, of a girl aged between 16 and 17 years, who is his pupil, daughter or step-daughter, section 73; and the offence of attempting to carnally know a girl aged between 16 and 17 years, who is the person's pupil, daughter, or step-daughter, section 74. The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research does not yet have statistics for 2001. However, it has advised that in the High Court in 2000, there were convictions under section 73 of the Crimes Act but no convictions under sections 66 and 74.
DISABLED PEOPLE DEATHS
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 16 October the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans asked me, representing the Attorney General, a question relating to the disabled deaths reporting review. The Attorney General has provided the following response:
The current requirements of the Coroners Act 1980 provide a system of external monitoring of the deaths of certain groups of people with disabilities who are living in care. These are people with a disability living in government accommodation and respite facilities. Prior to 1993 all funded disability accommodation services were licensed under the Youth and Community Services Act 1973. All these services, as licensed services, were required to report the death of a resident to the police or a coroner. With the commencement of the Disability Services Act 1993, non-government services were no longer licensed and thus outside the jurisdiction of the Coroners Act 1980. However, all deaths that are unexpected, unusual or suspicious are still required to be reported to the Coroner.
This situation is being examined as part of the review of the Coroners Act 1980 being conducted by the Attorney General's Department. Several submissions have been received from interested parties seeking to extend the definition of reportable deaths in the Coroners Act 1980 to include the deaths of all people with a disability who are living in non-government facilities. The terms of reference for the review of the Coroners Act 1980 are very broad. Many submissions have been received on a wide range of issues. The Attorney General's Department advises that several major stakeholders are in the process of preparing detailed and extensive submissions.
The review cannot be completed until all interested parties have had the proper opportunity to lodge their submissions and to be consulted on proposed changes to the Act. Non-government agencies providing disability accommodation services are currently required to report deaths to the Disability Death Review Team. The work of the team is not affected by the coronial reporting requirements. The Disability Death Review Team maintains a register of all deaths of people with a disability in care facilities and aims to prevent premature deaths by looking at systemic issues and identifying areas for service improvement.
OFFICE OF THE PROTECTIVE COMMISSIONER MISMANAGEMENT
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 16 October the Hon. Elaine Nile asked me, representing the Attorney General, a question relating to the Office of the Protective Commissioner. The Attorney General has provided the following response:
Fraudulent activity within the Office of the Protective Commissioner [OPC] was detected in late 1999. The two staff members concerned were investigated by the police, subsequently charged and convicted. All monies were recovered and reimbursed to clients' accounts. In February 2000 the Director-General of the Attorney General's Department engaged auditors, Arthur Andersen, to undertake a risk assessment of operations, review the fraud control plan and the code of conduct, and review internal audit practices and prepare a new internal audit plan. 17976 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
The OPC has implemented measures recommended in the Auditor's report to minimise the future risk of fraud occurring. These include segregating duties for the authorisation of urgent cash payments to clients. This requires different members of staff to authorise the opening of cheques and the deposit of cheques directly into clients' accounts; moving from a manual vouchers system to an electronic system which allows greater tracking, analysis of payments and independent verification of new payees; engaging ICAC to provide training for key staff in ethical conduct so as to strengthen staff's understanding of fraud prevention issues, and establishing a quality control and audit branch and recruiting staff to that branch.
For the OPC the benefits of these measures are to provide a more powerful fraud detection capacity, an enhanced ability to prevent and deter fraud, greater protection for the OPC and its clients against financial loss through fraudulent transactions, and greater protection of the OPC's reputation for reliability and integrity. In addition, the public bodies review committee [PBRC] of the New South Wales Parliament commenced an inquiry into OPC's performance in April 2000. The PBRC is scheduled to release its report in October 2001. The Government will respond to the report once it has been tabled.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED LIVESTOCK FOOD
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 16 October the Hon. Richard Jones asked me, representing the Minister for Agriculture, a question relating to genetically modified livestock food. The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following response:
Cotton trash is not fed to cattle in New South Wales and Australia because cotton trash may contain residues of chemicals used to control pests and diseases that affect cotton. Because cattle are not fed cotton trash, no meat from cattle fed cotton trash is exported to Japan. I have, through the work of NSW Agriculture, ensured that cotton trash is not fed to cattle, so that beef is not contaminated by residues of chemicals used to treat cotton pests and diseases. Cotton trash is not fed to cattle.
NORTH HEAD QUARANTINE STATION
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 26 September the Ms Lee Rhiannon asked me a question relating to the proposed redevelopment of the North Head quarantine station. I provide the following response:
I am advised by my colleague the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning that he has directed that a commission of inquiry be held into all environmental aspects of the proposed conservation and adaptive re-use of the North Head Quarantine Station, Manly local government area. Notice of the commission of inquiry was given in newspapers, including the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian and the Manly Daily on 8 and 13 October. In addition, the Office of Commissioners of Inquiry for Environment and Planning sent letters to interested parties advising of the inquiry on 8 October.
LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT REVIEW
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 16 October the Hon. Ian Cohen asked me, representing the Attorney General, a question relating to a review of the Land and Environment Court. The Attorney General has provided the following response:
The reference group was established to provide expert advice and opinion to the Land and Environment Court working party. I am advised that members of the reference group were consulted on a range of issues in the course of the review. I understand that their advice and opinions were extremely valuable to the working party in formulating its recommendations. The working party received more than 300 submissions from a wide variety of individuals and organisations. Nearly three-quarters of the total number were received from individuals, community and environmental groups, and local councils and regional organisations of councils.
Much of the criticism directed at the Land and Environment Court is ill-informed. The court decides matters independently and impartially, according to the law and the evidence that is before it. It needs to be remembered that the majority of the so-called developers who end up fighting their local council in the Land and Environment Court are local residents and business people wanting to build back sheds, make extensions to homes or renovate their shopfronts. Those local government representatives who are lobbying for the abolition of merit appeals are essentially trying to reduce councils' accountability to the public. Effectively, they want the umpire sent from the field.
Local councils determine more than 120,000 development applications each year, but only 1,200—or about 1 per cent—of DAS are appealed to the Land and Environment Court. About 50 per cent of these matters are discontinued or resolved by agreement between the parties. This means that only around 600 of 120,000 DAS lodged each year are, in fact, heard by the court. Of the matters heard by the court, roughly half of the appeals are upheld and the other half are dismissed. This does not suggest a court that is heavily biased in favour of developers.
Many of the working party's recommendations are directed at improving the court's procedures to make it more responsive to the needs and expectations of local communities. For example, the proposal that minor matters should be determined by conferences held on the site of the proposed development would see commissioners standing in people's yards and talking to applicants and their neighbours. 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17977
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR TRADING WEB SITE
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: On 16 October the Hon. Don Harwin asked me, representing the Minister for Fair Trading, a question relating to the Department of Fair Trading web site. The Minister for Fair Trading has provided the following response:
The publication referred to is a booklet published in hard copy by the Department of Fair Trading. As with all publications, the department also places them on the web site. In short, the section of the department's web site referred to by the honourable member is an electronic copy of a printed publication. To access the point on the web site, a consumer must pass through at least two other pages on the web site, including the department's home page, that talk about home warranty insurance and in particular HIH. This information is regularly updated. When consumers request a printed version of the publication from one of the department's Fair Trading centres, an insert is included detailing the most recent list of home warranty insurers.
LOCAL COUNCILS PENALTY INTEREST RATES
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: On 20 September the Hon. Dr Peter Wong asked me, representing the Minister for Local Government, a question relating to interest rates imposed by local councils. The Minister for Local Government has provided the following response:
The Minister for Local Government has specified, under section 566 (3) of the Local Government Act 1993, that the maximum rate of interest that a council may set in respect of rates and charges that remain unpaid after they become due and payable, shall be 11 per cent for 2001-02. The maximum interest rate is determined according to the interest rate payable on judgements as determined and reviewed periodically by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. In respect to the reference that the Reserve Bank's official interest rate is below 5 per cent and that interest rates are generally falling, it is considered that neither these rates nor interest rates on credit cards, which are generally significantly higher, are a relevant comparison, as interest on overdue rates and charges does not relate to loans or investments.
No records are maintained in respect to what interest rates are imposed by individual councils as the rate specified restricts the rate imposed to a maximum level. Fairfield City Council has confirmed that interest on overdue rates and charges was applicable to approximately 14 per cent of its rateable assessments levied for 2001-02, in respect to the first quarterly installment due 31 August. It should be noted that the Local Government Act 1993 and regulations require that the rates and charges notice levied by councils contain a statement that interest will accrue on any overdue amount. Further, the notice is required to be served at least 30 days prior to the due date for payment and ratepayer's are provided with the option of payment by quarterly installments due 31 August, 30 November, 28 February and 31 May.
Provision is also made under the Act for a council to accept payment and write off or reduce interest accrued in accordance with any agreement made with the ratepayer to alter the normal payment periods. Provision also exists that permits a council to write off accrued interest if in its opinion the payment would cause the person hardship or payment by the due date was beyond the person's control. The interest rate will be reviewed again prior to the next rating year commencing 1 July 2002 and will be specified in accordance with the judgement interest rate determined at that time by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
It is not considered necessary that an immediate review of the rate or alternative method of determination be conducted because it is considered that the interest rate on overdue rates and charges is not comparable to mortgage or investment interest rates as it is not the purpose of councils to provide loans or an investment facility. It is an incentive to pay by the due date of quarterly installments ranging from 31 August to 31 May. Provision exists to extend the period due for payment and write off accrued interest in circumstances such as hardship. It is suggested that any ratepayer suffering hardship and experiencing difficulty in the payment of rates and charges, including any accrued interest, should approach their local council to discuss their situation and the possibility of utilising the hardship provisions of the Local Government Act. PUBLIC SECTOR BOARDS WOMEN'S REPRESENTATION
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: On 19 September the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asked me, representing the Minister for Women, a question regarding public sector board representation. The Minister for Women has provided the following response:
The New South Wales Government has pledged to continue to work towards ensuring 50 per cent of all new appointments to public sector boards and committees are women. The Government is also committed to encouraging bodies outside government to put forward female candidates. In 1994-95, when this Government came to office, just 19 per cent of new appointees to public sector boards and committees were women. New South Wales now has one of the highest representations of women on its government board in Australia.
Last year 726 women were appointed to New South Wales government boards and committees—36 per cent of all appointments made. And we are continuing to build on our achievements. In the first six months of this year, women represented 38 per cent of all appointments made—310 appointments in all. These good results have been achieved through targeting strategic points in the appointment process. The Department for Women and the Premier's Department, though the Fifty Fifty Seminars program, are working with chief executive officers to improve opportunities for women to reach senior executive and board levels. These events provided a unique opportunity to bring together talented senior women with government and ministerial staff who play a key role in the appointment process to ensure that women of talent are not overlooked.
In partnership with the rural women's network, the Premier's Department and the Department for Women are helping agencies such as agriculture and resource management, to improve women's representation on their boards. As part of this strategy, the 17978 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
Department for Women and rural women's network have entered an exciting partnership with New South Wales TAFE and the Western Institute of TAFE, to develop a boards and committees training course for rural women. The course is being piloted from August this year in the central west region and targeted at a broad range of women, including those with no, or only limited, previous board or committee experience. The focus will be on achieving real results for women, equipping them with the necessary skills to operate confidently as board and committee members on local boards.
In honouring the Government's commitment, the Department for Women is also working with agencies outside government that nominate to public sector boards and committees. For example, the Department for Women, in partnership with the Local Government and Shires Association, ran a Local Government campaign in the lead-up to local government elections held in 1999 and 2000. Women now are 26 per cent of all local councillors, a 3 per cent increase on the 1995 election results. To improve awareness of the issue, the Department for Women has created a leadership web page with a number of valuable resources for women, including the Department for Women's decision-making kit.
Another valuable resource is the register maintained by the Premier's Department. The register contains the personal details of over 700 skilled women. This Government is committed to developing a dynamic and growing economy in New South Wales by helping women to develop their skills and ensuring that women with talent are not overlooked.
Questions without notice concluded.
[The President left the chair at 1.06 p.m. The House resumed at 2.45 p.m.]
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti): I draw the attention of the House to the presence in the President's Gallery of Mr Ali Kazak, the Head of the State of Palestine General Palestinian Delegation and the Ambassador of Palestine to Vanuatu. I welcome him to the House.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (HETEROSEXUAL DISCRIMINATION) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.45 p.m.]: Proposed section 49ZTK, on page 8 of the bill, gives the lie to this being an antidiscrimination bill. It states:
(1) It is unlawful for an educational authority to discriminate against a person on the ground of heterosexuality.
The proposed section elaborates, and then concludes:
(3) Nothing in this section applies to or in respect of a private educational authority.
The antidiscrimination bill on homosexuality provides that private educational authorities—which generally, unfortunately, means church schools—are exempt from its provisions. This bill, which purports to be a bill against discrimination, is identical. In other words, because it wants to leave that section in for homosexuals, it leaves it in for heterosexuals. If one seriously wanted to correct the problems with the Anti-Discrimination Act one would take out the word "homosexuality" and replace it with the word "sexuality". Such a measure would have the same effect as the proposal in the bill. If one really wanted to fix it, one would take out the exemptions.
