Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.04]: Before question time I had outlined the objects of the bill and indicated that although Call to Australia supports the bill, it has concerns about some aspects of it. However, although Call to Australia has concerns about rights of appeal, in no way is it
Page 6498
critical of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service or the new Commissioner of Police, Peter Ryan. Call to Australia fully supports the royal commission. In preparing for this debate I noted that people had fallen into the practice of calling it the royal commission into police corruption, but it is the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. It inquired into not simply corruption but a range of Police Service matters including management, efficiency and so on.

I have not met Commissioner Ryan but from what I have read about him, seen of him on television, seen of his statements to the media, and learned of his travelling around the State to meet with police officers at police stations I believe that his actions are to be commended. He was appointed from overseas by the Police Board to manage the service with a fresh perspective, without being under any obligation to any serving members of the Police Service. Officers in the senior ranks of the service who were contenders to be Commissioner of Police would have a close relationship with each other, perhaps going back through various promotions as far as their days at the Police Academy. This would have made it difficult for them to carry out a radical reform of the Police Service. Commissioner Ryan will be a new broom, as it were, and therefore will be able to improve the New South Wales Police Service in the eyes of members of the community, members of Parliament and members of the Police Service. I am sure that the majority of members of the Police Service - 99.9 per cent - want the service to be efficient and without any corrupt officers, and I support that desire.

Call to Australia also supports the royal commissioner's recommendation that every effort must be taken to dismiss corrupt police from the service. Call to Australia also wants to put on record that we particularly seek to represent the honest police within the Police Service. I often say that we represent minority groups in the Parliament such as members of the Police Service, prison officers, customs officers, members of the defence forces and others who are neglected and are often the subject of unfair criticism and attacks as they carry out their duties. Call to Australia is totally opposed to police corruption and political interference in the Police Service, which has been shown to have occurred both under Australian Labor Party governments and under coalition governments. Obviously, we are also opposed to political corruption. I would argue that political corruption is even more serious than police corruption because politicians approve the appointment of the Commissioner of Police and senior police officers; they set the policy and procedures to be followed by police; and, most important of all, they make the laws that the police are to enforce.

I have often thought that before the 1970s - and to some extent since - bills were amended in various ways that rendered them less effective and not able to operate in the way they should have. Sometimes that was accidental, but at other times it was deliberate. Clearly there is evidence that there has been undue interference in the operations of the Police Service, and I believe that is one of the reasons why police are concerned about being dismissed unfairly. The Police Service strongly advocates that there should be a review process. The current police commissioner is a reasonable and honest man, so we have nothing to fear. But although I hope we always have an honest commissioner, we do not know what the future holds. That is something that I, and all members of this House, will work towards, but no-one knows what the future holds. Our concerns are justified by the evidence.

I was elected to Parliament at the time of the debacle about a former deputy police commissioner, Bill Allen. Recently, while researching background for this debate, I read the report of the tribunal commissioned by the Minister for Police at the time, the Hon. Peter Anderson, on 22 December 1981 about allegations of misconduct. The tribunal investigated certain matters relating to discipline in the police force and Deputy Commissioner W. A. R. Allen. Honourable members might recall some of those matters. The inquiry was commissioned three months after my election to this House on 19 September 1981. In December the investigation into the allegation of corrupt activity by the deputy police commissioner commenced. The police tribunal investigated Mr Allen's overseas travel, his confidential meetings with Mr Abe Saffron - who everyone knew was one of the leaders, if not the leader, of organised crime in Sydney - and the pushing of money, which on occasions amounted to $500, into the pockets of Sergeant Molloy.

In summing up the inquiry into the deputy police commissioner, the tribunal found that Mr Allen had not told it the truth. The tribunal found that Mr Allen had been involved in various actions which brought the police force into disrepute, particularly because of his senior position. The tribunal was critical of Mr Allen's activities. During that time the police commissioner, Mr Lees, was concerned about the actions of his deputy. I had contact with Mr Lees, who was the President of the New South Wales Police Christian Fellowship, and he told me privately of his serious concerns about what was happening in the Police Service and with regard to Mr Allen. The tribunal report stated:

For these reasons, the Tribunal answers Terms of Reference No. 4 by reporting that William Allan Ruthven Allen has had a recent association with Abraham Gilbert Saffron and in the course of and arising from that association William Allan Ruthven Allen did act in a manner likely to bring discredit upon the Police Force of New South Wales.

As a result, Mr Allen was demoted from deputy police commissioner to the rank of sergeant and removed from the New South Wales Police Service. When I refer to political interference or political corruption I am concerned by the large number of reports published at that time which were critical of the then Premier and Minister for Police, Mr Wran,
Page 6499
for the rapid promotion of Mr Allen through a number of ranks. Within two years he rose from sergeant to deputy police commissioner. The evidence was clear that he received strong support from Mr Wran - whether Mr Wran knew of the activities of Mr Allen no-one really knows. Mr Allen was promoted over many qualified police officers. For example, Mr Allen joined the Police Service in 1939 and became metropolitan superintendent on 27 April 1979, assistant commissioner on 14 November 1979 and deputy commissioner on 27 August 1981.

That is a rapid promotion from April 1979 to August 1981 - superintendent to deputy police commissioner. Of course, he also had the most rapid demotion when suspended on 1 December 1981, and he was investigated by the police tribunal. The tribunal found that Mr Allen paid Sergeant Warren Molloy $2,500 in an attempt to compromise him and render him susceptible to improper influence and that he lied to the tribunal on 21 April 1982. His offer to accept demotion to sergeant first class and retire was accepted by the Government. That sorry affair highlighted to the community and police officers that politicians can interfere in the proper conduct of the Police Service. If Deputy Commissioner Allen had been promoted to police commissioner this State would have had a police commissioner who had a direct association with organised crime. I cannot think of anything more serious in Australia's history or culture.

On Sunday, 24 November 1996, a full-page article appeared in the Sun-Herald headed "The most corrupt politician of all", with the subheading "For 30 years he lined the pockets of police and officials". The article was based on evidence given by the former Commissioner of Police, Tony Lauer, who spoke of information that he had that the late Gus Kelly, Chief Secretary had on his wall a rolled-up map which he would pull down when approached by an SP operator and say, "You can have the areas not shaded." The commission's counsel, Mr Crooke, prompted Mr Lauer: "For a small consideration?" Mr Lauer said, "Yes." Mr Crooke asked, "Perhaps a large one?" Mr Lauer said, "Yes, which was taking the level of corruption right to the top." That sort of issue is dealt with throughout the report, indicating that many practices in vogue at the time of Mr Kelly continued when the coalition was in government. The report states:

After the police took their "sling", the lion's share went upstairs and disappeared into the "slush fund" controlled by political "fixers" in Macquarie Street.

