Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 19 September 1995, Corrected Copy)

The two Houses met in the Legislative Council Chamber at 5.10 p.m. to elect a member of the Legislative Council in the place of the Hon. Robert James Webster, resigned.

The Clerk read the message from the Governor convening the joint sitting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am now prepared to receive proposals with regard to an eligible person to fill the vacant seat in the Legislative Council caused by the resignation of the Hon. Robert James Webster.

Mr ARMSTRONG: I propose Mark Raymond Kersten as an eligible person to fill the vacant seat of the Hon. Robert James Webster in the Legislative Council, for which purpose this joint sitting was convened. I move:

That Mark Raymond Kersten be elected as a member of the Legislative Council to fill the seat in the Legislative Council caused by the resignation of the Hon. Robert James Webster.

I indicate to the joint sitting that if Mark Raymond Kersten were a member of the Legislative Council he would not be disqualified from sitting or voting as such a member. He is a member of the same party, the National Party of Australia, New South Wales division, as Robert James Webster was publicly recognised by being an endorsed candidate of that
party and who publicly represented himself to be such a candidate at the time of his election of the fifth periodic council election held on 25 May, 1991.

I further indicate that the person being proposed will be willing to hold the vacant place if chosen. In proposing and nominating Mr Kersten, I take the opportunity of expressing the delight of the National Party to have a person of the character and the magnitude of Mr Kersten to sit within this most historical Chamber. I am confident that Mr Kersten will represent the people of New South Wales, and in particular the people of Broken Hill and the far west, with dignity and at all times with honesty and probity. I recommend his nomination.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to have the opportunity to second this motion. Mark Kersten will be an excellent member of the Legislative Council. He will represent the National Party in a distinguished way. We look forward to having him as part of our team in this Chamber. I have much pleasure in formally seconding the motion.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Does any other member desire to propose any other eligible person to fill the vacancy? As only one eligible person has been proposed and seconded, I hereby declare that Mark Raymond Kersten is elected a member of the Legislative Council to fill the seat vacated by the Hon. Robert James Webster. I declare the joint sitting closed.


Page 1018

The President (The Hon. Max Frederick Willis) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President offered the Prayers.


The President reported the receipt from His Excellency the Governor of a communication notifying the resignation of the Hon. Robert James Webster as a member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales with effect from 5 September 1995.

The President announced that he had acknowledged His Excellency's communication and that the resignation had been entered in the Register of Members of the Legislative Council.

The President reported the receipt of a message from His Excellency the Governor convening, on 19 September 1995 at 5.10 p.m., a joint sitting of the members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of the election of a person to fill the seat in the Legislative Council vacated by the Hon. Robert James Webster.


Royal assent to the following bills reported:

National Environment Protection Council (New South Wales) Bill
Totalizator Legislation Amendment Bill

Fire Brigades Amendment (Contributions) Bill

Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Bill
Competition Policy Reform (New South Wales) Bill
Health Legislation (Amendment) Bill
Olympic Co-ordination Authority Bill
Statute Law Revision (Local Government) Bill
Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill
Ports Corporatisation and Waterways Management Bill
Queanbeyan Showground (Variation of Purposes) Bill
Road Improvement (Special Funding) Amendment Bill
Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill
Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill
Coal Industry Amendment Bill
Corporations (New South Wales) Amendment Bill
Courts Legislation Amendment Bill
Criminal Procedure Amendment (Indictable Offences) Bill
Criminal Legislation Amendment Bill
Disability Services Amendment (Residents' Amenities Accounts) Bill
Evidence Bill
Evidence on Commission Bill
Evidence (Consequential and Other Provisions) Bill
Public Defenders Bill
Superannuation Administration Amendment Bill
Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill
Standard Time Amendment Bill
State Owned Corporations (Amendment) Bill

The President advised members that television sets and video recorders throughout Parliament House had been tuned to receive proceedings from the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly Chambers on the following nominated channels: Legislative Council Chamber, channel 5, and Legislative Assembly Chamber, channel 6.


The following bill was returned from the Legislative Assembly without amendment:

Criminal Legislation Amendment Bill

Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendments.


Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendments.


Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendments.


The President, in accordance with section 31AA(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1974, tabled the Special Report of the Ombudsman on the Psychologists Registration Board received by him out of session, and announced that pursuant to section 31AA(2) of the Act he had authorised the report to be made public.


The President, pursuant to the resolution adopted by the Legislative Council on 2 July 1991, tabled the Annual Report of the Standing Committee on State Development for the year ended 30 June 1994.

Ordered to be printed.

Page 1019

The President, pursuant to the resolution adopted by the Legislative Council on 2 July 1991, tabled the Annual Report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues for the year ended 30 June 1994.

Ordered to be printed.


The Hon. Ann Symonds, as Chairman, tabled Report No. 8 of the Standing Committee on Social Issues entitled "Report into Youth Violence in New South Wales", dated September 1995, together with the proceedings of the committee, minutes of evidence and written submissions.

Ordered to be printed.

Motion by the Hon. Ann Symonds agreed to:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Ann Symonds.


The Hon. Janelle Saffin, on behalf of the Chairman, tabled Discussion Paper No. 1 of the Regulation Review Committee on the Scrutiny of National Scheme Legislation and the Desirability of Uniform Scrutiny Principles, dated September 1995.

Ordered to be printed.


Freedom of Choice in Education

Petitions praying the rights of parents for freedom of choice in education be supported, and that any attempts to remove the exemptions in the Anti-Discrimination Act for Christian, religious and other non-government schools, churches and religious organisations be opposed, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, and the Hon. D. F. Moppett.

Petition praying that the House act to prevent the further deterioration of the global environment and atmosphere by curtailing air pollution and emissions by banning the use of chlorofluorocarbons and by other action, received from the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby.

Petitions praying that any attempt to legalise euthanasia or assisted suicide be opposed, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Petitions expressing concern about legal changes that could increase or encourage the distribution or availability of soft drugs such as marijuana, and praying that the House take no measures that could extend the social problem of drug use, and oblige those who are promoting marijuana or similar drugs to prove without doubt that such drugs are harmless before any legislation or decriminalisation of their use is introduced, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Petitions praying that because the homosexual vilification amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act censor criticism of homosexuals, they be repealed, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Petition praying that the Parliament support the Sexual Offence Damages Bill, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile.

Petition praying that brothels not be legalised, and that the Disorderly Houses Act is fully enforced to close all brothels, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I desire to inform the House that on Wednesday, 7 June 1995, the Hon. Patrick Carl Scully, MP, was appointed Assistant Minister for Energy. I further advise the House that on Wednesday, 26 July 1995, the Hon. John Joseph Aquilina, MP, was appointed Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.55]: It is with deep regret that I bring to the attention of the House the sudden passing yesterday of Mr Norm Watson, the head of the Department of Energy. On behalf of the Government and personally I want to place on record my sincere condolences to Norm's wife, Lynn, and to his two children, Natalie and Stuart. Norm's untimely and early death is a blow to public administration in this State. Nothing can prepare families for such a tragic loss, and I wish to convey to Norm's family my heartfelt sympathy, that of my staff and, I am sure, of all honourable members of the House. Norm Watson's wide experience in the New South Wales public sector began in 1959. His early background focused on administration and management. He joined the public service as a
Page 1020
15-year-old and throughout his career served the people of New South Wales with great distinction. He gained a Bachelor of Economics degree, and during his long service to the public held Cabinet Office, Treasury and the Public Service Board positions, as well as spending periods with the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Public Works Department.

From 1981 Norm was involved in the policy, operations and technical aspects of energy as Secretary to the former Energy Authority and subsequently the Department of Energy. In 1989 he was appointed to the senior executive service as Deputy Director-General, Energy, following the amalgamation of the Department of Energy and the Department of Mineral Resources. When the splitting of the energy and minerals portfolio occurred in 1991 Mr Watson was appointed Director of the Office of Energy. He was also appointed Acting Director-General in March this year when the office was made a department. Mr Watson was the State representative on the National Grid Management Council, preparing the way for an interstate competitive electricity market, and the national gas reform task force. He was also a member of the Australian National Committee of the World Energy Council and had recently been appointed a member of the Gas Council of New South Wales.