Only last week the House debated the nature of Christianity and tolerance, and inflicting one's values on others, with regard to reciting the Lord's Prayer in the House. It is a nice irony that today we want to allow discrimination in favour of the church. The church, rather than leading the charge against discrimination, is the conservative group that wants an exemption from progress that has been made since 1977. This bill is sniping at the edges, it is sniping at the fact that there is an antidiscrimination bill for homosexuals and not one for heterosexuals. It is interesting that not one skerrick of evidence has been given of discrimination against heterosexuals. Bills introduced into the House for the improvement of New South Wales should be backed by evidence that is as scientific as possible. I do not say that about only this bill; I say that about all bills on which I speak, and I say it increasingly often.
In my profession of medicine many things are done based on tradition. A man called Cochran, who had lymphoma and who was of a scientific bent, asked about the basis of the treatments he would receive. He wanted to cite the evidence so that he could evaluate what was done to him and contribute intelligently to the discussion about the optimum management of his illness. That was a natural thing for someone with a scientific mind and who was suffering from lymphoma. He was horrified by the lack of scientific approach to the practice 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17979 of medicine. In medicine now there is a great deal of distinction between evidence-based medicine and practices that are not based in evidence but are more optional. There are a lot of questions about whether these things are beneficial.
The same process ought to be used in Parliament. It should not be an anecdote here or an anecdote there, a lobby group wants this or a lobby group wants that. We should examine issues carefully to determine whether they are problems and then decide what we should do about them. This bill has done nothing like that. Therefore, this is a homophobic bill based on the premise that heterosexuals have been discriminated against. The implication is that heterosexuals need to be protected from them. In a sense this bill does not optimally fix the problems in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to work out the two things I have said: the change in wording from "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" to "sexuality" and the removal of the exemption clauses. That is not rocket science. The Hon. Malcolm Jones: You can move an amendment to it. You are entitled to do that. The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I could move an amendment, but effectively the entire bill is on the wrong track. Is the Hon. Malcolm Jones suggesting that I remove the entire bill and fix the whole problem? It is not my bill. It is a piece of homophobic legislation that should be defeated. That is where I stand, and I do not think there is any point in elaborating further. It is simply the last fling of aspects of a church which, I believe, are at variance with the real philosophy of Jesus Christ as expressed in the gospels. The comment that comes to mind is, "Let him who is guiltless cast the first stone." However, I do not think the concept of guilt in terms of sexual practice is helpful, so perhaps that is not an appropriate quote. At least it is a matter of tolerance and love being expressed through tolerance. That is where I think this bill is sadly flawed. It is ironic that the bill comes from a group called the Christian Democratic Party. This is a homophobic bill; it is not an antidiscrimination bill. It should be voted down as soon as possible. The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [2.54 p.m.]: As the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans said, there is not one iota of evidence so far that there has been, there is or there will be discrimination against heterosexuals in New South Wales. As the honourable member also said, the central theme of Christianity is love, compassion and forgiveness. This is a ridiculous bill. It is a total waste of the time of the House. I definitely will not support it. The Hon. PETER BREEN [2.55 p.m.]: The name of the bill is incomplete—it should be called the "Anti-Discrimination (Heterosexual Discrimination and Other Forms of Homophobia) Bill". This bill proceeds on the assumption that gay people are heterophobic in the way that some straight people are homophobic. The proposition is flawed. I have many friends who are homosexual, and I have a brother whom I love who is also homosexual. I have never once seen an instance of my friends or my brother discriminating against people because they are heterosexual. It is an absurd proposition. The proponents of the bill and those who support it tell us more about their own phobias and prejudices than they do about the gay people the bill is obviously intended to target. In fact, the bill is so fundamentally flawed that if it were to become law it would almost certainly be challenged on the basis that it is contrary to the objects of the legislation that it is intended to amend. The purpose of anti-discrimination law is to protect minorities from abuse of power by majorities, including discrimination based on age, sex, sexuality, education and so on. Some forms of discrimination are not prohibited under our anti-discrimination laws, including discrimination based on religious belief or social status. The Hon. Elaine Nile should be addressing those areas, not discrimination based on so-called heterosexual discrimination. The absurdity of the proposition that heterosexual people need to be protected from discrimination can be illustrated by substituting the words "brown eyes" for the word "heterosexual" in the bill. Let us assume that the proponents of the bill are concerned about discrimination against people with brown eyes. The Hon. Malcolm Jones: This is just as preposterous as the contribution of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. The Hon. PETER BREEN: It is just as preposterous as discrimination based on heterosexuality. It is an hypothesis on which I propose to expand. Honourable members may not be aware that, just as a majority of the world's population is heterosexual, it is also a fact that a majority of people in the world have brown eyes. What would be the status of people with brown eyes if the Hon. Elaine Nile were to introduce a bill called the Anti-Discrimination (Brown Eyes Discrimination) Bill? Two things would happen. First, we would have a concept that is a contradiction in terms because an Act that is supposed to protect minorities includes this absurd provision protecting a majority of people who happen to have brown eyes. 17980 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
Second, people with brown eyes would be falling over each other to make a claim under the Anti- Discrimination Act on the basis that their brown eyes had cost them a job, a place in a queue, an advancement in an education institution, access to a particular grant—the list goes on. The Anti-Discrimination Board and the courts would be jam packed with people claiming discrimination based on their brown eyes. The idea of heterosexual discrimination is no less absurd than brown eyes discrimination. Indeed, it is more absurd because 90 per cent of people are heterosexual. Yesterday Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile complained about the increase in litigation he says would result from a bill of rights. If heterosexual discrimination were to become the basis of a legal claim, the courts would be swamped by applications—a tsunami by comparison with any increasing claims that a bill of rights might cause.
The unspoken agenda behind these claims and the thrust of the bill is that homosexuals can be nasty, vindictive people and the rest of the population is to be protected from them; that they represent a terrible threat to our peace and security. What a load of rubbish! In my experience, homosexuals do not have the same paranoia and phobias about heterosexual people as many of us display towards them. The Hon. Elaine Nile has presented no evidence to support her thesis, as the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans pointed out, and there is no evidence that I am aware of through my experience and reading that we need to be protected from homosexuals. As I said earlier, this bill says more about the fears and uncertainties of the Hon. Elaine Nile than it does about the need for protection against homosexuals. On that basis, I urge honourable members to reject the bill.
The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.00 p.m.]: I participate in the debate on the Anti-Discrimination (Heterosexual Discrimination) Amendment Bill, which seeks to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to make it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of heterosexuality in certain circumstances. It is a very small bill. The Hon. Peter Breen has stolen my thunder and taken the words out of my mouth. In the 1970s, when antidiscrimination legislation was flourishing, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 was passed to protect minorities from discrimination on the basis of race, creed, disability, et cetera. This bill is designed to protect the majority, which surprises me. Of course I cannot refuse to support the bill because it seeks to protect everyone, as I understand it, but at the same time I cannot support it because my advice is that there have been no complaints about discrimination against persons on the ground that they are heterosexual.
The Hon. Dr Peter Wong: There will be after this debate.
The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I note that the Hon. Dr Peter Wong stated during the debate that this bill is ridiculous, but I have to say that I do not think it is ridiculous. I think it is unnecessary, that is all. I believe that the Hon. Elaine Nile is well intentioned but being well intentioned does not always make good law. In this instance, if I supported the bill I would be voting to pass unnecessary law, and if a law is bad or unnecessary it should not be enacted at all because we have enough law as it is. For the reasons I have outlined, I will not vote against the bill. The Hon. Peter Breen: You should. The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I will also not vote in support of the bill. I will state my position. The Hon. Peter Breen: You should vote against it. The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: It is bad law, and that is why I cannot support it. The Hon. Peter Breen: Then you should vote against it. The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I think there are sufficient numbers in the Chamber. The Hon. Peter Breen: No. It is down to one vote. You should vote against the bill. The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: If the passage of the bill comes down to one vote, it will depend on how the vote is to be counted. It is not a matter of voting; rather, it is a matter of principle. I cannot reject the idea that there ought to be a law which provides that discrimination against all people is unlawful, but also I cannot support the bill because I think the legislation is unnecessary or bad. In those circumstances, I have to say that I will abstain from voting. The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [3.03 p.m.]: I support the Anti-Discrimination (Heterosexual Discrimination) Amendment Bill, which has been introduced by the Hon. Elaine Nile. This bill has no component that can be described as homophobic. If I am wrong, I challenge anyone to point out to me my mistake within the wording of the bill. 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17981
The Hon. Peter Breen: Just read the title—"Heterosexual Discrimination".
The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: The bill states "Heterosexual Discrimination" but it does not mention the word "homosexual".
The Hon. Peter Breen: That is an absurd proposition.
The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: I accept that the Hon. Peter Breen has an opinion but nowhere in the bill have I found the word "homosexual". Homosexual people, male and female, have fought for equality and their rights, and those rights have been granted. However, heterosexual people have not been granted such rights by statute, especially for example in the workplace. It is assumed that heterosexual people have such rights, but those rights have not formally been granted, and they need to be. The anecdotal reports of homosexuals in the world of the theatre and sports are many. I have no specific proof because no inquiries have been undertaken and no evidence has been given, but examples can be found in the newspapers. I cite the example of the Australian Women's Cricket Team. Surely heterosexual people who believe they have been discriminated against should have rights similar to those of homosexual people who believe they have suffered discrimination.
I will comment on some of the remarks that have had been made during the course of this debate. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans drew a very long bow when he referred to religious schools. I am not an intellectual so I am probably the wrong person to comment on the honourable member's remarks. However, religious schools are not mentioned in the bill. Private educational authorities are mentioned in the bill but religious schools are not. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans engaged in a Christian diatribe which I think is a product of his immense imagination. He mentioned matters of which there is no proof of intention whatsoever. Similarly, the assumptions in relation to brown eyes versus blue eyes referred to by the Hon. Peter Breen—
The Hon. Peter Breen: Only brown eyes.
The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: All right, brown eyes and non-brown eyes. The remarks of the Hon. Peter Breen were another example of an overactive imagination and the drawing of inferences from this bill which are not to be found in the contents of the bill. They are simply projections which are designed to confuse the issue. I, too, wish to state my position on this matter. One of the people I love most in the world is a very, very close member of my family and is homosexual. I love him dearly. However, that does not affect my attitude to this bill. The problem which the Hon. Elaine Nile seeks to address by introducing this bill is discrimination against heterosexuals, and it has been said that there is no evidence of such discrimination. This bill may therefore not be needed, but if discrimination does occur, it will be needed.
The Hon. Elaine Nile: It is needed. The woman cricketer was thrown out of the team.
The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: That is right, and similar accusations have been made about the Sydney Dance Company. For the reason that the bill seeks to redress matters on the basis of fairness, I support it.
The Hon. RON DYER [3.08 p.m.]: I have been constrained to speak to the Anti-Discrimination (Heterosexual Discrimination) Amendment Bill by the Hon. Peter Breen's analogy of people with brown eyes. I feel challenged by a perceived discrimination against me, and I thought I ought to contribute on that account. I note for the record that the object of the bill is to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to make it unlawful for persons to discriminate against others on the ground of their heterosexuality. I take the view that one of the most successful statutes of this State happens to be the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. As the House is aware, the Standing Committee on Law And Justice recently embarked upon and concluded an inquiry into whether New South Wales should have a bill of rights. It is equally well known that the committee recommended against that course being adopted.
One of the measures that has been adopted in this State and, for that matter, other States, to deal with the rights of minorities is to enact legislation to provide that discrimination on certain grounds is rendered unlawful. Typically, when such legislation is enacted, a form of advocacy body is set up—in the case of New South Wales, the Equal Opportunity Tribunal—to hear complaints and enforce the provisions of that legislation. The reason I mentioned in passing the recent inquiry by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice into a bill of rights is that, arguably, the needs of minorities can be satisfied by setting up such advocacy bodies and enacting specific statutes to deal with the problems encountered by minority groups. 17982 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
A number of other statutes, both State and Federal, have a similar purpose and effect to that of the Anti- Discrimination Act 1977. Examples of such statutes would be the Racial Discrimination Act, an enactment of the Commonwealth Parliament, and there are several examples in the disability area both in New South Wales and in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. Under those statutes, advocacy bodies are set up and resort can be had to them by people who feel that they have a complaint arising from some perceived discrimination against them. That is certainly the case, for example, in New South Wales with people with disabilities. A Community Services Commission has been established, to which complaint can be made arising from perceived discrimination against such people. That is a parallel to the Anti-Discrimination Act, in a sense, and is a useful example of the sorts of structures and measures that can be taken to facilitate and defend the rights of minority groups.
The bill seeks to insert part 4D, which will parallel the existing provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act dealing with discrimination on the ground of homosexuality. I now wish to summarise some of the significant provisions of the bill. Part 4D proposes that references to a person's heterosexuality will cover the situation in which a person is thought to be a heterosexual person, whether the person is in fact a heterosexual person or not. It further proposes that the circumstances in which a person discriminates against another person on the ground of heterosexuality be specified. These circumstances include treating the aggrieved person less favourably than the person would treat another person not thought to be heterosexual in the same circumstances.
Provision is also made for discrimination in what might be described as a work situation. It is proposed to make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee or applicant for employment on the ground of heterosexuality. The proposed section does not apply in relation to employment within a private household or by a private educational authority, a matter that has been referred to previously. Nor does the proposed section apply where there are no more than five persons employed by the employer. Other provisions seek to make it unlawful to discriminate of the ground of heterosexuality in certain other work-related areas involving commission agents, contract workers and partners in firms comprising six or more partners.