That is, here in Parliament. The report further states:

They divided it up: 60 per cent to corrupt MPs on the government side, 40 per cent to corrupt MPs on the opposition.

It goes on to say:

The extensive system of bribery which Kelly perfected over almost three decades was passed to the Liberal Government of Sir Robert Askin when it swept to office in 1965.

There should be much soul-searching among the leaders of both major political parties in this State. One might say that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, by which I do not mean that we should not seek out corrupt police, but this pursuit of corrupt police should be put in the context of what has been happening in our State over many years. Police who are witnessing a dramatic clean-up of the police force must have assurances that political parties will do all they can to make sure their houses are in order and that they will not tolerate any corruption within the political system.

This bill, which is being rushed through Parliament, is based on the interim report of the royal commissioner. Commissioner Wood made it quite clear that his interim report will be followed by his final report in March next year. He adopted the procedure of releasing an interim report, which I support, because of his belief that the police commissioner should be encouraged in his attempts to clean up the police force and given the powers to act now, rather than be delayed by the implementation of the findings of the commission that are based on practices uncovered by the commission to this point of its inquiry. The royal commissioner, at page 4 of his interim report under the heading "Commissioner's Confidence", states:

4.1 Absolutely integral to proper management is the existence of a power in the Police Commissioner to remove from the Service those officers in whom he has lost confidence.

4.2 This is to the advantage of the community and of those members of the Service who are performing properly. The power should be as broad and as discretionary as the title suggests. It should be subject to review, but only to the extent currently available under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), which has its broad basis in the "Wednesbury" principle. This means there would be no appeal to the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal (GREAT), the Police Tribunal or the Industrial Relations Commission.

He then makes a statement that I believe has been overlooked by many who have taken part in this debate. He makes it plain that his recommendation is directed not only at corrupt officers. He states:

4.3 Such a procedure needs to be understood as a managerial and not a disciplinary procedure. It is founded upon the premise that the Police Commissioner has come to lack confidence in the member, which lack of confidence has not been dispelled after the officer, having been given notice of the circumstances brought to the attention of the Commissioner, has had a reasonable opportunity of answering them. It does not involve a finding of guilt concerning an offence or disciplinary transgression, and it does not involve any adverse consequence other than termination of employment.

By that we can see that the inquiry of the royal commissioner was into the Police Service, not merely police corruption, although that was a matter of major concern. The commissioner, in his interim report, put as much emphasis on matters to do with management or managerial performance as he did on corruption or discipline. I believe that raises in the minds of the community, and particularly in the
Page 6500
minds of members of the Police Association - and I presume that the majority if not all members of the Police Service are members of the New South Wales Police Association - concern about the exercise of power now described as commissioner's confidence. The royal commissioner went on to say in paragraph 4.7 at page 5 of the interim report:

The Police Commissioner can hardly be held accountable for poor performance or lack of integrity within the Service, if it is acknowledged that there are non-performers and unethical police and he cannot promptly rid the service of them.

So the issue has been widened from managerial and disciplinary matters to take in poor performance, which is always a matter of subjective judgment by an officer of a rank senior to the person accused of poor performance. This is a matter that the Police Association rightly felt it should raise in an attempt to protect its members, which, of course, is the role of the association. I note in the interim report that the commissioner stresses the need for review. He said at page 6, in respect of the Police Association's submission:

5.4 With certain elements of the submission, the Royal Commission expresses its agreement. For example, it accepts that:

•it is desirable for the process of dismissal to be an open and accountable one;

•the exercise of a dismissal power without a right of review could tend to make the Service less accountable; and

•it is imperative that the Service treat its employees fairly.

I regard that as a positive statement by the commissioner in support of the Police Association, for in that paragraph the commissioner is specifically referring to the Police Association submission to the police royal commission. At page 7 of the interim report the royal commissioner said:

5.8 In summary, this Commission favours a procedure for dismissal that:

•allows the exercise of the dismissal power to be reviewed on any, or all, of the grounds specified above.

I mention that matter because I sense that honourable members from both sides of politics are nervous lest they be seen to be doing anything critical of the royal commission or of the royal commissioner. However, I believe that in those paragraphs the royal commissioner gave strong support for the recommendations of the Police Association to which he referred a number of times in his interim report. Therefore, if after serious consideration this House adopted some amendments, I do not think it would be seen to be in some way attacking the royal commission. I certainly do not regard the moving of amendments in that way. I support the royal commission, but this Parliament deals with the law and its application. We make the law and we must look at the law in perhaps more detail than the royal commissioner has from the point of view of making recommendations on overall policy. We should consider how an issue will affect an individual. In other words, we must consider the nuts and bolts of the legislation. That is why I have circulated two amendments to the bill. The first is:

Page 18, Schedule 1, lines 12-17. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

6. The provisions of Part 6 of Chapter 2 of the Industrial Relations Act 1966 apply to a police officer who is removed from the Police Service by means of an order under this section in the same way as they apply to the dismissal of a public sector employee within the meaning of that Act.

The second amendment is:

Page 18, Schedule 1, lines 27 and 28. Omit the words "and the Industrial Relations Commission".

The recently-passed Public Disclosure Act, which encourages people to report abuses occurring within their departments - commonly called whistleblower legislation - was supported by all honourable members. It has been brought to my attention that in that Act police are specifically listed as public sector employees; that is, they are intended to have the same rights as all other public sector employees of this State. That is the definition that the Government adopted in its legislation. The Government did not specify all public sector employees, excluding the police. I understand that the amendment of which I have just given notice is fully supported by the New South Wales Police Association on the basis that it would satisfy one of the association's major concerns. A further amendment that I foreshadow has arisen from the thinking within the Call to Australia group. It could perhaps be considered as a minimum measure if the Government and the Opposition will not accept the amendment I have just foreshadowed, which goes to the heart of the contentious issue within the bill. The second foreshadowed amendment will protect a police officer about whom the police commissioner has received prejudicial information. The amendment provides:

Page 18, Schedule 1. Insert after line 17:

(7) A police officer who has been removed from the Police Service by means of an order under this section may apply to the Police Integrity Commission for revocation of the order. The Police Integrity Commission may revoke the order if it is satisfied that the order has been made on the basis of prejudiced advice. Revocation of the order operates to reinstate the police officer to the rank and position that the police officer held immediately before the order was made. An application under this subsection may not be made on or after 1 May 1997.