As his Minister over the last five months, I wish to acknowledge his enormous effort, dedication and loyalty to the Government's energy reforms and to pay tribute to the many contributions he made over the years to the public service. I am sure that a number of members of this House will have known Norm in one of the various positions that he occupied during a long and distinguished career in the public service. Those who might not have met Norm before the electricity reform legislation passed through this House in the last session of the Parliament would have had the opportunity to do so at that time. He was in the House and its precincts day and night for well over a week, mainly assisting me in my lobbying of various people, including the crossbenchers.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Including your own Government.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Some of that, too. I am sure that everyone who had the opportunity to meet him on that occasion would have been tremendously impressed with his competence, gentleness of manner and temperament. From my dealings with him I can assure all honourable members that he was not only a great man, but a great civil servant in the very best traditions of the Westminster system.


Motion by the Hon. M. R. Egan agreed to:

That the following message be sent to the Legislative Assembly:
Mr Speaker

The Legislative Council informs the Legislative Assembly that on 24 May 1995 it agreed, inter alia, that:

1. the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics be appointed;

2. the Committee have power to confer with any similar Committee appointed by the Legislative Assembly; and

3. the Committee is the designated Committee for the purposes of section 72B of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, relating to Parliamentary Ethical Standards.

The Legislative Council requests that leave be given to any similar Committee of the Assembly to confer with the Council Committee.

Legislative Council Max Willis
19 September 1995 President

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.00]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to amend the Public Sector Management Act in accordance with the Government's pre-election undertakings to revive and improve public administration in New South Wales. The Government is committed to restoring the principle of an independent, non-political public service in New South Wales and to ensuring that the community receives value for money and quality services from its public sector bodies and employees. To achieve these goals the Government will implement a number of legislative and administrative measures. Already the Government has introduced significant administrative reforms to the New South Wales public sector. There is a new focus on low-cost, no-frills administration.

The bill represents the first stage of the Government's program for reforming the legislative framework for public sector administration. A further package of reforms will be brought forward at a later stage. These will be developed in the context of a comprehensive review of the Public Sector Management Act and other public sector legislation and will be aimed at a substantial simplification of the legislation. The most important initiatives that this bill implements are those to establish the Public Employment Office as an independent statutory body and the Council on the Cost of Government. As honourable members may be aware, the Government has already taken administrative steps to set up these bodies. Under the previous Government, administration of public employment issues was divided between the Premier's Department and the Department of Industrial Relations, Employment, Training and Further Education. The Government has rationalised responsibilities in this area by transferring the functions of the Public Employment Industrial Relations Authority from the industrial relations portfolio to the Premier's administration.

Page 1021

The bill abolishes the industrial authority and establishes the Public Employment Office. The bill transfers the main functions of the industrial authority to this new office. The Public Employment Office will also absorb certain functions of the now abolished Office of Public Management in the Premier's Department. The main focus of the Public Employment Office will be on personnel management and industrial relations in the public sector. In particular, this office will develop appropriate policies for the engagement of consultants in the public sector to stop their excessive or wasteful use. It will be responsible for advising the Government on standards of conduct for public sector employees, and monitoring recruitment and promotion practices in the public sector with a view to ensuring merit requirements are adhered to. The Public Employment Office will oversee the operation of the senior executive service and will coordinate and assist in the redeployment of displaced employees within the sector.

Significantly, the bill will remove ministerial discretion to waive advertising requirements for vacancies within the public service. Such a discretion jeopardises the principle of a non-political, independent public service. Instead, the Public Employment Office will be responsible for determining when waiver of these requirements is justified. The Government has already taken steps to establish the Council on the Cost of Government as part of its program to eliminate mismanagement and inefficiency in the public sector. The council is to absorb functions of the former Office of Public Management, the Office of Strategic Planning and the Management Council. These bodies were established by the previous Government and, with overlapping functions, resulted in an unwieldy and cumbersome structure for the development of central strategy and reform initiatives in the public sector.