With regard to employment discrimination, it is proposed to insert provisions covering certain industrial organisations, qualifying bodies, such as those empowered to confer a trade, professional or occupational qualification, and employment agencies. In essence it would be unlawful for those bodies to discriminate against a person on the ground of heterosexuality. The bill also makes provisions regarding discrimination in areas other than areas relating to employment. It is suggested that the law should provide for it to be unlawful for an educational authority, but not a private educational authority, to discriminate against students or applicants for admission as students on the ground of heterosexuality. I must say I am perplexed by that provision.
If it is thought to be good in policy terms to introduce this concept of discrimination on the ground of heterosexuality in areas other than employment, and to extend its application to an educational authority, why would it not be binding upon a private educational authority as well as a public educational authority? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is reasonable to legislate in this area, if it is thought to be good in principle, why draw back from extending it to the private educational area? The bill also makes provisions to cover discrimination on the ground of heterosexuality in the areas of providing goods, services and accommodation, and in relation to membership of registered clubs. Finally, it is proposed that it be unlawful for a person or body to discriminate against another person in sport—presumably, again, in the area of heterosexuality.
Having made those preliminary observations about the purpose of the legislation, I advise the House that it is my understanding that a key objective of the Anti-Discrimination Act is to pursue substantive equality for groups in the community who suffer disadvantage by virtue of their difference from the majority of the community. I would have thought that is the underlying principle in discrimination law. Therefore if there is an attempt by the legislature to make provision to defend the rights of people who might be discriminated against, I would have thought that one needs to form a conclusion that there is discrimination against such a class of persons in society in any event. There is clear judicial support for this proposition in the case of McAliffe v. Puplick and Anor, reported in (1996) EOC 92-800 at 78.923, in which Justice Levine of the Supreme Court of New South Wales describes the "important purpose of the enactment itself to be 'remedial and beneficial'."
The expression "remedial and beneficial" creates a connection with the concept I have just attempted to describe, that is, the statutory provisions are intended to defend the interests of people who suffer disadvantage by virtue of their difference, vis-a-vis the majority in society. The Anti-Discrimination Act clearly identifies gay men and lesbians as minority groups, as they are, in the community and the Legislature has taken the view in the 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17983 past that such people, together with others who are referred to in the Anti-Discrimination Act in the sense of the specified grounds of discrimination, need special recognition and protection because of their minority status and the perception that they are, in certain circumstances, in fact discriminated against.
The Government is of the view that to accord similar protection to heterosexuals would significantly diminish the important educative and symbolic functions of that protection to which I have just referred, and perhaps even expose a key objective of the Anti-Discrimination Act to ridicule. The argument implied by the provisions in the bill of the Hon. Elaine Nile which I have briefly described is that discrimination law should provide universal coverage to all groups in the community whether or not there is evidence of discriminatory conduct against them. The Government believes that argument is unsustainable. The policy purpose of the Anti- Discrimination Act—and I do not want to become unduly repetitive—is to defend the interests of minorities against whom there is not only a perception of but there is real discriminatory conduct in various areas such as employment, housing and so on.
That a key focus of the Act is to encourage substantive equality for minority groups in need of special protection is evident in the existing grounds of homosexuality, transgender status and disability in the Anti- Discrimination Act. From my past experience as Minister for Disability Services I am certainly well aware of the need for people with disabilities to have the protection accorded under the Anti-Discrimination Act. By including those grounds, the Act clearly targets groups in the community who suffer disadvantage or detriment as a result of having the attributes to which I have made passing reference—homosexuality, transgender status and disability—but that does not exhaust the class of people in the community who can suffer disadvantage. Provision of the grounds to which I have referred is evidence that the community regards people with those attributes as needing special recognition and support. As a heterosexual I cannot say honestly that I am aware of any form of discrimination on that ground against me during my lifetime, and I have been around quite a while.
The Hon. Peter Breen: But where have you been?
The Hon. RON DYER: I have lived a very active and public life for a very long time. In response to the interjection of Hon. Peter Breen, I have been in the public eye. That is all I have to say.
The Hon. Doug Moppett: By the sound of things you have not spent very much time in Oxford Street.
The Hon. RON DYER: No, I do not spend any time at all in Oxford Street, but I do not deny anyone else the right to do so, if that is their scene.
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It has good restaurants.
The Hon. RON DYER: The Hon. Patricia Forsythe tells me there are good restaurants there, and that may well be the case. I have visited other restaurants. but not those in Oxford Street. In the context of this debate it is notable that in Western Australia, where this issue was considered most recently, the ministerial committee which inquired into lesbian and gay law reform recommended, according to my understanding, a ground of sexual orientation discrimination, defined so as to include only homosexuality, lesbianism and bisexuality. It does not include heterosexuality. In making its recommendation the ministerial committee clearly adopted the principle that one of the key objectives of discrimination legislation is to provide remedial and beneficial legislation in order to achieve substantive equality for those in the community, such as homosexuals who suffer detriment by virtue of their homosexual identity. The provision that has been recommended in Western Australia appears to follow the general thrust of the policy direction adopted in New South Wales ever since the Anti-Discrimination Act was enacted in 1977.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Recommended by a homosexual committee that the Government appointed in Western Australia.
The Hon. RON DYER: I hesitate to comment on the composition of the committee.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It is publicly known.
The Hon. RON DYER: I am not aware of that.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The Minister said he selected homosexual people to give advice on this homosexual issue. 17984 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
The Hon. RON DYER: I cannot confirm or deny what the Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has put to the House. However, I very much doubt that the Western Australian Government would be so crass as to openly and blatantly appoint a committee and virtually tell it what to recommend.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Not what to recommend. It appointed people whom it thought knew about the need for new legislation.
The Hon. RON DYER: It is not unreasonable to appoint people to a committee who are aware of the particular policy implications of an issue. However, I should not comment further on the Western Australian committee because I am not aware of who those individuals were. I simply know that such a committee was appointed and it recommended in the manner I have suggested. With those short comments, I indicate that the Government is unable to support this legislation.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES [3.28 p.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to speak about discrimination. As the Hon. Elaine Nile and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile have said over the years, they have a problem with homosexuality.
The Hon. Elaine Nile: We have absolutely no problem whatsoever.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: With homosexuality?
The Hon. Elaine Nile: No.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: Why do you try to stop the mardi gras every year, and pray for it to be rained out?
The Hon. Elaine Nile: It is antifamily.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: What is?
The Hon. Elaine Nile: Men, women, wives, husbands and their children.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: But many people are born homosexual and they are part of the family. How can it be antifamily if they are born that way?
The Hon. Elaine Nile: You know that is not proved.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: I know they are born that way.
The Hon. Elaine Nile: No, they are not.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: Of course they are born that way. It is ridiculous to think otherwise. I do not know how you can really believe that. I had a problem for a number of years—at least that was the case when I was younger—as I was very short. I was discriminated against for being short. I was laughed at and people poked fun at me. When I was about 15 I shot up to five foot six inches and it was no longer a problem. We should include in this legislation a provision relating to discrimination against people who are short. This bill could include discrimination against anything or anybody. We might as well include everybody in the community. We might as well include animals while we are at it.
The Hon. Peter Breen: Only if they belong to a minority group.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: Why should we restrict ourselves to including only minority groups? Why do we discriminate against anybody?
The Hon. Peter Breen: The purpose of discrimination legislation is to protect minority groups. So that does not make sense.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: There should not be discrimination against anybody. The trouble is that there is discrimination throughout society. There is discrimination against country people. There is discrimination against city people by country people. There is discrimination against poor people, particularly 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17985 by the police, who are always stopping poor people driving clapped-out cars. They do not stop people driving Mercedes. Police are always stopping drivers who look poor or who are poor. What about women? Women too have been discriminated against. Perhaps we should include a reference in this legislation to discrimination against women, not just heterosexuals. Women have been discriminated against for years. They are still fighting discrimination.
The Hon. Doug Moppett: That is silly. You cannot discriminate on the basis of gender.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: But women are still discriminated against and they are not a minority; they are actually a majority.
The Hon. Dough Moppett: They are.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: So why do we not include in this legislation discrimination against anybody and everything? We could include old people, young people, poor people, rich people, people of the Muslim faith, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Christians. Why are Christians not included in this legislation? Surely it should include Christian heterosexual discrimination. As we have members of the Christian Democratic Party in this Chamber we should include in this legislation discrimination against Christians. Whilst I am sure that the intentions of the Hon. Elaine Nile in introducing this bill were well-intentioned, it makes a bit of a mockery of the present legislation.
As was pointed out earlier by way of interjection, this legislation was designed to stop active discrimination against people who have been discriminated against for years. What research has been carried out to determine the level of discrimination against heterosexuals? Has any research been done to show that there has been discrimination against heterosexuals? I have not been aware of any during my lifetime. When I was a kid I was called a Jew boy. I was discriminated against for being English. I was often told, "Go home you bloody Pom." I was discriminated against for being short. However, I was never discriminated against for being heterosexual.
The Hon. Elaine Nile: I have had whistles blown at me and I was knocked over in Hyde Park.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: I do not think that that was because the honourable member is heterosexual. It is because the honourable member was seen as being opposed to the gay community. She had whistles blown at her because, in the view of members of the gay community, she is vehemently opposed to their lifestyle and what they are about. For the last 13 years and seven months the honourable member has been a vocal advocate in this Chamber against the homosexual community. She has one year and four months to continue that campaign, which will be to no avail.
Every year, despite opposition from members of the Christian Democratic Party, the mardi gras gets bigger and bigger. It is now the biggest mardi gras in the world and it is accepted by the Australian community. What about discrimination against smokers? A number of smokers say that they should be included in this legislation because they now have to smoke in the street. They are no longer allowed to smoke in buildings. What about including in this bill Christian heterosexual smokers? At least that would involve a smaller number of people than the heterosexual community. It would comprise about 28 or 32 per cent of the community.
The Hon. Peter Breen: Christians do not smoke.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: Christians smoke in the privacy of their homes. What about pot smokers? They are grossly discriminated against. Pot smokers comprise about one-third of the community. There are laws against pot smoking. There is discrimination against 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds, who cannot vote. How come 17-year-olds cannot vote? That is discrimination. There is discrimination against prisoners who cannot vote in some cases. There is discrimination against unemployed people because, in the eyes of some people, they are bludgers. Obviously I would not use that expression to describe unemployed people.
The Hon. Dr Peter Wong: What about single mothers?
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: One member who contributed to debate on this bill said that some single mothers have children by eight different husbands just to get money from the Government. So why should we not include single mothers in this bill? Why should we not include in this bill reference to discrimination against Christian, smoking, heterosexual, single mothers? The Hon. Elaine Nile has taken the 17986 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001 largest group in the community and said that they are being discriminated against, which is really nonsense. The honourable member knows it is nonsense. I understand where the honourable member is coming from, but I do not share her views.
I am not aware of any heterosexual discrimination or of any serious research that has been undertaken into discrimination against heterosexuals in any country. There is certainly discrimination against women. That discrimination is obvious, but women are not included in this legislation. I am sure that the Hon. Elaine Nile would say that they have already been included in other anti-discrimination legislation. There is certainly discrimination against old people, young people, poor people, people with different religious beliefs and people with no religious beliefs. There is discrimination against people with long hair, bald people, people with bad sight and people who are ugly.
People who are ugly are discriminated against because they are ugly. People who are good looking tend to get coverage in the Daily Telegraph and people who are ugly do not. Why do we not introduce an ugly, smoking, heterosexual, single mothers discrimination amendment bill? I do not think that this is serious legislation. I understand where the Hon. Elaine Nile is coming from, but this really is not serious legislation. It makes a mockery of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to seek to have included in it the largest and the most non-discriminated section of the community. So far as I am concerned it makes a mockery of our whole system.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.36 p.m.]: The Greens are amazed by the audacity of members of the Christian Democratic Party in introducing this bill. On one level it could be said that it is amusing but, on another level, it could be said to be a serious piece of legislation as it attempts to overturn the many advances that have been made in recent decades to reduce discrimination in our society. We could call this bill the anti- mardi gras bill because that, in a sense, is the agenda of the Christian Democratic Party. Getting rid of the mardi gras and locking up Oxford Street would be the outcome if these sorts of policies were put in place.
The bill is light years from being a reasoned and sensible contribution. In fact, it sends chills up my spine that members of Parliament are introducing such legislation. The Greens are proud to have Australia's first openly lesbian member of Parliament, Giz Watson in Western Australia. She holds the exclusive balance of power in that Parliament with her Green colleagues. We are proud also that Bob Brown, a gay Australian member of Parliament, has had the courage to come out of the closet. Both members of Parliament are an inspiration to young people across the country who are struggling with their sexuality and who are working to find acceptance within their communities. We salute them for their courage. Life should be about honesty and pride—not the Christian notions of shame and sin. Honesty and pride are what life is all about.