In drafting that amendment I have sought to involve the Police Integrity Commission, which would automatically involve the royal commissioner, Justice Wood, as he will be inspector-general of that commission. I have sought to make the point that I am not criticising the police commissioner. There are 13,000 or 14,000 police officers plus a couple of thousand civilian members of the Police Service. How can the police commissioner, who is new to New South Wales, know which officers are corrupt
Page 6501
and which officers are not performing? He can act only on advice that he receives. The amendment I have foreshadowed will make it clear that a police officer will be reinstated if the police commissioner in the exercise of his powers of no confidence in the officer acts in good faith on the advice of a senior officer that can be shown to be prejudiced. Call to Australia sincerely hopes that such a practice would not occur, but even during this debate cases have appeared in the media in which it appears that some senior officers have said to members of the Police Service, "You are going to go. I am going to recommend to the police commissioner that he have no confidence in you."

I understand that members of the Labor Party raised the issue of Officer Casey within their caucus. It is of concern that already there appears to be evidence of certain prejudiced, vindictive, senior officers targeting junior officers and telling them that they will recommend that the police commissioner have no confidence in them. The junior officer may have been a thorn in the senior officer's side, not because he was involved in corrupt activity but because he was trying to break through procedures that were not beneficial to the Police Service; his activities may not have been corrupt but merely inefficient. The matter involving Officer Casey relates to certain practices at the police academy. The names of officers who have made complaints now appear on a hit list. Therefore, I believe the police commissioner needs protection. He could take the advice in good faith but have been given a loaded gun. It may be that it will be the officers who should be retained in which he will have no confidence while those who should be removed from the Police Service will be concealed.

Some confusion has arisen in the community about the Industrial Court. We have been advised by the Government and the Minister for Police that the community does not want to use the Industrial Court because corrupt police officers could use legal tactics to delay procedures and draw out appeals. I am advised that of the 50 officers who have been named by the royal commission, only nine have tried to apply to the Industrial Court. It does not appear, therefore, that police officers would automatically apply to the Industrial Court. I believe they should have the right of review, however, when it is necessary. The granting of a power of review to the Industrial Court would not undermine the powers of the police commissioner to summarily dismiss police officers; rather, it would enhance his position by ensuring that his managers and advisers think carefully and provide only accurate and comprehensive information, given that it may be subject to independent scrutiny.

If the commissioner loses confidence in a police officer, the officer will have 21 days in which to show cause, at the conclusion of which the commissioner will dismiss the officer or accept his explanation and retain him in employment. A dismissed officer would cease employment with the Police Service and cease to hold the statutory office of constable but, under my amendment, could then seek reinstatement in the Industrial Relations Commission. The commission would rule whether the Commissioner of Police proceeded fairly and equitably and acted upon advice that in itself was not corrupt or inaccurate. It is important to note that the Industrial Relations Commission comprises judges with equivalent status to Supreme Court judges. As honourable members know, the Government has said that a dismissed officer will have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. I have received advice that the appeal is limited and can in no way be compared with an appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. I understand that the Supreme Court looks purely at matters of law and whether the police commissioner has acted properly and carried out the due processes, that the notice sent to the police officer was correctly worded, dated and signed and that all the various elements are legally correct.

The judges of the Industrial Relations Commission would be in a position to determine whether the commissioner was correct in his decision and would consider issues such as integrity, conduct, performance and competence. I believe that is important because officers can be sacked not only for corruption but also for the subjective issues of unsatisfactory conduct, lack of performance and incompetence. Special provisions in place for matters arising out of the royal commission currently permit such appeals. I am most concerned about the abolition of the Police Board. I am not arguing for the reinstatement of the Police Board, because I believe it was brought into disrepute by the former coalition Government's appointment of Mr John Marsden as a board member. The action of the Minister for Police at the time, Mr Pickering, seriously undermined my confidence and that of the community in the Police Board. Mr John Marsden had stated publicly that he used marijuana and supported its decriminalisation. I do not know how the police could be expected to uphold laws when a member of the Police Board, which was above all police officers, was undermining their authority.

There were also other allegations about Mr Marsden's behaviour that I believe made him an unsuitable person to be a member of the Police Board. In my view his appointment undermined public confidence. I understand that the Police Board played an important role in the selection of a new police commissioner and that the board has been quite upset about the commissioner, as it were, biting the hand that fed him. The board believed it was doing Mr Ryan a favour by selecting him but he was quite happy to support the board's dismissal. I am concerned about who will recommend a police commissioner in the future. Will there be a return to the days of political appointments by whichever party may be in office, or a decision by the Premier of either a Labor or coalition government? There must be an appointment in the future because the commissioner is not appointed on a permanent basis. That aspect should be considered by the House after
Page 6502
it has received the royal commissioner's final report in March, and legislation should be introduced following receipt of that report.

My Police Integrity Commission amendment will have effect only until 1 May 1997. I assume that a bill will be introduced following receipt of the royal commission's final report to deal with the appeal process. It is possible that matters relating to the Industrial Relations Commission review will also be included in new legislation. Concern has been expressed about the period between the introduction of this legislation and the receipt of the royal commissioner's report. Sections of the media and some members of Parliament have suggested that the appeal process will be reviewed in March. Parliament will not sit until April at the earliest and it will be necessary to allow time for receipt of the final report, which may be delayed. We do not know the royal commissioner's workload. He may ask for more time to finalise his report, particularly in light of the paedophilia inquiry.

If the royal commissioner brings down his final report in March, nothing will happen because Parliament will not be in session - unless it is recalled early. The police are in no-man's-land until April 1997 or thereafter. Although it may not be the Government's desire or intent, some cases of injustice may occur. The Australian Labor Party, perhaps more than other political parties, prides itself on its concern for social justice. This seems to me to be a case in respect of which Labor has to back up its ideology with action. Various organisations that are concerned about the way in which the bill will operate if it is not amended have made a number of statements. I note that David Landa, the former Ombudsman, in a letter to the Premier stated:

Re Police Right Of Appeal

I fear you have not received the best advice on this issue.