The new council will comprise four members drawn from the private sector as well as the heads of the Premier's Department, Cabinet Office and Treasury and will be supported by a small secretariat. The council's goal will be to achieve a cost-effective and world-class public sector. It will review management and operational effectiveness and efficiency in the public sector and will advise the Government on changes it considers necessary to ensure that the community receives value for money and quality services. The council will also have specific responsibility for advising the Government on recommendations of the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee and monitoring the implementation of such recommendations. The Auditor-General will be able to provide information for the purpose of assisting the council in carrying out its functions. The council will be required to make an annual report of its operations, which must be tabled in Parliament. The bill provides for the automatic dissolution of the council three years after it is established.

While the Government is committed to maintaining a professional chief executive service and senior executive service, it is also committed to cutting the cost of operating these services. The bill assists in achieving this aim by reducing the amount of compensation that can be paid to chief executives or senior executives if they are dismissed or not reappointed at the end of their term. Currently the Act allows the Statutory and Other Officers Remuneration Tribunal to award compensation up to an amount equal to one year's remuneration. This will be reduced to a maximum compensation of 38 weeks remuneration. This limit is in line with current amounts which are payable to non-SES employees in the public sector on accepting voluntary redundancy. This lower compensation limit will apply in relation to all new appointments to chief and senior executive positions.

In addition, the bill precludes new members of the SES from electing to take a right of return to the public sector under their contract of employment. Under the previous Government, SES officers who were removed from office, or not reappointed to their SES positions could, by exercising this right, receive both salary maintenance at their old SES level of remuneration for a significant period of time and then elect to take a voluntary redundancy package at that level. The bill will ensure that this cannot occur under future contracts. Under the previous Government, administrative arrangements were put in place to allow employees who move between State public sector employers to transfer their leave entitlements. The bill gives these arrangements statutory force so that State employees will have statutory rights to have leave entitlements recognised on transferring to a new public sector employer. This is an important aspect of ensuring mobility of employment within the State public sector. The Government will also seek to put in place arrangements with other Australian governments to facilitate mobility of public sector employees between jurisdictions.

The bill reforms the legislative framework for the structure of government in New South Wales. Firstly, the bill removes the distinction between departments and administrative offices, which is no longer of any practical relevance. In future, all public service bodies will be departments. Secondly, it repeals the Administrative Changes Act and section 49 of the Constitution Act and incorporates the relevant provisions in the Public Sector Management Act. Thus, in future all administrative restructuring will be done under the one Act. Finally, the opportunity has been taken to make a number of amendments to the Public Sector Management Act to bring it into line with current practice. For example, the bill formalises the use of eligibility lists whereby applicants for public service positions are listed in order of merit and subsequently offered a position without the need for further interview. The bill represents the first stage of the Government's program of reforms for the New South Wales public sector. The initiatives introduced by the bill are a significant step towards the achievement of our goal to create a world-class public sector in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Page 1022

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.10]: Call to Australia is pleased to support the Public Sector Management Amendment Bill. The bill is in line with the Government's previously announced policies of reviewing the management, operation, effectiveness and efficiency of the public service. One object of the bill is to establish the Council on the Cost of Government. Any move in that direction is in the public interest, not so much to save money but to make sure that money is spent in the areas of most importance and greatest need. The function of the council will be to be ensure value for money and quality services to its customers and the community within the framework of the Government's policies. The Minister spoke about senior executive service employees receiving large payouts upon termination and then being engaged by the public service as consultants. Call to Australia believes that practice can only be described as double-dipping and a rort, and we are pleased to support the bill. We commend the Government for its policy of good financial stewardship.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.12]: The Opposition does not support the bill. In March 1992 the then Premier, Mr Greiner, committed his Government, following its re-election to a second term, to a clear vision for New South Wales. One of the five elements in his agenda-setting statement was that first and foremost the Government of New South Wales would serve the people and view them as customers. Mr Greiner and his successor, Mr Fahey, received accolades all round for their public sector reforms. It is a tragedy and a disgrace that today the clock is being turned back upon those reforms. Perhaps the bill should be subtitled the Hon. Franca Arena Bill, for she is reported to have said, "In my next life I will ensure that I am married to a mate, have a brother who is a mate, and am related to a mate one way or another. It appears to be the most important attribute to being successful in life in Australia." That is certainly the theme for this measure.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Hear! Hear!