The Christian Democratic Party starts off with a reasonable concern about a woman who alleges that she was excluded from a professional sporting competition because she was straight. Honourable members must remember that the New South Wales Law Reform Commission is looking at this issue. We are awaiting a reasoned and sensible contribution from that body. This young woman has avenues through which she can take up her case, which has been misused in this Parliament as the basis for this bill. The Christian Democrats have raised a one-off situation of possible discrimination in sport and have then used the legal equivalent of carpet bombing to destroy all advances made in recent decades for lesbian and gay people. The stated object of the bill is to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to make it unlawful for persons to discriminate against others on the ground of their homosexuality. The bill creates sections to mimic existing provisions in the Act dealing with discrimination on the ground of homosexuality. The Hon. Elaine Nile said:
If members vote against this bill, they will be saying it is all right to discriminate against heterosexuals … they will be saying that heterosexuals have no human rights … we cannot allow the Anti-Discrimination Act to treat heterosexuals as second-class citizens.
That is ridiculous, and I am sure in her heart the honourable member knows it. She is misusing those words in an attempt to get support for a notion that is dangerous and which would set our society back a great distance. The Greens are particularly mortified by division 3, which relates to discrimination in other areas. Proposed sections 49ZTL, 49ZTM and 49ZTN cover discrimination on the ground of heterosexuality with regard to the provision of goods, services and accommodation, and in relation to membership of registered clubs. These are the provisions I was referring to that would stop the mardi gras and close Oxford Street. That is what will happen if this ridiculous piece of legislation ever saw the light of day.
The provisions would cost New South Wales tens of millions of dollars a year by driving lesbians and gays to another State. If honourable members look at the matter on no other basis than economics, they will see that the State and many businesses derive a great deal of money from the gay community. Large numbers of 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17987 people are employed by that sector of our community. No doubt the Treasurer will be aware that some analysts have suggested that the best predictor of a city's international competitiveness is the size of its lesbian and gay population. This demographic generally grows in proportion to the key indicators of civilisation and amenity: good weather, relatively restrained development, high education, cultural diversity and a climate of civilised open-mindedness—something that some members who have spoken in this debate are short on. The Hon. Elaine Nile said:
We have no malice towards any homosexuals, but we are concerned that in the education system school students only hear about homosexuality, not about heterosexuality and family life. I believe that for years education has been discriminating against heterosexuality in that way. The homosexual hotels in Oxford Street discriminate against heterosexual men at the bar. The Mardi Gras also discriminates because people are not allowed to participate if they are heterosexual.
That too is ridiculous. Heterosexual people have always participated in the gay mardi gras and they still do to this day. The Christian Democrats are deliberately ignoring the history and reality of discrimination and trivialising its effects. That is the tragedy of what they are doing. The impact of discrimination on the lives of homosexual people can be totally traumatic, and the Christian Democrats are trivialising that factor by what they have said and by bringing forward this legislation. As the Hon. Elaine Nile admits, her real target is to introduce discrimination in education, and to destroy Sydney's queer culture and, in particular, the world-renowned mardi gras. Let us be honest, discrimination against lesbians and gays has been lethal. It is not just about who gets to play cricket. That is a total furphy. Nobody has ever been thrown in the River Torrens for having children. No man has ever been gang- raped because he expressed affection for his female lover. No people have ever been hounded out of town because they decided to have a heterosexual relationship. No child has ever been persecuted at school because her parents are straight. No gay men loiter around straight nightclubs to bash women and men who choose to go home and make love to each other. That is the reality that honourable members need to remember. That is what the situation is really like. The bill is a travesty. I am pleased to say that even if it were to pass, it will almost certainly be overridden. My Greens colleagues in Federal Parliament will move to introduce legislation that will override this regressive and foolish bill if it makes it into law, if such madness ever took hold anywhere. There is no way that the Greens could let the Christian Democrats shut down the mardi gras. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.44 p.m.]: We have been advised that amendments have been drafted. I have not seen them and they have not been circulated. Therefore, debate should be adjourned so that the amendments can be considered by all members of the House. We support the Anti-Discrimination (Heterosexual Discrimination) Bill. It is very simple legislation. It will amend the Anti-Discrimination Act to make it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of heterosexuality in certain circumstances. Some honourable members have spoken very emotionally on this bill—in particular, Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Hon. Ian Cohen, both from the Greens. They discussed the Anti-Discrimination Act as if it were a homosexual anti-discrimination act. They display a great ignorance for what the Act is all about. The Hon. Richard Jones displayed a similar ignorance. He did not even pick up on my interjections to let him know when he was off the track.
The objectives of the Anti-Discrimination Act are to render unlawful racial, sexual and other types of discrimination in certain circumstances and to promote equality of opportunity between all persons. This is not a homosexual bill, even though some honourable members are obsessed with that issue. If I could prove to the Hon. Peter Breen, who usually has a sensible approach to such matters, that the Anti-Discrimination Act deals with majorities, would that take away his main argument against the bill? The Anti-Discrimination Act deals with all these issues, and they have been expanded by amendments over time.
The Anti-Discrimination Act deals with discrimination based on race. I do not know the percentages of people in that category so I will make general estimates. Say 20 per cent of people regard themselves as being members of racial groups. The second category is sex. Sex covers everyone in this Chamber. It covers everybody, all males and all females. Everybody is covered by this legislation. I concede that transgenders constitute a low percentage of the population, perhaps 0.01 per cent. The next category is marital status. That is 100 per cent of the population. The bill defines marital status as covering people who are single, married, divorced, widowed or in a de facto relationship. All categories are covered by the Anti-Discrimination Act. That takes in everybody—100 per cent of the population. The Hon. Peter Breen has misunderstood the bill. He thought that a single person was not covered by the provisions. If someone were favouring married people and you are single, you are being discriminated against, and vice versa. This category does not deal with minorities, it deals with everybody. 17988 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
It is difficult to measure all types of disability. Some argue that when we are born we start to develop disabilities. We realise that when we have to wear glasses and so on. Let us say that 10 per cent of people have severe disabilities. Recently we amended the bill to include carers. We are not sure how many carers there are in society. Some people say that they number as much as 50 per cent or 60 per cent. Parents are carers, the Hon. Alan Corbett is a carer, Deputy-President Pezzutti is a carer. There are many carers; it is difficult to say how many. The seventh category in the Anti-Discrimination Act refers to a minority group, homosexuals. Reference is made to homosexual vilification. I suggest that lesbians would make up less than 1 per cent of the population, and homosexuals between 1 per cent and 2 per cent—certainly not the 10 per cent they contend. The Hon. Richard Jones said we should have a bill to protect aged people. They are already protected by the provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act. That shows the extent of ignorance of some members of what is covered by the Anti-Discrimination Act. Recent amendments to the Act also included reference to people with HIV-AIDS. The only people not included in that long list are heterosexuals. The Hon. Peter Breen: Brown-eyed people as well. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: The honourable member can move such an amendment if he wishes, and we will debate whether there is a need for it. It seems an injustice that a heterosexual person can be discriminated against. The Anti-Discrimination Act covers work and employment, education, provision of goods and services, accommodation and registered clubs. I suppose it is not impossible for a heterosexual to try to get accommodation in a particular place which caters only for homosexuals, where the heterosexual is told "I am sorry, you are not welcome here." It may be that a person who buys a company wants to employ only transgender people—he does not want to hire heterosexuals. That could be possible. If honourable members want to test the bill, I invite them to let it pass and announce it as a new area of discrimination. We will then see how many genuine cases there are in our society in which people are discriminated against just because they are heterosexual. It can apply to employees, commission agents, contract workers, partnerships, local councils, unions and employer associations. The Anti-Discrimination Act has grown like Topsy over the years with many different categories being added. It is a very broad-based piece of legislation. It does not just deal with minorities. As I have proved, it deals with all categories—everyone in our society. Everyone has a sexual identity and everyone comes under the category of marital status—single, married, divorced, widowed or de facto. I argue that that pretty well covers everybody. To say that it only deals with minorities is an error by those who claim it. The Anti-Discrimination Board and the New South Wales Law Reform Commission admit that this is a weakness in the legislation. They have said that the legislation does not ban discrimination against heterosexuals, and that that matter is being investigated. All we are hoping to do with the bill is speed up the process. That often happens with legislation. The House can pass the bill, and the Anti-Discrimination Board and others can say that the House has moved to fill that gap in the legislation so the matter has been taken care of. Alternatively, they can advise us that they have drafted their own bill. We would be happy to allow their bill to take priority over our bill. The Hon. Ron Dyer threw in a bit of a spinner when he referred to exemptions. The exemption issue is simply based on the principle in the Anti-Discrimination Act that non-government institutions, private schools, including Catholic schools, and so on are exempt from the provisions of the Act. We have simply continued that historic exemption. I am happy to debate the matter. In our view it is only a minor matter. One principle of the anti-discrimination legislation is that certain areas are exempt. We saw no reason to start a big debate on the exemption question. In terms of exemptions we have simply followed the principle adopted by the Parliament over the years on the application of the Anti-Discrimination Act. The Hon. Ron Dyer: Why should you extend an exemption to such a majority group? Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: The point is that churches, Muslims and others may want an exemption from that provision. Every category of discrimination in the legislation provides for exemptions. We simply followed the same principle. I am happy to debate that point if someone can prove that an exemption is unnecessary. We are not fighting over that point. We simply followed the process adopted by the Anti- Discrimination Act and the Anti-Discrimination Board. The Hon. Ron Dyer: Surely you are not saying that Muslims would want to discriminate on the ground of heterosexuality. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: No. I am simply saying that we followed the principle behind the legislation. We do not want to change the principle, but every category of discrimination has exemptions. If someone can argue that an exemption from discrimination against heterosexuals is unnecessary, we would be happy to accept an amendment in that regard. We will not go to the wall on this issue. Debate adjourned on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17989
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Debate resumed from 26 September.
The Hon. DOUG MOPPETT [3.54 p.m.]: When debate on this motion was interrupted on the previous occasion I foreshadowed that I would refer briefly to the detail of the motion and then make some concluding remarks. The motion has three paragraphs. The first paragraph is self-evident: it embodies the purpose of my motion, that is, to elect three members of the Legislative Council to the Public Accounts Committee. I think that is appropriate to the current composition of the Public Accounts Committee. The second paragraph states that the three members should reflect the composition of the House. At present one might infer that that translates to one Government member, one crossbench member and one Opposition member. However, it also embraces the possibility that in future the elected members may represent a different composition. There could be two Government members and one Opposition member, or crossbench members could have greater representation. That is left open. I do not think the motion is constrained by it; indeed, it adds to the motion.
It is worthwhile explaining the purposes of paragraph 3 of the motion. At the time I drafted the motion the Public Accounts Committee was engaged in an inquiry into a matter of enormous importance to public administration generally and of interest to farmers in particular—that is, an inquiry into the New South Wales Grains Board. I thought it was outrageous that a committee of the Parliament could inquire into such a vital subject without one member of the Legislative Council being a member of that committee. It seemed to be most appropriate—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: The committee seemed to be leaking.
The Hon. DOUG MOPPETT: Yes, there were a lot of leaks there. If we had been able to deal with the motion at that time—and if the Government declined to support this motion and the Legislative Assembly did not accept our proposal—I thought it would be appropriate for General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 to undertake an inquiry into the New South Wales Grains Board, its maladministration and the reasons the organisation had accrued enormous debts, basically leading to its demise.
In my opening remarks I said that I could not claim complete authority for this initiative because I believed it had been in the making for some time. The idea has been referred to by the Auditor-General in his review of the public accounts and audit legislation, and I am sure other members of the House have from time to time felt that it would be appropriate. However, I have a special right to claim some authorship of this initiative because—and my colleagues would bear me out in saying this—at the beginning of this Parliament I announced to my colleagues and to the then Leader of the National Party, the Hon. Richard Bull, my intention to try to secure places for Legislative Council members on the Public Accounts Committee. Recommendation No. 8 of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 was made as a result of my urging as a member of that committee. The other members of the committee considered its ramifications and were happy to adopt my proposal.
More significantly, I believe that inclusion of members of the Legislative Council in the membership of the Public Accounts Committee is an idea whose time has come. I point to changes in the composition of the Legislative Council and the nature of its election, particularly since 1976. I can imagine why people thought that historically it was inappropriate for the Legislative Council to have a significant interest in the financial management of the State, but I believe that that position has been totally inappropriate since the time this House has been fully elected. Moreover, there have been changes to the role of the Audit Office that are of the greatest possible significance—for example, changes that were debated in this Chamber very recently and that were the cause of amendments to a bill which I believe will be reconsidered at a later stage.
The motion represents sweeping changes to public administration of the financial accounts of the State of New South Wales. A greater interest is being taken in the fiscal responsibility exercised by the government of the day. I may have recounted an anecdote of a great friend of mine, but I will do so again because it is worth repeating. A former member of the other place and former Minister, the Hon. Tim Bruxner, spoke about his diffidence when he first sat round the Cabinet table to consider a budget. He sought advice from his father, the founder of the Country Party in New South Wales, Mick Bruxner, who advised him not to worry about that because the introduction of the budget was really a matter of no consequence, a matter which raised no interest in the press, and a matter which no other Ministers would understand in terms of fiscal implications.
The position has changed unrecognisably since that time. Many honourable members—on the Coalition side, certainly—recognise the role of the Hon. Nick Greiner in introducing new standards by which public 17990 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001 accountability in financial matters would be measured. There is no turning back from that. Its preservation is not only in the interests of better information of newspapers which report on the liquidity and responsibility of the policy formulation of government, but also in the interests of those who are interested in strictly accounting outcomes or in whether objectives have been reached or otherwise. There is enormous public interest in the outcomes of budgets and in the framing of budgets. Of course, the New South Wales Legislative Council is the only House that has budget review committees.