I gather that the Premier has a high regard for David Landa. His letter continued:

While you have the opportunity to reconsider, may I suggest that consideration be given to the "Healing Process". The NSW Police have been under great stress for over two years, and must shortly start to rebuild themselves, as well as the public's confidence. It is possible in the "healing process concept" for the Government to reconsider this aspect of The Police Commissioner's powers, without losing anything significant. The new Commissioner himself could do much to establish himself with members of the service, were he to rethink and endorse proper appeal rights.

Good luck. I hope you are able to resolve the issue properly.

Sincerely

The letter was signed by David Landa for and on behalf of David Landa Consulting (Australia) Pty Ltd. I have also received a copy of a letter dated 25 November forwarded to the Premier by Jennie George, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, in which she outlined a strong case for appeal rights. The letter stated:

Dear Premier,

It is understood that legislation will shortly be put to the NSW Parliament to introduce reforms to the police service.

The ACTU wishes to strongly urge the NSW government to provide for reasonable appeal rights for officers of the NSW police service who may be the subject of "loss of commissioner's confidence" as a result of the current reforms.

I would draw your attention to the following provisions of ILO Convention 158 re Termination of Employment to which Australia is a party:

Jennie George referred to article 7 of International Labour Organisation Convention 158, which states in part that the worker shall be provided with an opportunity to defend himself against allegations. She referred also to article 8 of that convention, which states that a worker who considers that his employment has been unjustifiably terminated shall be entitled to appeal against that termination to an impartial body, such as a court, labour tribunal, arbitration committee or arbitrator. Jennie George's letter concluded:

Advice received is that for the NSW government to act in the manner proposed could be in breach of ILO Convention 158.

I interpose to say that that is a very serious matter. The letter continued:

The ACTU would urge your government to provide a reasonable appeal process to allow police officers who face dismissal the chance of a fair review of any charges against them.

Yours faithfully,

JENNIE GEORGE
President

Similar statements have been made by other organisations and individuals. The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties is, naturally enough, most concerned. In a media release it attacked the Government's proposal to give the police commissioner power to sack police and urged a review process. I have a copy of a lengthy letter dated 22 November from Mr Geoff Cahill to the New South Wales Police Commissioner. Mr Cahill, who is now a suburban lawyer, was a police officer, the inaugural New South Wales Commissioner for Equal Opportunity and a former New South Wales Australian Labor Party general secretary. In my view it is an important letter. By leave, the document will be incorporated in Hansard.

______

Dear Commissioner Ryan,

I have held a number of public positions in this State over the years, including that of a serving member of the NSW Police Service.

I first wish to congratulate you on your appointment, and on your dedicated approach to the reform of the Police Service. This reform is long overdue. Certainly, the simple reality of the Royal Commission has had an important impact on the Service and throughout the community. I support its work and I hope for a meaningful conclusion.

Page 6503

However, the fact that I am about the disagree with one aspect of this reform package does not mean that I am involved in some anti-reform plot, as suggested was your attitude to criticism in today's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald.

I strongly oppose the summary dismissal of police officers without recourse to an appeal mechanism for the following reasons.

In practice, this absolute power will be as well exercised by other senior officers by way of secret investigation and recommendation or delegation. The practical outcome, without any form of accountability, will leave the door open for elements of "nepotism, favouritism or other malpractice" (which was the reason for establishing the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal: see Bowen Inquiry Report 1978 at 17). It also risks the misuse of the rights of officers to know in the context of adverse comments made about them.

If you can not make a convincing case for summary dismissal you should not terminate an officer's employment. After all, it is the State's top investigatory authority. Surely it is an indictment on the efficacy of such a Service which can not prove its own case. A justification for dismissal which can not see the light of day is a sad sign of insecurity.

It is not a matter of "if you're a good officer you don't have to worry". The fact is that any mistreatment of a good officer will not be redressed. This is because there is no accountability. It risks a cover up to protect the process. This kind of absolute power has the capacity to institutionalise injustice.

I certainly do not question your sincerity or integrity. I do question your wisdom. Apart from previous comments, it seems that you are creating a rod for your own back by insisting on the personal responsibility for this unique absolute power. I believe it will work against you in a number of ways.

For example, first, if it misfires (and it will) you stand to collect the bullets. The politicians tend to go missing on bad news issues. The protective shadow of the Premier, Police Minister and Royal Commissioner will soon fade as you will be expected to run the ball yourself. I know you possess the courage, but those with considerable power in such highly paid (justifiably so in your case) positions do not get much public sympathy when things go astray. This may begin to erode your political clout and your positive public profile. However, it will neither impinge on your real authority nor curtail your reform program if you allow for an independent appeal body to share your responsibility. To the contrary, it may enhance your public status and gain much greater internal respect from rank and file police officers.

Secondly, under existing Federal dismissal law, there is in my view access under the existing legislation for any "person" to apply for a remedy for harsh, unjust or unreasonable termination of employment. In the event that any new amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) extinguish this right for any "person", the Police Association could apply for Federal union registration and place beyond doubt the access required for a dismissal remedy under the Federal arena. Of course, if the Association moves into the Federal orbit, there may be many other avenues open to them where State legislation or regulation may become redundant (as far as its direct inconsistency is concerned). You are certainly pushing them Federal on this issue (a direction they may not really wish to go).

Thirdly, it will not be long before sufficient union pressure (not confined to the Association) builds to force the re-introduction of an appeal process. The issue is one which will come back to the Government caucus members, and it will be changed back.

In the meantime, you are taking the flack for something that either you may not able to effectively introduce or which may soon be re-introduced. At a time when you are seeking broad police support, would it not be better to enter into discussions now for a better speedy appeal system rather than to later be required to politically back down into such talks. I suggest this approach now, even if you are intent on a quick clean sweep.

Having made my point, I do sincerely wish you every success in one of this State's most critical and difficult public positions.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,
GEOFF CAHILL, SOLICITOR & ATTORNEY

* My comments spring from my experience in such former positions as -

Inaugural NSW Commissioner for Equal Opportunity,
Inaugural Chairman, NSW Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal,
NSW ALP General Secretary,
NSW Labor Council Official,
A Police officer, and
now a suburban lawyer.