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: The honourable member agrees. Under the bill the new public sector culture ushered in by Mr Greiner will be superseded by a culture from which we thought New South Wales had emerged. The politicisation of the public service was heralded by the announcement that the former chief of staff to Mr Carr - when Mr Carr was Minister for the Environment - would set up the Public Employment Office established by the bill. The independence and professionalism of the senior executive service will vanish very quickly. The transfer of responsibility for public sector management from the industrial relations portfolio to the Premier's portfolio is further evidence of the trend towards politicisation of the public service. The Labor Party machine will have a greater say in the setting of wages, salaries and conditions, and that could herald a return to the bad old days of reward for time served and mediocrity.

The bill will abolish the Office of Public Sector Management, and we believe that is a mistake. That office was an effective mechanism for auditing, monitoring and recommending to the Government ways and means of improving efficiency, effectiveness and cost saving for the Government and for taxpayers. The Office of Public Management was established in 1988 to introduce a new managerial culture into the New South Wales public service and to further professionalise the process of management reviews and performance assessment. That office supervised the introduction of the guaranteed service program, saved the taxpayers of New South Wales tens of millions of dollars in, for example, making more effective use of new technology, and helped many government agencies to improve their standard of service to the people of this State. The Office of Public Management has been applauded throughout Australia and overseas.

The Greiner-Murray and Fahey-Armstrong administrations were dedicated to delivering to the people of New South Wales cost-effective and consistently high quality public service. The model works, but it is now being wrecked by the Carr Government. Advertising of vacant positions could cost many millions of dollars. One object of the bill that the Opposition does support is the:

abolition of the "right of return" to the public sector that is currently available to public sector executives who come from positions in the public sector (but without affecting the rights of executives who have currently elected the right of return).

Because of the reforms achieved by the previous Government, New South Wales has a public sector of which we can be proud. Abolition by the previous Government of the Public Service Act and its replacement with the Public Sector Management Act let light into the public sector and put the days characterised by politicisation and mediocrity behind the people of New South Wales. The skills, integrity and professionalism of public servants were allowed to flourish and were enhanced.

The rest of Australia followed the New South Wales model. Overseas governments took note - they were impressed. The public service started to focus on customer service - perhaps for the first time in a lifetime - as its primary objective. Real meaning was put back into the term "public service". But now the Labor Party axe is being wielded. Bright, outstanding managers are being chopped and are looking elsewhere for employment and proper professional management practices. The Public Service Association has raised its concern about a number of problems with the bill. The former Government drafted the Act that this bill seeks to amend. Some of the provisions in the bill about which the PSA is expressing concern were also matters of concern at the time of the drafting of the Act. But the Greiner-Murray Government, unlike the Labor Government today, listened to representations by the PSA and acted to erase those matters of concern from the draft bill. The Carr Labor administration is failing to listen to such representations.

Page 1023

Three areas of concern about the bill have been brought to my attention. The PSA says that at present the Public Employment Industrial Relations Authority may not delegate its functions of entering into industrial agreements, making determinations, or acting as the employer of staff in proceedings concerning industrial awards. But the bill will permit those functions to be delegated to a departmental head or any other officer, provided that the determination may not exceed the lowest salary level for senior executive service staff. The association says further that the original Greiner bill included provisions making such delegation possible but that those provisions were dropped after representations by public servants. The association also points out that the bill will permit all employer functions to be delegated to departmental heads and that the Public Employment Office is not subject to the direction of the Minister, that is, the Premier, in relation to salaries, conditions and disputes, but that there is nothing to prevent such direction in relation to the power of delegation. The association further states that a legal argument might be raised against this provision, but it is not explicitly dealt with in the Act.