I believe that the role of the Public Accounts Committee transcends all others. It has a historical role which I believe gives it prestige and a relationship with the Audit Office that is quite unique. I believe that from that unique relationship emerges the imperative that henceforth there should be members of the Legislative Council included on the membership of that committee. I do not wish to engage in a harangue because I believe this motion is one that argues its own case on its merits. However, I make an unusual plea to those who support this motion out of generosity of spirit or because they are convinced of its merits to make their remarks short and succinct. I think the best way to serve the purposes of this motion is to move to a vote.
I will certainly listen with respect and earnestly to those who oppose the motion. I hope to be able to reply to them if they raise substantial matters. I hope that those who feel minded to support the motion will exercise some restraint in their remarks because it may be possible if they do so to resolve the matter today. In the interests of the people of New South Wales and in the interests of current and future members of the Legislative Council, I hope that this matter will be resolved in the affirmative.
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI [4.01 p.m.]: I wish to join in this debate very briefly. For a long time I have been a critic of the Public Accounts Committee, which currently operates with membership from the lower House only. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of any report produced by the committee, apart from Phillip Smiles' report on ambulance stations, that has had any impact on the running of this State—not one. If I may be so bold, I will make observations of the usual modus operandi of that committee. Members of that committee refer something to the committee or occasionally a matter is referred from elsewhere to the committee. Members of the committee use extraordinarily bloated committee staff numbers and engage consultants. The consultants discuss the matter among themselves and rarely, if ever, have input from the community. I cannot think of a public hearing that has been held by the Public Accounts Committee in the whole time I have been a member of this House, which is approximately 13 years.
The Hon. Doug Moppett: They did on the Grains Board.
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: I did not remember that one. The Public Accounts Committee churns out the odd report and then tables it. I notice that the committee produced a report on the operations of the Department of State and Regional Development, which I have to say I thought was the most extraordinary and inept report that I have ever seen on the subject matter. Given that I have been a member of the Standing Committee on State Development for almost 10 years and it has been inquiring into matters that have an impact on State development, I thought the report was quite silly. In fact, I have been tempted to ask the Treasurer to refer that report to the Standing Committee on State Development for an assessment of its value—but I do not think the Treasurer, as the Minister for State Development, will take any notice of that report anyway. Currently the Public Accounts Committee is almost irrelevant in this State. It has the largest allocation of funding for a committee. I remind honourable members that each member of the committee, including the chair, receives a special allowance for being a member of the committee. I remember that when I was chair of the Standing Committee on State Development that my committee had to subsidise the Public Accounts Committee to the tune of $80,000.
The Hon. John Jobling: Because the Public Accounts Committee had overspent. The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: That is right, and that is what usually happens in spite of the fact that that committee has the biggest budget. All of the members of the Public Accounts Committee travel overseas every year. I do not object to that if there is a good reason for it. I think it is good for members of Parliament to travel if there is a good reason for it. However, my committee had to dip into its budget to the tune of $80,000 for two years in a row. The Standing Committee on State Development did not do any travelling at that stage because most of its inquiries were on a State basis and members had no need to travel on issues that the committee was delving into. The Public Accounts Committee could not even keep within its own budget, despite its budget being outrageously high in my view. On a cost-benefit basis, the committee probably should be abolished altogether but the alternative is to make it a joint standing committee. The Hon. John Jobling: And make it work. 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17991
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: That is right. Joint standing committees have much more impact and are much more thorough. The Joint Standing Committee upon Road Safety and the Joint Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission are good examples, and there are many other good examples. As a result of a report by the Committee on State Development, which was chaired by either me or the Hon. John Jobling, there was a recommendation related to the contracting and tendering processes for goods and services and capital works of the Department of Public Works and Services.
The Hon. John Jobling: I think I did the first one, and you did the second one.
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: Yes, I did the second one. The report that resulted from the inquiry led to the re-establishment of the first committee to be established for this Parliament, namely, the Standing Committee on Public Works. That committee—which I acknowledge is comprised of members of the lower House only—is doing some very fine work. I look forward to receiving the reports of the committee and examining them with some interest. The Regulation Review Committee does a sterling job, and it has improved greatly since it has comprised membership from both Houses. I again draw the attention of honourable members to my criticism of the report by the Public Accounts Committee into the operation of the Department of State and Regional Development. The report was tabled by the honourable member for Fairfield, Joe Tripodi. That report recommended the abolishment of regional development boards. How out of touch can one be? Did the committee invite witnesses to give evidence about what the regional development boards achieved, how they operated, and how they performed much of the important leadership role in regional communities? The answer is no. In his motion the Hon. Doug Moppett asks that in the event that the Legislative Assembly declines the proposal, this House should refer the matters currently under inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee for consideration and inquiry by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1. I believe that, instead, we should ask the Legislative Assembly to consider abandoning the wastefulness of the Public Accounts Committee, or, alternatively, to ensure that the committee operates effectively. I commend the Hon. Doug Moppett for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House, and I hope that the motion receives wide support. The Hon. RICHARD JONES [4.11 p.m.]: I strongly support the motion moved by the Hon. Doug Moppett. The winds of change have to blow through here. It is ridiculous that the Public Accounts Committee is a committee of the lower House only and it is obviously not working effectively. The Auditor-General and the Clerk of the Parliaments have supported the role of the Public Accounts Committee as a joint committee. The Clerk of the Parliaments stated in his report of December 2000:
If the intent of achieving effectiveness of the Parliamentary "watchdog" role is to be fully met, a strong case may be put forward … to establish a PAC of both Houses. Both the Commonwealth and Victorian parliaments have joint public accounts committees. It is time to get rid of this historic anomaly. The Legislative Council is now a very democratic House representing all sorts of people in the community—much more than we used to in 1983 when the Public Accounts Committee was established. The Hon. Doug Moppett: Some would argue that we are more representative than the other place. The Hon. RICHARD JONES: We are more representative. This House has more women per capita, its members come from more diverse backgrounds, it has more diversity of opinion and more diversity of parties. More parties are represented in this House than in the other place. This House is more democratic and represents a wider spectrum of the community, and therefore that community should be represented on the Public Accounts Committee. The Hon. IAN COHEN [4.12 p.m.]: The Greens have some sympathy for the position put forward by the Hon. Doug Moppett regarding the relevance of the Public Accounts Committee and a change to its membership to include members of the upper House, which is now a far more dynamic institution than it may have been when the establishment of the committee was first mooted. Unlike other committees, such as the Standing Committee on Law and Justice and the Standing Committee on Social Issues, which, with a Government majority, are charged with inquiring into specific issues of interest—which is a very important part of the committee process, and I can see the logic of the government of the day having a majority on those committees—it seems that in some ways the Public Accounts Committee is a little more akin to an estimates committee, which investigates specific finances. As previous speakers have highlighted, the role of this House is much different to the role of the lower House. This House represents a far broader spectrum of the community. As a result it would seem appropriate 17992 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001 that the Public Accounts Committee should have as broad representation as possible. The Public Accounts Committee looks at specific financial areas, and it is appropriate that it have the opportunity to fully investigate Government accounts and financial decisions. It would therefore seem appropriate that the committee should also comprise upper House members. It is appropriate to take this opportunity to change the balance of the membership of the committee to ensure that there is open and transparent investigation of these very important matters. The Greens therefore support the motion moved by the Hon. Doug Moppett to change the membership of the Public Accounts Committee to include upper House members and to change the balance of the membership so that is more reflective of the representation of the entire Parliament, to ensure that the committee is even more effective than it has been in the past. I thank the Hon. Doug Moppett for raising this very important issue.
The Hon. JOHN JOBLING [4.15 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. Doug Moppett and commend him for bringing the matter to the attention of the Parliament. The membership of the Public Accounts Committee has been discussed in this place for many years, but the matter has never been brought forward in the House. It is a matter that is long overdue. In most parliaments a properly operated public accounts committee is a committee that has teeth—indeed, it is a watchdog in overseeing government expenditure. I note the comments of other members about the role of the Public Accounts Committee, its profligacy, and the expenditures that have occurred. If we are to have a joint Public Accounts Committee we must ensure that it is effective. That is not an easy matter. I cannot imagine that the Legislative Assembly will willingly accede to the request of the appointment of three members of the Legislative Council to the committee. Yet, one would have to wonder why it would not do so. One would have to wonder why the Legislative Assembly would take a view that the membership of the committee should be confined to the lower House.
A joint Public Accounts Committee would ensure that it has a broad cross-section of members of both Houses, and the varying times of appointment of members will ensure continued membership. It would also ensure that inquiries into matters pertaining to a particular lower House member's electorate would not place that member at an extraordinary disadvantage. The Joint Standing Committee upon Road Safety is a good example of a committee of both Houses. That committee has been in existence for some 20 years. Of all the recommendations presented to the Parliament in the more than 50 reports of that committee, the government of the day, irrespective of its political persuasion, has accepted and adopted all but one or, at the most, perhaps two. A joint committee ensures that both Houses have the ability to work through sensible recommendations and carry out proper investigations, to ensure the intention of the Parliament and the protection of people.
One must wonder why the restriction in relation to membership of the Public Accounts Committee has been in place for so long. Perhaps it is now recognised that estimates hearings have basically become the prerogative of the general purpose standing committees of this House, in which lower House members no longer participate. In my view it is a sad occurrence, because I believe it is desirable that an estimates committee should be a prerogative of both Houses. I believe that the general purpose standing committees of this House will continue to grow in stature in inquiring into matters of finance and matters of expenditure, including explaining why expenditure has been exceeded or has not occurred. We are all aware of the importance of such matters, and that Ministers, irrespective of which government is in office, and the bureaucracy, including heads of departments and directors-general, need to ensure that answers are available, and that public awareness and scrutiny takes place.
That is the principal role of the Public Accounts Committee. I also commend the Hon. Doug Moppett for his suggestion that the membership of the committee should reflect the party composition of the House. It would seem to be eminently fair and reasonably balanced, and it would ensure a balanced approach by the joint committee. In the event that this proposal is declined, we may have the option of referring matters before the Public Accounts Committee to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 for consideration and inquiry. I hope that we do not have to use that fall-back option. I commend public accounts committees in Parliaments around the world that draw their membership, expertise and views—which can differ quite radically—from both Houses. The possible new membership of the Public Accounts Committee would allow the public to rest easier because of its accountability and transparency. It would also assist the Auditor-General. I commend my colleague for moving this motion. I hope that it is passed unanimously by the House.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [4.22 p.m.]: My contribution will be relatively short, on the basis that the motion is something of a set-up. I will explain why. Like my colleague the Hon. John Jobling, it is worthwhile for me to make very clear what this motion proposes. It states: 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17993
That this House resolves:
1. To seek the concurrence of the Legislative Assembly to the appointment of three members of the Legislative Council to the Public Accounts Committee.
2. That the members from the Legislative Council shall be those members elected from time to time to reflect the party composition of the House.
3. That, in the event that the Legislative Assembly declines the proposal, this House refers the matters currently under inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee for consideration and inquiry by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1.
As a member of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1, I point out that in relation to paragraph 3 four other general purpose standing committees investigate matters by their own self-reference. I cannot understand why General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 would be required to investigate matters dealing with all portfolio areas. That suggestion indicates how poorly this matter has been considered by the proponent. It would be most inappropriate for this House to bridle itself with considering only matters that are on the agenda of the Legislative Assembly.
The Hon. John Jobling: Matters concerning the Parliament.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: Yes. Paragraph 1 seeks the concurrence of three members of the Legislative Assembly to the appointment of three members of the Legislative Council to the Public Accounts Committee. If Opposition members had thought through this matter properly they would have proposed an amendment to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983. The Act states that the Public Accounts Committee is required to comprise six members of the Legislative Assembly—it is in legislation. Section 54 of the Act states:
54 Constitution of Public Accounts Committee
(1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of the first session of each Parliament, a committee of members of the Legislative Assembly, to be known as the Public Accounts Committee, shall be appointed.
Membership of the Public Accounts Committee is limited to the Legislative Assembly for a number of specific reasons. Under the Constitution Act all appropriation and taxation bills must originate in the Legislative Assembly. That is why this House gives leave for the Treasurer to speak in the other place to present the budget each year. The Treasurer is required to present the public accounts and total State sector accounts, and the Auditor-General's opinion on them, to the Legislative Assembly. The Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee are required to report to the Legislative Assembly. My simple argument is that if people are unhappy with the Westminster system and the role of the Legislative Assembly, as opposed to this House of review, they should proceed by amending the Public Finance and Audit Act. It is not appropriate to send a message to the Legislative Assembly because that will achieve nothing.
The Hon. Doug Moppett: You need the concurrence of the Government.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I do not know. I have spent less time in this place than many honourable members, but we normally originate a bill to effect change. We should not seek concurrence by a letter to the Legislative Assembly; a bill should be passed in the Legislative Council that seeks an amendment. The word "amendment" appears in many Acts.