______

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: For the reasons I have stated, Call to Australia supports the Opposition's motion that the debate be adjourned at the Committee stage. We will be happy to vote in favour of the bill at the second reading stage to allow another short period to enable the Government to consider the amendments I foreshadowed and also to consider the decision of the Industrial Court in Bigg's case, which I understand was made at 4 p.m. today and which may have some relevance to the present debate. I believe I have put enough on the record to encourage the Government to reconsider that one aspect of the legislation. Mr Landa used the term "healing process". The reform of the Police Service will not be effective unless there is wholehearted cooperation by all members of the service. I believe that that is a fundamental management principle. Obviously the Police Service is off side at the moment and anything that this House can do to show a degree of reasonable cooperation will, in the long run, be of benefit to the State and give New South Wales a Police Service of which it can be proud. It will renew the confidence of the community and the confidence of members of Parliament in the Police Service. With those foreshadowed amendments Call to Australia supports the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.50]: In the wake of the royal commission, the public will expect a high standard of professional performance from the Police Service and will have zero tolerance to corruption. Corrupt police must now realise that the game is up. Honest officers, that is the majority of officers, will be able to speak up on corrupt practices instead of having to turn a blind eye. Many officers who otherwise would not have been corrupt had to fall into line with the corrupt officers or be outed. Commissioner Ryan, the pommie reviled outside Parliament the other day by members of the
Page 6504
Police Association, will have the power to cut out the dead wood. Finally the culture of corruption will be smashed. The Police Association has had many years to get its act together, to work with honest police to expose corruption, but it turned a blind eye to corruption. I do not believe that the executive of the Police Association was unaware of corruption among its members. I have been aware of police corruption since 1967, back in the days when police had cornered the LSD market and were supplying it to Bill Dwyer. When he started buying from another source, he was busted, gaoled and then deported. The police were not happy to have competition in the drug market.

The police also totally controlled the hash oil market in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I had heard about Roger Rogerson and his nefarious activities long before he became notorious. Who really believes that he did not murder Warren Lanfranchi, the heroin dealer? In 1976 I received complaints from south coast residents of police loading up households with marijuana and busting the occupants. Police were also busy recycling huge amounts of marijuana from Griffith. In 1988 when police busted the yacht Jaleena at Pittwater, which was carrying 3.6 tonnes of marijuana, only three tonnes were declared. I wonder what happened to the other 600 kilograms? The marijuana was valued at $10,000 a kilo, so $6 million worth of marijuana just vanished. I heard a report that it was on the market one week after the bust. Twelve years ago I attempted unsuccessfully to bust a major heroin importer who had connections with George Freeman.

I was told by a recently retired Federal police officer that every single member of the New South Wales drug squad at that time was corrupt and that she knew of only two Federal police who could be trusted. When I called them they were too busy to speak to me. A few years later the same ring was busted for marijuana possession, with dramatic film footage shown on television. In the meantime they had traded unimpeded huge amounts of heroin from Turkey. The other day a solicitor told me that some time ago one of his clients was busted at Terrey Hills for amphetamine possession. He was taken to the police station and the police officer behind the counter was the one who had sold him the amphetamines, so his case never came to court. Honourable members will be aware that most of my contribution to this debate has been about drugs. When drugs are in demand in the community there will always be a supply. Prohibition has been a catastrophic failure and the cause of a considerable amount of police corruption.

When underpaid police officers - and police are grossly underpaid - are offered $20,000, $30,000 or $50,000 in cash or presented with drugs to that value it is a fantastic incentive for them to become corrupt. Some police are struggling to pay their mortgages, sometimes with one or two children and they are very hard up. Fundamentally the opportunities have been placed before them time and again and for 30 years, to my knowledge, they have taken advantage of them. I can hardly blame them. In the 1950s when sly grog and starting price bookmaking were available - and a certain member of the Labor Party who was at that time Chief Secretary was heavily involved - corruption was rife. When there is prohibition, corruption is rife. Prostitution and gambling have now been effectively legalised and therefore the opportunities for corruption in those areas are no longer available.

The slate must be wiped clean. We must be able to trust our police officers above all people in society. The old culture must be ruthlessly smashed. Police officers must realise that the old order is gone. Even those who have been corrupt in the past must put their corruption behind them and reform themselves. After all, not every former corrupt police officer will be discovered. Many who remain in the service were corrupt in the past. Now is the time to reform. They must make the decision now to change. Any police officer who continues corrupt practices can expect no mercy from the commissioner or the public. The chance of detection is much higher than it was in the past. Perhaps whistleblowers will be considered heroes and not lepers. If community expectations of police are now much higher, the problem of police pay will have to be addressed. There is no question that police are underpaid. I asked the Minister for Police about this problem recently, and I am sure he is ready to address it.

As a community we must be ready to significantly increase the pay of members of the Police Service so that they will not have the incentive or the need to involve themselves in corrupt drug dealings. At the same time civilians in the Police Service should have more involvement in the routine tasks that can be done at lower rates of pay. The public wants the police to be highly paid, totally trustworthy and respected professionals. From the ashes of the royal commission must rise a new professional Police Service to which everyone can look up. All police officers who wish to remain in the service must be part of the reform process and not attempt to resist it. They will all benefit in the end. Community respect for police should be restored as swiftly as possible. As the Minister said, the police commissioner is being given extraordinary powers for extraordinary times, but I and many other members of this House have serious misgivings about the lack of appeal rights. The ALP members were rolled on that issue the other day. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has considerable concerns. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile quoted a letter from Jennie George. Today I also received that letter, which reads in part:

The ACTU wishes to strongly urge the NSW government to provide for reasonable appeal rights for officers of the NSW police service who may be the subject of "loss of commissioner's confidence" as a result of the current reforms.

I would draw your attention to the following provisions of ILO Convention 158 re Termination of Employment to which Australia is a party:

Page 6505

Article 7

"The employment of a worker shall not be terminated for reasons related to the worker's conduct or performance before he is provided an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made, unless the employer cannot reasonably be expected to provide this opportunity."