This means the Government could simply direct the Public Employment Office to delegate all employing powers to departments, and although the Public Employment Office is not subject to ministerial direction in relation to industrial matters, there is no such limitation on departments. The association says there might be some complicated legal argument that there was a restriction, but that again is not explicit. It would seem that if departments were effectively made employers, the real industrial power would pass into the hands of individual Ministers - in other words, politicisation of the public service.

The association also points out that the bill will allow the Minister to delegate any of his functions other than the power of delegation. The Minister, being the Premier, could, for example, delegate to the head of his department all the ministerial functions relating to the Public Employment Office, the Council on the Cost of Government, and so on. Departmental heads currently require the approval of the Public Employment Industrial Relations Authority to classify and grade positions other than senior executive service positions, which require the Minister's approval. This requirement is abolished and replaced by the requirement that classification and grading should be in accordance with such guidelines as may be issued from time to time by the Public Employment Office.

In other words, classification and grading is directly related to the salary paid to members. As far as the association is concerned, this proposal is a step towards undermining the award structure - an interesting development with a Labor Government in power. As most honourable members realise, morale in the public service is low. Wayne Goss found out, to his peril, what happens to premiers and governments that alienate their own public service. The result of the Queensland election was not only about tollways and koalas. This Government is in a shambles, especially as it has already shown it is going to be a heavy centralist government. Cuts in public sector jobs in education and health in regional cities in New South Wales have caused outrage across the State, and rightly so. Many people expressed their outrage outside the Parliament today.

The Queensland Premier, Mr Goss, at least had a healthy majority until polling day. It cannot be said that Mr Carr has the same leeway. It would help his electoral position if the public service felt proud of its performance and of the way it is treated by the Government. It is tragic that the bill will stifle further progress and will see political bias return as part of the culture of the public service, in preference to merit and independence, which are the hallmarks of a great public service. It is worth asking who is running the Government. Is it the Duckers, the Gleesons and the Professor Walkers? The Hon. Franca Arena is right - the mates are back and the public service is the poorer for it.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.23]: The Australian Democrats support the bill and agree with its major aims, which are to improve cost effectiveness and industrial relations in the public sector. This State has one of the most efficient public sectors in the world, and that has been achieved at the great cost of tens of thousands of jobs that were axed by the previous Government without any thought to the families of those who suffered. The Australian Democrats have two concerns with the original amending bill as presented by the Government. The first relates to the Council on the Cost of Government. According to the bill, this will be set up with a life of three years and will review the effectiveness and efficiency of the public sector, reporting from time to time to Government on its reviews.

Despite the onerous tasks of the council, and the obvious public importance of its reviews and recommendations, it is not currently required to publish them. The council could operate in complete secrecy, apart from the occasional publication of an annual report up to six months after the end of the relevant financial year. This secrecy is most unsatisfactory. Publishing reports makes vital information public and encourages public debate. There is no reason for the council to operate in secret. It does not deal with public employment or industrial relations, which may involve some tactical reason for confidentiality. I had planned to move amendments seeking to require the council to publish a description of the reviews and other tasks it is undertaking, and to publish all reports, reviews and advice to Government every three months. I handed my proposed amendment to the Government, and it has indicated it will amend this legislation to provide for the council to report to the Minister each six months, and for the Minister to lay each report before both Houses of Parliament. The Democrats are satisfied that this amendment will open the council's activities to public scrutiny. The Government explained that a requirement to report every three months would be far too onerous and would cost too much money.

Page 1024

I was also concerned with the definition in the bill of de facto spouse. Item [5] of schedule 5 will insert a clause entitling widowers or de facto spouses of deceased public servants with entitlements to extended leave to receive the money value of the leave. "De facto spouse" is defined to exclude gay partners, even if those partners are living in a bona fide domestic relationship. It is hypocritical to deny to the partners of public servants the benefits that are enjoyed by partners of politicians. There are no pragmatic reasons for discrimination against same-sex partners living in a genuine long-term de facto relationship. The only rationale for doing so is a discriminatory one, which treats gay people as less equal than people in conventional relationships.