The Hon. Doug Moppett: I would like the Government to generate that amendment.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: The Hon. Doug Moppett is saying that the Legislative Council should send a polite letter to the Legislative Assembly with respect to the Public Accounts Committee. That is my dilemma, and therein lies the rub.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Is it the word "letter" or the word "polite" that you do not like? The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I would always expect this House to send polite letters. It would be far more appropriate for this House to introduce a bill; that is how things are done in this place. The Hon. Duncan Gay: Would you support a bill? The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: You have not proposed one. The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is a straight question: Would you support it? 17994 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I have not seen what you want in the bill.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are sitting on the fence.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I have seen the tricks. The National Party is forever putting in little bits at the end of bills. Earlier today I saw the amendments proposed by the Opposition in relation to another matter—so I am reluctant to agree to amendments without having seen them. The Government does not work like that. We examine things as a proper House of review, not sight unseen. If the Opposition were serious it would have complied with the process of this Parliament—that is, it would have introduced a bill rather than move this motion and then write a letter, the outcome of which I am not privy to. It would have been proper for the Opposition to do its homework and propose a bill.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.28 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports in principle the motion moved by the Hon. Doug Moppett. It seeks the concurrence of the Legislative Assembly to the appointment of three members of the Legislative Council to the Public Accounts Committee. The response sought from the Legislative Assembly is that it agrees in principle, and then a bill can be proceeded with. Otherwise, when a bill is sent from the Legislative Council to the Legislative Assembly it is rejected, and there is a stand-off.
The Hon. Peter Primrose: We are not going to send bills to the Legislative Assembly that it may reject? I like the principle. It is a great precedent.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: No, this motion deals with matters of the House; it is different to bills that deal with political matters.
The Hon. Peter Primrose: We can deal with all legislation in that way.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Yes. In matters affecting standing orders we tend to adopt a much less confrontationist approach. We try to achieve agreement. I am concerned about paragraph 2 of the motion, which states:
That the members from the Legislative Council shall be those members elected from time to time to reflect the party composition. Honourable members would be aware that there is an equal number of Opposition members and crossbench members in this Chamber. How then would we select three members to act on the Public Accounts Committee? The motion proposes that those three members will comprise one member from the Australian Labor Party, one member from the Liberal Party and one member from the National Party. The Hon. John Jobling: One crossbench member, one Opposition member and one Government member. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: That might be a better composition. The Hon. Peter Primrose said earlier that it would be inconsistent for General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 to cover portfolios that are not on the present list of portfolios for general purpose standing committees. The Hon. Doug Moppett could amend his motion to include an inquiry by the relevant general purpose standing committee. That would overcome the objection raised by the Hon. Peter Primrose in relation to the overloading of one general purpose standing committee. Such a committee could conduct inquiries that are similar to the inquiries being conducted by other general purpose standing committees. As I said earlier, the Christian Democratic Party supports the motion in principle. The Hon. EDDIE OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [4.32 p.m.]: I concur with the sentiments expressed by my colleague the Hon. Peter Primrose. Under the Public Finance and Audit Act the Public Accounts Committee [PAC] is required to comprise six members of the Legislative Assembly. The legislation does not make any provision for membership from the Legislative Council. Members of the Legislative Council would be ineligible to join the Public Accounts Committee because of section 54 of the Public Finance and Audit Act. Membership of the PAC is limited to the Legislative Assembly for good and cogent reasons. Those include the fact that, under the Constitution Act, all appropriation and taxation bills must originate in the Legislative Assembly. As well, the Treasurer is required to present the public accounts, total State sector accounts and the Auditor-General's opinion on them to the Legislative Assembly. The Auditor- General and the Public Accounts Committee are required to report to the Legislative Assembly. Paragraph 3 of the motion moved by the Hon. Doug Moppett reads: 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17995
That, in the event that the Legislative Assembly declines the proposal— of a joint PAC—
this House refers the matters currently under inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee— and presumably future matters—
for consideration and inquiry by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1.
Honourable members should understand that this new industry of upper House committee inquiries is currently considering more than 20 separate references. Would the people of this State consider these activities good value for taxpayers' dollars? Public resources are scarce enough without committing them to a shadow committee. It would be difficult to defend the use of these scarce public funds—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Shadow committee?
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: That is exactly what Opposition members want. If this motion is rejected by the Legislative Assembly, the alternative would be to give such a reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1. So, in effect, that committee would be inquiring into the same issues that were being inquired into by the PAC. Is that not duplication?
The Hon. Duncan Gay: No.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: The honourable member obviously does not understand the meaning of the word "duplication". It would be difficult to defend the use of these scarce public funds by a committee of the Legislative Council attempting to duplicate all the inquiries of the Public Accounts Committee. That situation would soon become farcical, with the same witnesses being called twice to give the same evidence to two different committees. Opposition members do not believe that by referring issues to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 they would be duplicating the work of the Public Accounts Committee.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: No.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: Those committees would be calling the same witnesses to give evidence on the same issues.
The Hon. John Jobling: No.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: Opposition members appear to want a new committee. They are not asking for three members to be added to the Public Accounts Committee; they are trying to establish a new committee. Why do Opposition members not state that up front?
The Hon. John Jobling: No, you are trying to verbal me.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: That is exactly what Opposition members are saying. I am saying that if this motion is successful the work of the Public Accounts Committee would be duplicated. That is not an appropriate expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.
[Interruption]
That is exactly what Opposition members are advocating. We would end up with two reports, two lots of printing costs, two lots of recommendations, and confusion in the minds of the public. That would be a terrible waste. Such duplication is completely unnecessary. The Legislative Council already has adequate powers to scrutinise and report through the estimates committee process. Last year more than 4, 300 questions on notice originated from this process. As well, estimates committees can already consider any matter— financial or otherwise—including those considered by the Public Accounts Committee. Estimates committees already have that power.
The Public Accounts Committee process is open and transparent. Throughout the terms of various governments the PAC has operated in a professional and bipartisan manner. Its important work should not be used for political point scoring. The Public Finance and Audit Act requires that, generally, all evidence to the 17996 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
PAC inquiry be taken in public. The PAC's reports to the Legislative Assembly are publicly available. The PAC membership includes Opposition and Independent members. There is ample opportunity for any member of the Legislative Council to pursue an interest in any matter examined by the Public Accounts Committee without wastefully duplicating the PAC's inquiries. The Government does not support the motion that has been moved by the Hon. Doug Moppett.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: [4.37 p.m.]: I support the motion that has been moved by the Hon. Doug Moppett. The Public Accounts Committee is an important committee. It is good to have committees comprising members from both Houses as we are able to draw on a great deal of expertise. The ideal solution would be for the Public Accounts Committee to deal only with accounts and for general purpose standing committees to deal with other matters. However, if general purpose standing committees are to consider additional matters they would be repeating the work of the Public Accounts Committee. That is a subobtimal solution.
I believe that the solution to this problem is in the hands of the Government. If the Government accedes to the first part of the motion and appoints Legislative Council members to the Public Accounts Committee, clearly matters would not need to be discussed twice. Members of this House do not want to waste their time. Many Legislative Council members who spend a lot of time serving on committees do that basically because they believe in the committee process and in good government in New South Wales. The perception in the community, which unfortunately is helped by the Government, is that members of Parliament sit for only a few days of the year and they do not work very hard. I am sure that the Government would be happy if we worked for only a few days every year. It would then be able to criticise us for not doing any work, abolish the Legislative Council or ram legislation through the Parliament while members keep their eyelids open with matchsticks.
The committee system is an important function of this House. As I said earlier, the Public Accounts Committee is an important committee. If it does good work assessing the Government's spending, other committees such as General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 will not have to cover that ground again. It can rest assured that the Public Accounts Committee has kept the Government accountable.
This motion is very reasonable as it seeks accountability. I recently asked a question without notice regarding the legal costs involved in the case of Egan v Willis and Cahill. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile suggested that the Government should provide information about the cost of freedom of information requests so that we can see how much these open government practices cost. The Treasurer said he would be happy to get that costing. I suggested to him that he provide us with the cost of hiding information from us, the legal costs in the cases of Egan v Wills and Cahill and Egan v Chadwick, for which the taxpayer paid for both sides and the cost of the judges. The cost would be substantial.
I would be very surprised if any member who asks for documents relating to the M5 papers or other documents would incur the same costs as the Treasurer himself generated by not releasing documents. His answer to my question—apart from a tirade of abuse, which is becoming standard procedure—was that I could get that information from estimates committees next year. Despite a supplementary question, he did not undertake to provide that answer. It is a big step from where we are now to accountable government. I have given notice of a bill that would basically reverse the onus of proof so that instead of having to prove that it is in the public interest to release information, the Government would have to prove that it is not in the public interest to release it.
Once that paradigm is changed, and I believe it will be changed, much of the work of committees— which try to get under the Government's guard, get through the veil of secrecy and penetrate the increasingly nepotised upper levels of the public service—will become unnecessary and citizens will be able to judge for themselves the Government's decisions, as they will be open decisions. This works in most cases. New Zealand which has had open government for many years. The message from New Zealand is that it works, the sky does not fall in, and the Government is rendered far more effective by an open government process.
The Hon. Michael Egan: New Zealand only has one House.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The number of Houses is not the question; the question is whether the information is open. I repeat my offer to the Treasurer: I will vote for the abolition of this House if and when the Treasurer offers to have a single House which replaces the two Houses, elected by proportional representation, with the number of votes directly related to the number of seats. Of course, that 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17997 often means that the Government does not have a majority, because the majority of people do not want the Government and will not be faced with the Government having 43 per cent of the primaries, 56 per cent of the votes and 100 per cent of the power. That is what the Treasurer likes. It is all about accountability. The New Zealand Parliament has one House but it has proportional representation so that the number of seats corresponds to the number of votes. In fact, to make it more democratic, top-up seats make up for the parties that have more votes than seats. Natasha does not want to abolish only the upper House, like the Treasurer does; she wants to abolish New South Wales. She wants to abolish the Treasurer and his Government as well. That goes to show how sensible Democrat policy is.
The Hon. Michael Egan: Do you agree with the abolition of the States?
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Yes; Democrat policy supports abolition of the States. I believe that the States should be abolished in a systematic way—by a gradual transition process which, at another time, I would be happy to discuss with the Treasurer and put before this House. The administrative arrangements that systematically transfer powers exist over a period of time. I am being distracted. What we want at the moment, under the strictures in which we currently labour, is an accountable House and accountable Government. This very sensible motion which was moved by the Hon. Doug Moppett—which I return to despite the distractions of a large number of interjections—specifically states that the House resolves to seek the concurrence of the Legislative Assembly to the appointment of three members of the Legislative Council to the Public Accounts Committee, and that the members of the Legislative Council shall be those members elected from time to time to reflect the party composition of the house. The principle of the motion is that the party composition of the House should reflect what was voted for by the voters of New South Wales, who are the only people from whom we draw our legitimacy.
The Hon. Michael Egan: If only one House of Parliament was elected on proportional representation, you would not get a seat.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: That is not correct.
The Hon. Michael Egan: Yes, it is. The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: That is not correct. I would get a seat. I am quite happy to compete with the Treasurer. I am happy to have a system based on merit and excellence. To quote Chief Justice Gleeson in the case of Egan v Willis and Cahill:
The capacity of both Houses of Parliament, including the House less likely to be "controlled" by the government, to scrutinise the workings of the executive government, by asking questions and demanding the production of State papers, is an important aspect of modern parliamentary democracy. It provides an essential safeguard against abuses of executive power. I am sure we all agree. The abuses of executive power that we continually witness in this House are no more flagrant than the appalling displays during question time. I am in an interesting position, with the Treasurer interjecting. He usually gets to speak without any comeback for his outrageous statements during question time. His statements cannot be challenged because it is impossible to reply to him during question time. The Hon. Michael Egan: I answer every interjection. The Hon. John Jobling: You are pretty selective. The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: That is complete nonsense. The Treasurer does not answer any interjection that is inconvenient or that may take a point away from him. He only answers interjections when he thinks he can win. The fact that he is often wrong is irrelevant. He ignores many good interjections because he cannot deal with them, does not wish to be accountable and wishes to bully members with an endless tirade of nonsense, perhaps because it is occasionally entertaining. It is an occupational hazard, having to put up with the Treasurer running riot and generally wasting our time and taxpayers money. It is important to support the Hon. Doug Moppett's motion to make the Public Accounts Committee more accountable and save upper House committees having to do extra work to sort out what the Government has done and hidden. It takes months to find information that should never have been hidden. I am a member of several committees. In relation to funding for disability services, it took the Standing Committee on Social Issues months to find out that the Treasurer wanted to contract out disability services as if we were dealing with chattels.
[Debate interrupted.] 17998 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr. Brian Pezzutti): I draw the attention of honourable members to the presence in the President's gallery of members elected to the Burmese Parliament. I welcome them.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
[Debate resumed.]
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Unfortunately members of the Burmese Parliament have an out-of-control Executive. They have graced us with their presence and they are welcome. I trust that our example of civilised debate in this House will be the type of debate they will strive for as they move towards the power they have received legitimately from the voters of Burma, as we draw our power legitimately from the voters in New South Wales. All parliaments should strive for the kind of government accountability that is important in this House. Indeed, in this House we are striving for civilised debate that should be achieved as a matter of routine. But that is an issue for another day. I urge all members to support this motion and to appoint several upper House members to the Public Accounts Committee to increase government accountability and thus the quality of government in New South Wales. I have foreshadowed my open government bill. A seminar on that bill will be held to consider the issue of open government and the benefits that has for accountability and democracy in New South Wales. That bill will come before this House shortly.