Article 8

"i] A worker who considers that his employment has been unjustifiably terminated shall be entitled to appeal against that termination to any impartial body, such as a court, labour tribunal, arbitration committee or arbitrator.

ii] Where termination has been authorised by a competent authority the application of paragraph 1 of this Article may be varied according to national law and practice.

iii] A worker may be deemed to have waived his right to appeal against the termination of his employment if he has not exercised that right within a reasonable period of time after termination".

Advice received is that the NSW government to act in the manner proposed could be in breach of ILO Convention 158.

So the Government has been warned by its union backers. The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties issued a press release today in which John Marsden reminded the Government that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. "Power tends to corrupt", I think, is the correct phrase. In part the press release states:

Mr Marsden said that the Council for Civil Liberties is one of the greatest critics of the New South Wales Police Service and the institutionalised corruption that existed within that service. However, he said, police like ordinary citizens have the right to enjoy the presumption of innocence. The system of justice that now stands is one which we are proud of . . . It was, however, absurd and irresponsible to place the power to do that in the hands of one individual.

Mr Marsden said that it was wrong of the royal commission and Justice Wood to attack police associations for standing up for the rights of their members. That was not only their right but their duty and responsibility. I also have a letter from Geoff Cahill, solicitor and attorney, written to Mr Peter Ryan, Commissioner of Police for New South Wales. It was given to me by the Police Association. When talking about absolute power Mr Cahill said, amongst other things:

In practice, this absolute power will be as well exercised by other senior officers by way of secret investigation and recommendation or delegation. The practical outcome, without any form of accountability, will leave the door open for elements of "nepotism, favouritism or other malpractice" (which was the reason for establishing the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal: see the Bowen Inquiry Report 1978 at 17). It also risks the misuse of the rights of officers to know in the context of adverse comments made about them.

Mr Cahill continued:

If you can not make a convincing case for summary dismissal you should not terminate an officer's employment. After all, it is the State's top investigatory authority. Surely it is an indictment on the efficacy of such a Service which cannot prove its own case. A justification for dismissal which can not see the light of day is a sad sign of insecurity.

It is not a matter of "if you're a good officer you don't have to worry". The fact is that any mistreatment of a good officer will not be redressed. This is because there is no accountability. It risks a cover up to protect the process. This kind of absolute power has the capacity to institutionalise injustice.

I certainly do not question your sincerity or integrity. I do question your wisdom. Apart from previous comments, it seems that you are creating a rod for your own back by insisting on the personal responsibility for this unique absolute power. I believe it will work against you in a number of ways.

For example, first, if it misfires (and it will) you stand to collect the bullets. The politicians tend to go missing on bad news issues. The protective shadow of the Premier, Police Minister and Royal Commissioner will soon fade as you will be expected to run the ball yourself. I know you possess the courage, but those with considerable power in such highly paid (justifiably so in your case) positions do not get much public sympathy when things go astray. This may begin to erode your political clout and your positive public profile. However, it will neither impinge on your real authority nor curtail your reform program if you allow for an independent appeal body to share your responsibility. To the contrary, it may enhance your public status and gain much greater internal respect from rank and file police officers.

I agree with those comments. Mr Cahill's letter continued:

Secondly, under existing Federal dismissal law, there is in my view access under the existing legislation for any "person" to apply for a remedy for harsh, unjust or unreasonable termination of employment. In the event that any new amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) extinguish this right for any "person", the Police Association could apply for Federal union registration and place beyond doubt the access required for a dismissal remedy under the Federal arena.

The letter further stated:

Thirdly, it will not be long before sufficient union pressure (not confined to the Association) builds to force the re-introduction of an appeal process. The issue is one which will come back to the Government caucus members, and it will be changed back.

It is important that those comments be put on the record. I share the sentiments expressed. It is a matter of natural justice that police officers have a right of appeal. I had toyed with the idea of moving an amendment, designed as a compromise, to allow all officers below the rank of sergeant, of whom there were 9,968 in the Police Service a year ago, to have appeal rights to the Industrial Court. That would have left about 3,130 officers who would then have been subject to dismissal without the right of appeal. On reflection, I feel that it would not be appropriate to draw such an artificial boundary between senior constables and first-class constables, and I shall not move the amendment. I shall certainly give favourable consideration to the amendments that have been foreshadowed by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Opposition.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [6.03]: Rarely does a bill occupy so much of my attention as this one has done, and leave me in such a dilemma as to
Page 6506
where I shall position myself when and if the House divides on the legislation. I support comments made by other honourable members in relation to the concern expressed by Jennie George, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, about whether the provisions of the bill go against International Labour Organisation Convention 158 regarding termination of employment, to which Australia is a party. Article 8[i] states:

A worker who considers that his employment has been unjustifiably terminated shall be entitled to appeal against that termination to an impartial body, such as a court, labour tribunal, arbitration committee or arbitrator.

Honourable members will be well aware of my belief that international conventions to which Australia is a party - including the convention in relation to the rights of the child and the international covenant on civil and political rights, which I referred to recently in relation to prisoners and compensation - should be maintained in practice. Any doubt as to whether these have been breached needs to be investigated. So long as there is any doubt in this case about whether the provisions of the bill breach the ILO convention I must as a matter of principle support the adjournment of this debate until appropriate advice can be received. Such a request is not unreasonable, given the fundamental importance of this issue, the constant and conflicting advice that we have received and the fact that there are at least five more sitting days in this session. Should a motion to adjourn the debate be forced to a vote, I shall support the adjournment of the debate until tomorrow.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER [6.06]: I wish to make a number of observations that I hope honourable members will take into consideration in their deliberations on the bill. The Opposition supports the second interim report of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. The purpose of the interim report was to put into the policy melting pot issues for consideration concerning the restructuring and directional focus of the New South Wales Police Service. In essence, the bill will amend the Police Service Act 1990 in the following ways. It will abolish the New South Wales Police Board, with the board's powers and responsibilities being transferred to the Commissioner of Police. It will modify procedures for appointment to ranks from Assistant Commissioner of Police through to Commissioner, together with other senior executive service appointments.

The bill will rest with the Commissioner of Police responsibility and authority in relation to integrity testing. It will provide the Commissioner of Police with summary dismissal powers. Further, it will protect the police who provide information concerning the unlawful conduct of other officers. The bill recognises and provides a future direction to address the identified problems of alcohol and drug abuse in the Police Service. It will make changes that involve the abolition of the police personal recording procedure, widely known as authorised strength. There is little doubt that this is a very important bill not only for the Police Service but for the entire community. It is a step in the right direction - the right direction to return the faith and confidence of the people of this State in the men and women of the New South Wales Police Service.