I had planned to amend this definition, but the Government has indicated that as it plans to review the issue of same-sex partners in the De Facto Relationships Act, it will consider the redefinition at that time. I look forward to the results of that review, and I am hopeful that legalised discrimination against gay people will end. With those few comments the Democrats support the legislation.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.26]: I speak with some consternation about the way in which the Public Sector Management Act is being chopped about to suit the convenience of what has become a scandal of jobs for the boys and jobs for the mates. Since this Government took office I have been watching carefully the Government Gazette, which has listed a series of appointments of public service heads and sackings of heads of public sector -

The Hon. Ann Symonds: Not enough of them have been sacked.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It is interesting that the Hon. Ann Symonds makes that comment, because most of those people were appointed under the merit system with appropriate appointment and advertising arrangements.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Which merit system was used?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: A merit system of appointment was appropriately set up and judged by an appointments committee operated by the public sector - nothing like the appointments under this new arrangement, where people have been appointed without legislative backing. I refer, of course, to Mike Reid, who was appointed to the position of Operations Officer in the Department of Health. Mr Alan McCarroll was a perfectly good and very capable operations manager who had the support of the public sector. He was an apolitical operator, a person who was fearlessly regarded in the Department of Health. He has now been replaced.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: What about Gary Sturgess?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Mr Sturgess is no longer in the public sector. The first appointment in this week's Government Gazette is none other than Brother Ducker. Brother Ducker is back, along with Mr Gleeson and a few of the other old mates. Brother Ducker is back on the Ambulance Board, and then he will take over the Ambulance Tribunal again. We have heard about Professor Walker, the friend of the Treasurer, and almost nobody else. He has been appointed to the Council on the Cost of Government, and his distorted facts will be seen again. He is said to be from the non-public sector, but he is of course a member of the teaching staff of the University of New South Wales. I suppose that is the non-public sector in a way, but his could hardly be described as a private sector appointment, as the Treasurer described it in his introduction of the bill.

It is interesting to note some of the other appointments that have been made. I will not have time to go into them in great depth today because there is a lot to get through. I presume that the Government has a big agenda of things that it wants to bring in. In terms of contradictions in the bill, I draw the attention of the Treasurer to page 8, proposed new section 4, that sets out the fees and allowances for appointed members to this wonderful new Council on the Cost of Government. Proposed new section 4 states that appointed members are entitled to be paid such fees and allowances as the Minister from time to time determines in respect of each member. The Government can bring on somebody and pay them one amount, or it can bring on someone else and pay that person a different amount.

I draw the Treasurer's attention to page 13, proposed new section 49C, which relates to the establishment of the Public Employment Office. Under that new section the Minister will not have control over what people can be paid. New section 49C states that the Public Employment Office is subject to the control and direction of the Minister, except for salaries, wages and remuneration. Although I appreciate that these may be slightly different, there appears to be an internal contradiction there. How does the Minister - I assume that it is the Treasurer - have the ability to determine how much he will pay those appointed to the Council on the Cost of Government? Is it possible for the Treasurer to pay money to the departmental heads or the public servants nominated in new section 41 over and above their public sector employment? Is this a way of giving a sweetener to Ken Baxter or anyone else in the public sector? If the Minister appoints the head of the Department of Health, can that person be paid extra if appointed to the Council on the Cost of Government?

Because the bill was presented today I have had only a quick read of it, but I am drawn to a section on entitlements to various forms of leave. It is interesting that people will have options, that is, to take annual leave or to accrue it, to transfer an entitlement from one public sector job to another public sector job, or to take cash as they leave a job. I wonder whether the Treasurer will transfer that monetary entitlement from budget to budget. For example, if a person moves from the Department of Industrial Relations to Treasury, will the Department of Industrial Relations be required to transfer funds for its employee as he or she transfers? That is a
Page 1025
matter of considerable interest, and the same conditions apply to sick leave and to maternity leave entitlements.

It is interesting that at page 44, schedule 5, proposed new section 38(2) the person holding office in an abolished position immediately before its abolition by the 1995 Act is taken to have been appointed under the Act to the equivalent department head position for the abolished position, and such an appointment is for the remainder of the period of appointment to the abolished position. I know that this is gobbledygook but I am sure that there is a simple explanation for it. The table on page 45 contains the same titles in both columns, but in column two reference to the Act under which people are appointed has been deleted. Why is it necessary for that change to be made, yet no change is made to the title of director or director-general.