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [4.52 p.m.]: First, I express my disappointment in the Hon. Doug Moppett for having moved this motion. The Hon. Michael Egan: I like him. I think he's a good man. The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I think he is a good man too, that is why I am disappointed. Having seen the Hon. Doug Moppett operate so successfully on a variety of committees of this House, and having talked to him about how those committees operate—in particular I refer to the Standing Committee on Social Issues, which has now been in operation for 12 years—this motion seems to be beneath the usual sense and other fine qualities, including intelligence, the honourable member displays. He would be aware, as I am, of the current situation with committee overlap in the Legislative Council. I shall cite as an example the difficulties we faced last Friday when the social issues committee held a public hearing. We had difficulty at the beginning of the day. The social issues committee was due to start at 10.00 a.m. I believe the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics met earlier that day, which meant that one of our committee members was absent, attending that meeting. At around the time that the Standing Committee on Social Issues was scheduled to meet General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2, chaired by the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti, was meeting, and that took a member away. One member of our committee was absent, and before we were able to finish our hearing another one of our members had to replace a member of yet another committee who had to attend another meeting. I believe also that the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti had to leave his committee, so a member of our committee had to chair his committee temporarily in his absence. I mention that because that was only one day, last Friday. There were insufficient Legislative Council members—I include both the Government and the Opposition in that—to attend the important committees of this House that were in operation. That is by no means unusual. Again, to draw on my own experience, during the dinner break last night the Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population met, and that clashed with other things. During the lunch adjournment yesterday the Standing Committee on Social Issues also met. During the dinner adjournment on Tuesday night General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 met to discuss matters relating to its inquiry, commonly known as POO 3 but more formally known as the inquiry into the biosolids strategy. Again, Mr Deputy-President, you would concur with my remarks because, in the absence of the Opposition Whip, you were seconded to that committee, which I do not think you had attended before. However, in your usual style, that did not prevent you from expressing your opinions for an hour or more. The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr. Brian Pezzutti): Order! The honourable member should not verbal the chair. The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I was congratulating you on being able to express opinions for an hour or so while never having previously attended a meeting of the committee. Honourable members are aware 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17999 that there are only 42 members in this House. Some members, for a variety of reasons—for example, the public position they hold, such as the Ministry—are unable to participate in committees. Several members— certainly privately, if not in the House—complain about committee overload. That affects Government and Opposition backbenchers and some crossbenchers. It would appear to be a retrograde step to suggest that members of this House should be appointed to serve on the oldest committee of this Parliament, which conducts inquiries in the same form as Legislative Council committees. That is in light of the fact that the numerous upper House committees can, at any time they choose, conduct inquiries into the same or similar matters as those before the Public Accounts Committee.
I understand that at that time the Hon. Doug Moppett placed his motion on the notice paper he had some concern about the New South Wales Grains Board. Honourable members are aware of the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into that matter. If the Hon. Doug Moppett had so wished, several upper House committees could have conducted simultaneous inquiries into that matter if that was thought to be a useful expenditure of time and energy. I gather that the ambiguity in paragraph 3 of the motion has already been discussed However, to suggest that General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1—
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Foreshadow an amendment to make it relevant to the general purpose standing committee.
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: Yes. I think the motion has a couple of ambiguities. One ambiguity is the reference to "matters currently under inquiry". As honourable members know, notices of motions can languish on the business paper of the House for a year or two, three or four, so I am not sure what the reference to "currently under inquiry" means. I understand that there has been some discussion about perhaps changing that so that matters under inquiry may be dealt with by this House at any stage. I am grateful to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for drawing my attention to the fact that general purpose standing committees other than General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 may also be able to inquire into such matters.. However, I am not grateful that members could suddenly face even more inquiries on even more committees than they currently face. There is certainly no reason that either the pleasure or the pain should be limited to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1, unless Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is more masochist than I think he is.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: No. I was moving amendments to make it relevant to general purpose standing committees.
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: That is sadism rather than masochism.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I do not particularly want it.
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I do not blame Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for not particularly wanting it, but I would probably feel less warmly towards him for his wanting to transfer this onerous burden to other committees such as General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, which is currently doing the POO 3 inquiry and has in the pipeline such amazing topics as feral animals, TransGrid and the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust. At most of our meetings we seem to defer the reporting date for three months, four months, six months or a year. Who seems to care? I realise that General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 is not alone in that. I do not know whether this motion arises from a sense of jealousy or envy of the lower House or jealousy of the particular status that the Public Accounts Committee has held for a long time. Perhaps it is because the Leader of the Government was once the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I am not sure whether it is possible for status to be postdated.
Pursuant to resolution business interrupted.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.00 p.m.]: I move:
That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 13 November 2001 at 2.30 p.m. On that day we will be resuming under a new Beazley Federal Labor Government. I commend the motion to the House. Motion agreed to. 18000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.02 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [5.02 p.m.]: As a firearms enthusiast, I wish to speak of the many positive aspects of firearms ownership and the activity of shooting in general. Shooters are people from all walks of life—workers, professionals, tradesmen, homemakers, students and even the occasional member of Parliament. Shooters are men, women and children. Indeed, shooting—that is, hunting or competition shooting—is a pastime that is enjoyed by whole family groups. Shooting enthusiasts come from all over New South Wales and include people such as the Australian women's champion and former world champion, Robin Estreich, from the Sydney western suburb of Blacktown; current world championship holder, Tim Anderson, from Narrabri, in country New South Wales; and Josh Sweeney, an Australian junior champion and year 10 student from Cessnock, in the Hunter region. Shooting has no significant age barriers, nor is it a pastime that precludes people on the basis of their fitness. No-one is too tall, too short, too fat or too skinny to be a shooter. Even those who are wheelchair bound are still able to enjoy firearms: In fact, many such participants excel in the sport of shooting.
When I began competition pistol shooting in the late 1980s, one of the particular aspects of the sport that I thoroughly appreciated was that my father, who was over 70 at the time and the recipient of his sixth hip replacement, was able to join in an activity in which we could compete on equal terms. There are hundreds of thousands of shooters in our country. The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia alone has 120,000 registered members. When those numbers are added to the thousands of competition pistol shooters, at least 10,000 of whom are registered with the New South Wales Amateur Pistol Association, as well as the specialist groups, military rifle clubs, farmers—to whom firearms are tools—and countless others, it is clear that shooting is a consistently safe activity that is undertaken by a large proportion of the Australian population.
The collection and display of firearms of various types is not only popular; such collections make a significant contribution to the recording of our history. The lawful use of firearms by responsible shooters is more than a tremendous recreational and disciplined activity. It also contributes jobs and income to industries, including tourism. As recently as last week Blacktown Pistol Club hosted the Action Pistol National Championships, which was an event that drew competitors and spectators from throughout Australia and overseas. Next March the Sydney International Shooting Centre will host the World Cup. This important event will draw thousands of participants and spectators from over 90 countries. Australia has an amazing record of achievement in shooting. Many Australian competitors have travelled to different countries where they have dazzled their opponents with their shooting prowess and international sportsmanship.
In the world side-by-side gun and rifle championships last year in New York, Australians Craig Lewis, Andrew Hepner, Graeme Wright and Mark White devastated their American hosts by taking four of the first five placings. Of course it should not surprise anyone to learn of the unparalleled expertise of Australian shooters when Australia's outstanding results in some of the 17 shooting events of the Sydney Olympics are considered. We all remember the thrill and excitement of watching shotgunner Michael Diamond beat the best of the best to take his second gold medal in the men's trap event, but of course we must also pay tribute to the fabulous silver and bronze winning performances of Russell Mark and Anne Marie Forder. These great Australian shooters, and many others such as Natasha Lonsdale, did Australia proud, and no doubt will do so again.
Responsible shooters master the safe handling of firearms. They are people of great mental discipline who often extend their concentration and control in positive ways that benefit other aspects of their lives. Shooters have gained national environmental recognition for their successful work in protecting endangered species by the removal of feral animals. This was most recently evidenced by the receipt of the Banksia Environmental Foundation Award. Organised shooting in Australia has an unsurpassed record of safety. Injuries are almost non-existent. With pistol shooting as the example, shooting is perhaps the only sport for which insurance premiums have actually halved because of the lack of incidents. Law-abiding shooters are Australians who undertake their activities with great responsibility and care. They are people who respect the rules of our society and rightfully expect a fair opportunity to pursue their chosen pastime without undue impediment. 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18001
AUSTRALIAN QUARANTINE AND INSPECTION SERVICE The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [5.07 p.m.]: Tonight I wish to talk about the impact that the Howard Federal Government's policies on quarantine services have had on rural and regional New South Wales. When first elected, the Howard Government took the axe to the funding provided to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service [AQIS]. The work undertaken by AQIS should never be underestimated. It is at the front line and protects our many clean and disease-free agricultural industries. Not only did the Federal Howard Government take away funding and resources from AQIS but the Howard Government then embarked on a program of policy decisions that placed our agriculture industries at great risk of disease and contamination. The Federal Government's proposed actions, when subjected to scrutiny by the committees of the Federal Parliament, were not even supported by its own government members. The bean counting approach of Peter Costello towards AQIS was not challenged by members of the National Party, who sat back and let these potentially damaging proposals proceed. In 1996 the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs Committee undertook an inquiry into the administration and management of AQIS and the then Department of Primary Industries and Energy on all aspects of the importation of cooked chicken meat into Australia. The findings of that inquiry— endorsed by all committee members, including government Senators—were damning. The inquiry found that the protocols it was planned to apply to the imported product were potentially flawed and recommended that AQIS commission further scientific tests on two poultry diseases, Newcastle disease and infectious bursal disease. The Minister at the time, John Anderson, supported the original proposals on the importation of cooked chicken meat. These proposals, if applied, would not have provided adequate protection from the introduction of diseases that could have devastated a major Australian industry. The poultry industry, which employs many thousands of workers and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the Australian economy, was saved from potential disaster not by John Anderson, not by the Howard Government, but by the scrutiny of the Senate committee and a persistent industry lobby. Where were members of the National Party when the chicken producers needed them? In my duty electorate of Tamworth there are many poultry producers, including New England Poultry, which produces gourmet chicken products such as free range, organic, corn-fed chicken. The Hon. Michael Egan: Are they good? The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Yes. We should be encouraging more producers like them. Under Kim Beazley's "Plan for Our Regions", industries that are innovative and produce goods for niche markets—where high prices are paid for higher quality products—will be actively supported through the regional development plan. The importation of cooked chicken meat was not the only risky proposal supported by the Howard Government. The import risk assessment undertaken by AQIS in respect of an application to import salmon products was also scrutinised by the Senate committee, which found that the concept of "an acceptable level of protection" was too vague. The acceptable level of protection is the foundation stone on which our quarantine protection plan is based, but it was found to be too vague, to be poorly articulated and to have no real guidance. The Senate committee agreed—again including its government Senators—that imports should be banned until more information was known about particular diseases which had the potential to affect our aquaculture industries. Then we had the proposal from New Zealand to export apples to Australia and the wholly inadequate response from AQIS and the Howard Government and the New South Wales Opposition. The apple and pear industry in New South Wales is worth $73 million annually and employs around 5,000 people. In comparison with the New Zealand apple industry, which is a haven for the disease fire blight, the Australian industry is recognised internationally as being disease free. The import risk assessment was found to be deficient by a third Senate inquiry that recommended a better system of consultation with domestic stakeholders who would be affected by the imports. The committee recognised that the Federal Government had not bothered to talk to the apple growers, the primary producers who had the most to lose. Where were the National Party members of the Federal Government when this was happening? They were nowhere to be seen, because the National Party is the powerless party in the Coalition; it is city-centric and not interested in regional Australia until an election is approaching. Finally we have the spreading problem of fire ants, a pest that entered this country on farm or earthmoving equipment that was not adequately inspected when imported. We cannot ignore the risk that fire ants pose to agriculture, passive outdoor recreation, pets and people. While the fire ant problem is mostly confined to south-east Queensland at the moment, the risk of their spreading into northern New South Wales is very real. We are lucky that a second infestation of fire ants on imported machinery was recently detected by AQIS. 18002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
The National Audit Office report into AQIS was tabled in June this year. It found that there were some gaping holes in our quarantine barrier and also in the way that quarantine risks are assessed and managed. The Audit Office estimated that AQIS only manages to intercept and seize 11 per cent of seizable material coming through the mail centres in Sydney and Melbourne. At the busiest airport in the country, Sydney, only 32 per cent of seizable material was actually captured. While the Howard Government responded to this report in the last budget, it was a case of too little too late.
For a long time the Howard Government has known of major problems with the way it has managed quarantine services, and the fact that we have not been more adversely affected has more to do with good luck than good management. It is about time that the Howard Government realised that border control means more than keeping out boatloads of refugees. Kim Beazley realises the importance to Australia of an effective quarantine service and has policies ready to put in place to help AQIS perform better.
At this time when other countries, particularly in Europe, are becoming more concerned about the lack of local clean agricultural products, Australian farmers have new export markets to exploit. We have the capacity to develop new markets for our quality agricultural products. However, the cost of ensuring that these opportunities remain available for primary producers has not been sufficiently high on the agenda of the Howard Government. They are high on the agenda of the team led by Kim Beazley.
KANGAROO MEAT ITALIAN IMPORT BAN
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.12 p.m.]: Tonight I bring to the attention of the House how one of its members, the Hon. Richard Jones, single-handedly damaged the reputation of kangaroo meat in Europe and started an international health scare that subsequently led to a ban by Italy on Australian Kangaroo meat imports. In letters to European Health Ministers last month the Hon. Richard Jones stated that Australia could not guarantee that its kangaroo meat was free from disease. I did not realise that the Hon. Richard Jones spoke for Australia on such issues. In these uncertain times, when Europe is battling with devastating diseases such as mad cow disease and foot and mouth disease, countries such as Italy are forced to take swift and decisive action. The Hon. Richard Jones has recognised this vulnerability and exploited it for personal political gain.