The bill comes at a time of rapid change in policing, a time when all police in New South Wales are truly considering what they stand for and what is their main focus; a time when the Government is seriously examining the provision of policing services throughout the State, even to the extent of considering - whether we like it or not - the possibility of closing up to 100 police stations; a time when virtually everything is up for grabs. All honourable members would remember a time when it was considered unacceptable to have all-encompassing power vested in just one person, the Commissioner of Police. In 13 years we have come the full circle. This bill will abolish the Police Board and place in the commissioner powers that, had they been raised more than 12 months ago, would have resulted in the strongest public condemnation - and condemnation that would have been justified.

In providing the Commissioner of Police with these new powers the Government, the royal commission and the wider community are placing their hope in just one man, Peter Ryan. Let it be understood that it is the individual that has become the focus of the Government's adherence to these reforms, not the position of Commissioner of Police. If Commissioner Ryan decided tomorrow that he no longer wished to continue in his position as commissioner or was incapable of continuing for some other reason, would this legislation have to be brought back before the Parliament to be amended? Is it therefore the case that in the light of public statements made by many involved in the reform process it is impossible to get rid of corruption once and for all? In the future when new commissioners are selected, will we have to redraft this legislation to fit the ability, experience and integrity of each new commissioner - because if Commissioner Ryan were to leave tomorrow, who would be there to replace him?

Clearly, a number of New South Wales police officers were in close running for the top job before Mr Ryan finally gained the support of the Government. Is it not fair to suggest that those officers will be back there cracking for that top job should Commissioner Ryan resign or leave for some other reason? If one were successful, would we see the Police Board reconstituted to ensure integrity in the system? I have no doubt about Commissioner Ryan's ability and commitment to do the job but what the Government has failed to recognise in the way it has rammed this legislation through the Parliament is that Mr Ryan is but one man. There are more than 13,000 other people directly involved in the reform process who are calling out to be involved and who want to be part of the change - involvement through participation and input.

Page 6507

The Treasurer in his second reading speech acknowledged this. Why will the Government not talk to such people? We have all heard that approximately 100 police are awaiting sacking from the Police Service following the passage of the bill. But what about the more than 13,000 people that remain? When will this Parliament and indeed the community recognise that overwhelmingly those officers who have not been tainted or shown to have acted corruptly deserve our support in getting on with a totally thankless job during the most trying of times? Some have asked in response to requests for participation by rank and file officers in the consultation process, "Why should you have a say in what the future of the Police Service will be like? What have you done to identify and report corruption?" I have spent many years investigating allegations of corruption. As all honourable members would know, I worked undercover against corrupt police. I took on the role of educating police in integrity and corruption prevention. Yet officers like me would have been, and have been, shunned from the consultative process.

Equally, all honourable members would be alarmed if consultation between the Parliament and the community were being hampered by Government interference on this issue. Since the announcement was made earlier this year that Mr Peter Ryan was to be appointed as the Commissioner of Police I have been inundated with inquiries from community groups and individuals about him and whether I thought he had the mettle to get on with the job. I have no doubt that other members, including Government members, have been asked similar questions. To enable me to comment on Mr Peter Ryan as an individual I wrote to him on 13 August 1996 setting out my experience in policing and my interest in assisting him to address the changes that lay ahead. I sent the letter to the National Directorate of Police Training, Hampshire, England, on 13 August. On 16 August he replied as follows:

Thank you for your letter of 13 August and for taking the trouble to write to me. I was very interested to read of your experience in both the New South Wales Police Service and the Legislative Council and feel certain that your knowledge of both areas would be of considerable interest to me. Please feel free to contact me after my inauguration and I look forward to meeting you in Sydney after 1 September.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Ryan

The meeting was subsequently arranged by the private secretary of the Commissioner for Police for 14 October 1996. On 2 October 1996 I was told that the morning tea had been cancelled because of a protocol breach. I immediately wrote to the Minister for Police outlining my reason for wishing to speak with Mr Ryan. I stressed that I did not wish to speak to the commissioner about policing issues; that was not the purpose of the meeting. On 14 October the Minister wrote back to me and, apart from explaining the differences between protocol and a Premier's memorandum, he stated that he deemed it inappropriate that I meet with Commissioner Ryan. He said that if I wished to speak to anyone about policing I should make an appointment to see him, the Minister. With all due respect, I wanted to speak to the butcher, not the block. If the Government is truly serious about reforming the Police Service, why is it committed to limiting the Commissioner's understanding of the problem?

It has been widely broadcast that the Commissioner does not know who to trust. Is it any wonder? The Opposition supports the changes that are under way within the Police Service. However, it is imperative that I place on record in this Chamber a number of reservations the Opposition has about the haste with which the bill has been presented. I couch them in a number of observations. The Government cannot deny that some areas of concern have not been the subject of suitable scrutiny. As I said earlier, the Parliament has to get it right first time. If honourable members are not convinced, I refer them to a discrepancy in comments made by the Premier on 19 November in another place. In response to a question asserting that there would be no adequate oversight of the commissioner if the Police Board was dissolved, the Premier stated that the Police Integrity Commission would oversight the commissioner. However, if honourable members care to examine the police integrity Act, they will see plenty of safeguards against corruption and misconduct but nothing, not a thing, about police management.

Police management - some have argued this in this Chamber - is the very core of the problem in New South Wales. Accordingly to the Premier's own suggestion, police management will shortly become the subject of even less scrutiny. As I have indicated, the Government has not properly thought through this legislation. We have all heard of the internal war that has broken out within Government ranks over key aspects of the legislation. Contrary to protestations that everything is fine and dandy now, we all know that this is not the case. The main concern revolves around summary dismissal provisions in the legislation. The matter of summary dismissal was first raised seriously in 1995. In fact I was part of the think tank within the service that looked at the issue, together with the entire issue of integrity testing. The Government has known of the issues since then. Consultation took place between the Police Association, the Commissioned Officers Association and the professional responsibility command at the time. Why then has the Government waited until the last week of Parliament the following year to try to jam this legislation through?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: When do you think the royal commissioner made his report?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I asked the Attorney General questions about integrity testing some months ago and he had no idea how to answer them. Who would have believed that we would have a Labor Government in New South Wales that
Page 6508
showed little if any regard for workers rights? And who would have believed that a Liberal would be raising the question? We all support the removal of corrupt police but this legislation allows for summary dismissal of lazy officers. How do we define a lazy officer? We ask his or her superior. If ever there was an opportunity for corrupting the system, this is it. After leaving undercover duties against corrupt police I worked at a local patrol as a detective. One evening a colleague warned me to watch my back.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: That is what you have to do over there, too.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: If you had the guts you would be sitting over here.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: We sat over there for long enough, thanks.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: You will be back soon enough, too. We are just keeping the seats warm. My colleague had overheard a conversation between a number of police who had decided to get rid of me by ensuring that my work load increased to the point that I was incapable of carrying out my duties thoroughly and would be transferred. Luckily I was able to carry out the allotted tasks, but how many other members of the Police Service run the possibility of falling into this trap? If police are prepared to lodge anonymous complaints with internal affairs and the Ombudsman to stop someone from getting promotion or transfer, we should not believe that this system will have any better safeguards.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Did that sort of thing happen?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: We are not as flippant as the other side is on this issue because we realise the seriousness of the matter. It is also important to recognise the significant role the Opposition has played in this debate. The Opposition supports the objective of the royal commission to weed out corrupt police and records its support for the honest police officers who remain. The Opposition has raised concerns over the way that honest police have been treated. The Opposition drew the Government's attention to serious shortcomings involving integrity testing. I am pleased to inform the House that the Government has listened to concerns and acted upon them, as reflected in the bill. I was interested to read about the position of the commissioner and the Government on drug usage within the Police Service - this would interest the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I was puzzled by the Government's view and was interested to hear the Hon. R. S. L. Jones a short time earlier speak about internal witnesses.

Honourable members are aware of the Bondi segment of the royal commission, in which a police officer was revealed as dealing in drugs. Honourable members probably are not aware that the person who raised this matter was one of the first to be removed from the Police Service. In December 1995 a police officer came forward and revealed widespread drug dealing and usage at Bondi. That officer revealed the reasons for his own drug use and had put himself through counselling. He recognised the risk but his integrity would not allow a drug-dealing officer to go free. He was subsequently suspended and in September this year was informed that he could resign by close of business on 9 September or be sacked. I am told that he was advised by the assistant commissioner of professional responsibility that he should resign by close of business on Monday. He resigned on 9 September and is therefore entitled to a certificate of discharge. A certificate of discharge is given to police officers only when they leave the service with their integrity intact.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It was only marijuana he smoked, wasn't it?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: That is my understanding. The important thing to focus on is that he was given an ultimatum. After being advised to resign or be sacked on Friday, 6 September, he wrote to the Commissioner of Police, setting out fully the circumstances surrounding his drug use as well as other evidence he gave under oath to the royal commission. His letter pleaded with the commission to consider the mitigating circumstances of his case. On 10 September he again wrote to the Commissioner of Police asking for his position to be reconsidered. To date he has not received a reply in relation to the two matters. On 13 November he again wrote to the commissioner following revelations of the Police Service's new view towards drug use. Honourable members would agree that the commissioner is a fair and reasonable man - indeed, he is currently the best man for the job.

If both the commissioner and the Government have been considering their position on drug usage - as we have been told repeatedly for some time - why did the commissioner allow this officer to be forced to resign? Further, why did the commissioner fail to acknowledge the officer's correspondence, in which I am told he fully outlined the circumstances surrounding his drug use? That is the same evidence he gave under oath at the police royal commission. On the other hand, if the commissioner did not personally receive the letters or has no knowledge of this officer being given the ultimatum, how could all Police Service personnel - and indeed Parliament - be assured that this will not happen again in respect of commissioner's confidence?

How can we be assured that the commissioner will personally know of a case such as this? If both are serious about their position on this matter there is no alternative: they must conduct a thorough re-examination of this officer's situation. I challenge the Government to tell me how this former officer - who was forced to resign - has not qualified
Page 6509
according to the criteria set out in the legislation? Again, if the commissioner, the Government and the royal commission are of the view that police officers should remain in the service subject to certain requirements, why was this officer forced to resign? Was the decision on police drug use a last-minute decision or is there some other reason that I have failed to see? Is the concern, which has been raised with me by other police, valid?

Is there no room in the Police Service for internal witnesses? This incident did not happen one or two years ago; it happened in the last two months. One of the greatest criticisms of the Police Service over many decades is that everything happens behind closed doors where the police culture rallies around the flag to protect decisions from open public scrutiny. Am I wrong to suggest that the very same claim can be made of the Government's commitment to its former summary dismissal powers, as revealed in this bill? I believe that five months is plenty of time to get rid of any little problems. We need to know that the entire process is completely transparent.

I note that some honourable members made mention of the right of dismissed police to take matters to the Supreme Court. Do honourable members have any idea how long it takes to get an appeal before the Supreme Court? It takes years! How will an officer pay for his legal costs over that time? The Police Association pays for only a percentage of legal costs. How do honourable members expect officers to find employment during that time? When they front up to a potential employer they will be asked for their previous job experience. Who would hire an alleged corrupt police officer? And what about their families! Honourable members have indicated their intention to move a number of amendments to this bill, as has the Opposition. No doubt these amendments will not be digested and debated this evening. A short time ago I was told that a decision handed down at 4.00 p.m. in the Industrial Court will have a great impact on this legislation. If that is the case it is imperative that all members have an opportunity to consider that judgment. I move:

That this debate be adjourned until the next sitting day.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Mr Lynn
Mrs Chadwick Mrs Nile
Mr Cohen Rev. Nile
Mr Corbett Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Mrs Sham-Ho
Miss Gardiner Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Gay Tellers,
Mr Hannaford Mr Jobling
Mr Jones Mr Moppett

Mrs Arena Mr Shaw
Dr Burgmann Ms Staunton
Ms Burnswoods Mrs Symonds
Mr Egan Mr Tingle
Ms Kirkby Mr Vaughan
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid Tellers,
Mr Primrose Mrs Isaksen
Ms Saffin Mr Manson

Dr Goldsmith Mr Dyer
Mr Kersten Mr Johnson
Mr Samios Mr Kaldis

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion for adjournment agreed to.

[The President left the chair at 6.34 p.m. The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.]