The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service [AQIS] was notified of the ban on 27 September and were forced to enter into negotiations with Italian officials to prove that the Hon. Richard Jones was mistaken and that Australian kangaroo meat was in fact safe. As a result, the ban was lifted on 11 October. But at what cost? He has wasted taxpayers' dollars on the money spent by AQIS to control the damage. But, more importantly, he has wasted the valuable resources of the Australian quarantine officers who are working overtime to ensure that threats such as anthrax and BSE do not reach our shores. The bias of the Hon. Richard Jones against the harvest and subsequent export of kangaroo meat has been well documented in this House. Now it will be documented in this House how the member has used his parliamentary position to satisfy his personal interests to the detriment of one of Australia's growth industries.
Kangaroo meat for domestic consumption is produced under exactly the same government-controlled inspection systems as are beef and lamb. Results show that kangaroo meat is at least as healthy as domestic meats, with typical rejection rates for pathological conditions at post-mortum inspection of 0.7 per cent. This is about one-third of typical levels in sheep and cattle. Further microbiological monitoring in kangaroo meat conducted by the Australia Quarantine and Inspection Service has shown kangaroo meat to have significantly lower levels of contamination than beef, lamb or pork. And, I might add, kangaroo meat is on the menu in the Parliament House dining room.
The industry plays a vital role in controlling population pressure in the range lands of rural Australia. According to studies done on the subject, the kangaroo population would be approximately 30 per cent higher if the industry did not exist. And, as any farmer knows, if this population is not managed effectively, it will continue to pose a threat to the sustainability of the region and has the potential for causing extensive desertification. So, what better way to help control the kangaroo population and protect our rural environment than to build a successful industry from it. The industry employs some 4,000 people and generates $200 million each year. With average annual growth rates of 5 per cent over the past 15 years, the kangaroo industry has been one of the best performing rural industries in Australia.
Kangaroo populations are protected by very stringent systems, including annual population surveys by State governments. According to a paper published by the Australasian Wildlife Management Society last year, 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18003 the total number of commercially harvested kangaroos each year is only 10 per cent to 20 per cent of the estimated total population. Furthermore, this harvesting is carried out according to controlled quotas set by an independent agency and accounts for variables in the conditions affecting the population growth, such as drought and disease. I would hope that honourable members recognise that the kangaroo industry is an important contributor to the New South Wales economy and is an important player in the management of farming and grazing land across the State.
I hope that the Hon. Richard Jones will think twice before putting his own biased and weird interests before those of an entire industry whose reputation was subsequently tarnished by his foolish actions. It is despicable that a member of this House would use this time of global weakness to push his own political agenda. It is pure, unadulterated opportunism and it is a disgrace! FESTIVAL OF LIGHT GOOD CITIZENS AWARDS The Hon. ELAINE NILE [5.17 p.m.]: I bring some good news to the attention of the House. Last night the Festival of Light Community Standards Organisation held its 2001 Annual Good Citizens Awards presentation in the Parliamentary Theatrette. The Mother Teresa Pro Life Award was presented to Dr Catherine Lennon, who is the President of the University of New South Wales Pro Life Society. She also works part time as a general practitioner in Chatswood and has a special interest in women's health. Catherine is also the Secretary of Matercare Australia, which was established last year. Matercare is a group of Catholic doctors and nurses that helps mothers and babies in Third World countries and war zones. The current project of Matercare Australia is to improve emergency obstetric services in East Timor. Catherine's husband, Richard, is a paediatrician who has volunteered to help in that East Timor project. Catherine's main role is to help organise volunteer doctors and midwives, equipment, textbooks and training, and to raise awareness about the plight of Timorese women. I might add that Catherine has five children. A Parliamentary Service Award was presented to Alby Schultz, who has been a hard worker all his life. At the age of 10 years he worked long, late hours selling newspapers to supplement the family income. He slept under bridges when he left home at the age of 14 years after suffering family abuse. Alby's desire to better himself saw him work hard to learn a trade. He became a competent solo slaughterman, for many years holding a Victorian time record for dressing lambs. Alby moved to Melbourne to learn chain slaughtering. As the meat industry at that time was seasonal, Alby would hitchhike from Victoria to Queensland for the beef season, ensuring he worked for the full year. In 1988 Alby Schultz won the State seat of Burrinjuck from New South Wales Labor Minister Terry Sheahan, against all odds in a three-cornered contest involving the Australian Labor Party and the National Party. The seat of Burrinjuck, which was held by the Sheahan family for the ALP for 47 years, went to Alby with a 5.5 per cent majority. Alby has a reputation as a hard-working people's politician who strongly believes in mainstream community and family values. He is passionate about the democracy that Australia offers its people and will not forgo the trust placed in him by his constituents at the ballot box. The Good Citizens Award for motherhood was given to a mother with six children, Ursula Bennett, who is blind. She has an amazing number of community interests. At the end of last year she gave birth to Aaron and completed her family, to date. Ursula is a very busy young woman and one would never know she is blind by the way she moves. The Good Citizens Award for fatherhood went to George Cliff. George and his wife, Noelene, tried for 14 years to have a child but were unsuccessful. Noelene went through the in vitro fertilisation program and became pregnant. One year later she was informed over the telephone that due to a mistake at the clinic she had contracted AIDS. The baby, Lesley-Ann, thanks be to God, did not have AIDS. She is now 17 years of age and was with her father last night when he received his award. Noelene died in 1990 when Lesley- Ann was six. The Good Citizens Award for Aboriginal leadership was given to Pastor Francis Bundock of the Muli Muli Aboriginal village, near Woodenbong. People from the Muli Muli village, as a result of drugs and alcohol, burnt down their community hall and houses that were built for them by the Government. Most of the village is now Christian. I recall that in 1988 it was a joy to sleep and work there. In 1988 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and I travelled around the State with a One Nation Under God program. Many white people thought of Aboriginal people as sitting under a tree nursing a gin bottle. The Christians were amazed when people from Muli Muli spoke, sang and played in a band. The Good Citizens Award for sports achievement went to Mathew Rogers, who is called The Rat because he sneaks in out of the Sharks football team. The Good Citizens' Award for police service was given to Detective Sergeant Tim Priest. Honourable members know about the stress that he and his family are under at the present time. He deserves that award. Reverend George Capsis was given an award for his work as a Chaplain with the Sharks football team. 18004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25 October 2001
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: He is a Federal election candidate. The Hon. ELAINE NILE: That is right. He is also involved in the Cronulla area helping broken families, drug addicts and so on. It was good news for the night. [Time expired.] COMMONWEALTH-STATE HOUSING AGREEMENT The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [5.22 p.m.]: The current Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement ends in June 2003 and, normally, negotiations would be well under way to renegotiate this five-year agreement. I place on record my great regret that as yet the Howard Government has made absolutely no commitment to renew the partnership beyond the expiration of the current State housing agreement. For more than 50 years the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement has played a vital role in making sure that families with housing needs are provided with housing. In the past four years the current agreement has provided well in excess of $5 billion of matching Commonwealth and State funding across Australia to provide housing. Honourable members can only imagine with that level of expenditure—given the way the Howard Government is dragging its feet with so many other social justice issues—what will happen if a future Federal Government fails to renew the agreement. Literally hundreds of thousands of Australians on low incomes will be affected. When the current agreement expires New South Wales will have lost no less than $335 million since the agreement's commencement in 1996. Already that is the equivalent of some 1,400 homes that could have been either built, together with the flow-on effects of jobs, or bought for people in need of housing in New South Wales. Similarly, the implications would be terrible if a future Federal Government were to fail to renew the agreement. Dr Andrew Refshauge has pointed out the consequences. More than 100,000 people in New South Wales would be affected just in the first year alone following the current agreement in 2003. In that first year New South Wales would lose something like $320 million for public, community and Aboriginal housing assistance. New capital and leasing supply programs would have to be halted. That would mean something like 1,800 or more properties would not be either built or purchased. Existing leases would have to be terminated—more than 7,000 leases terminated at the end of the current Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Obviously, terminating those leases would effectively wipe out the community housing sector and force more than 14,000 people to find alternative accommodation. That is of particular interest to me and to other members of the social issues committee because about one month ago Dr Refshauge referred an inquiry into the community and co-operative housing sector to that committee. Certainly from submissions received already by the committee, its members are aware of the need for the continuation of the agreement and the variety of housing needs that it meets. If there were to be no new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, nearly 40,000 families and individuals would be faced with the cost of entering into the private rental market. There would no longer be available the current range of private rental subsidies for people with special needs. That would affect over 2,000 people with HIV-AIDS, or with disabilities, to take just two groups eligible for those rental subsidies. Finally—and I am sure that other points could be made—nearly 900 houses would have to be sold just in 2003- 04 alone. If there were no new revenue source, the only way in which people would be able to continue in the properties that still exist would be through asset sales to meet costs such as rental, leasing and maintenance. So the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is crucial to thousands of people in New South Wales and to our commitment to social justice. It has served that purpose now for over 50 years. I call on the Howard Government to make a commitment to renew that agreement. I look forward to the Beazley government entering into negotiations to do just that. [Time expired.]
FARM BUSINESSES CAPITAL VALUE EROSION
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [5.27 p.m.]: Tonight I bring to the attention of honourable members the extreme difficulties being experienced by people embarking upon wealth creating businesses across rural and regional New South Wales. In an address to this House early this week the Hon. Tony Kelly attempted to convince himself that the problems in the dairy industry were the result of policies implemented by the Howard- Anderson Government. Although I was not a member of this House at the time that issue was dealt with, as I understand it the competition was illegal under the Australian Constitution. Yet the Carr Government deregulated the dairy industry. The difficulties faced by the dairy industry were not the makings of John Howard and John Anderson but of Bob Carr and Richard Amery, who refused to compensate dairy farmers as they removed their quotas—quotas which farmers purchased, which had a capital value and which were assets that they could use as collateral in finance negotiations. 25 October 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18005
Quite simply, the Car Government removed the capital value of farmers' assets. The dairy industry is not the only rural industry that is suffering from this erosion of capital value. The Carr Government has also eroded the capital value of privately owned freehold agricultural land through its application of regulatory legislation across all farming businesses. The Carr Government has also eroded the capital value of many water licences through the application of a so-called water reform process, which basically means that the Government will take away licences that it has previously legally issued to wealth-creating farm businesses. The Hon. Tony Kelly attempted to convince himself also that members of the Australian Labor Party [ALP] were listening to country people. He said:
The Labor Party understands the concerns and challenges facing country communities.
The Hon. Tony Kelly would do well to read some of the press reports that have been printed about the Carr Government and the Australian Labor Party—the party of which he is a member. He should have a quick look at some of the headlines that I have taken from just three papers over the last few weeks: "Amery friendless at Walgett", "Land values hurting", "Water cuts hit Namoi", "Cotton acreages declined. Drastic for Gunnedah", "Consultation? Ha!", "Amery under fire", "Unworkable Act", "Users dictated to", "A Green-biased bureaucratic nightmare." The list goes on: "Crisis looms as teachers quit in their hundreds", "Labor vows to put an end to land clearing." That is where a Beazley government would take New South Wales farm businesses.
All these issues relate to regional development, education and health—the key issues to which the Hon. Tony Kelly claims members of the Australian Labor Party have been listening, and the three key issues which he claims will win the Federal election for the ALP. Essentially, these issues are State issues. Kim Beazley, who was recently talking about health issues, sounded like Bob Carr in 1995. He said that we should reduce hospital waiting lists. Beazley needs to reduce hospital waiting lists because Bob Carr and the Treasurer did not, despite Bob Carr's statement that he would sign the promise in blood. Where is the blood, Bob? Kim Beazley, who was recently talking about education, said that he would take all the Federal money out of private schools. He did not say that he would spend more money on education; he simply said that he would remove one sector of it.
How do the parents, teachers and students at schools such as St Philomena in Moree, Holy Trinity in Inverell and St Mary's in Guyra feel about that? Labor members have not listened to those schools or any of the other private schools around the State that have benefited from this Federal program by bringing their facilities up to a standard similar to the standard at State schools. They have not listened to the problems in the education system as teachers are resigning in their hundreds. Kim Beazley referred recently to environmental pledges to put an end to land clearing, which is what Bob Carr is attempting to do.
Kim Beazley was referring not just to the clearing of pristine bushland; he was referring also to the management of regrowth and grasslands on privately owned freehold agricultural land, which is what Bob Carr wants to do. He will involve local communities in decisions that affect them, just as Bob Carr has involved local communities. The issues to which I referred earlier demonstrate how effective Bob Carr's policies have been. Kim Beazley will recognise that some stakeholders will be adversely affected, but he will not pay compensation to those who carry the burden for the benefit of the wider community, just as Bob Carr has not paid compensation. The Federal Opposition does not have one original thought or policy of its own. I look forward to a third term for the Howard-Anderson Government, which will provide strong leadership, vision and a safe and secure future for all Australians.
[Time for debate expired.]
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at 5.32 p.m. until Tuesday 13 November 2001 at 2.30 p.m. ______