I wonder whether the Treasurer could explain how Mick Reid could be employed in a senior position in the Department of Health without the position being advertised? I note that the position was advertised very recently, and late. Perhaps it was advertised because someone got a whiff of the fact that Mick Reid was appointed by Dr Refshauge without legal leave to do so. Perhaps the Treasurer is trying to justify the cost of employing Mick Reid as a continuing consultant, or perhaps there is a problem with the appointment. I dare say that there is a problem. I am concerned that the Government has moved fast to re-establish the old-boy network within departments. I was surprised to see some very good people put on unallocated lists and then dismissed from the public service. I am concerned about the cost of that to the people of New South Wales, not simply in terms of monetary payout but in terms of removing New South Wales from the list of governments around the world that employ people on the basis of merit, not on the basis of mateship.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.35], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate.

Question - That this bill be now read a second time - put.

The House divided.

Mrs Arena Rev. Nile
Dr Burgmann Mr Obeid
Ms Burnswoods Mr O'Grady
Mr Cohen Ms Saffin
Mr Corbett Mr Shaw
Mr Dyer Ms Staunton
Mr Egan Mrs Symonds
Mrs Isaksen Mr Tingle
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Jones
Miss Kirkby Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Mr Kaldis
Mrs Nile Mr Manson

Mr Bull Mr Pickering
Mrs Chadwick Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Gay Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Hannaford
Mr Jobling Tellers,
Mr Mutch Dr Goldsmith
Dr Pezzutti Mr Moppett

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.48]: I move Government amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 6, Schedule 1[2], lines 12-20. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

47D Reports to the Minister

(1) The Council is to prepare and forward to the Minister a report of the Council's work and activities for each consecutive period of 6 months commencing on the commencement of this section. The report for a period is to be prepared and forwarded to the Minister within 2 months after the end of the period.

(2) The Minister is to lay each such report or cause it to be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving the report.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.50]: The Opposition supports the amendment.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.50]: I thank the Government for accepting the spirit of our proposed amendment. Although the time for reporting by the Council on the Cost of Government has been extended from three months to six months, the council will certainly be accountable. This Chamber and the Legislative Assembly will be able to review the workings of the council every six months, thus making the whole procedure transparent. I hope that the council will do fine work in ensuring that this State's public sector is the most efficient in the world.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.51]: Call to Australia supports the amendment. The matter of reporting to the Minister is an important issue and was discussed originally when the whole proposition was being debated in this Chamber. Members of both Chambers will have an opportunity to read the report and discuss matters that they believe are not being dealt with satisfactorily. This amendment should relieve the Opposition's fears in relation to the legislation. Honourable members will be able to take action if they believe there is a breakdown within the operations of the council.

Page 1026

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.52]: Would the Minister explain proposed new clause 44, Composition and procedure of council, subclause 1(b), page 3 of schedule 1. I looked for a definition of persons who are not public sector employees and found such a definition contained in schedule 1. At page 36, in schedule 5A, another definition appears in the form of a standard definition of public sector service. Are those two definitions inconsistent and if they are not, why not?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.53]: I would not have thought they were inconsistent. One is a definition in schedule 1 of a public sector employee. The definition in schedule 5A is a definition of public sector service. The purpose of the definition of a public sector employee in schedule 1 is to determine who the four persons appointed by the Governor as non-public sector employees can be by reference to that definition. The definition makes it clear that, provided a person is not a person who is an officer or temporary employee under this Act or an employee or member of staff of a declared authority, he or she is eligible to be appointed as a member of the council as a person who is not a public sector employee.

CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask all honourable members to desist from using mobile phones in the Chamber. Standing orders do not allow for the use of such devices in the Chamber.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: With due respect, Mr Chairman, I am not using it.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.54]: Page 8 relates to fees and allowances for appointed members, and states that an appointed member is entitled to be paid such fees and allowances as the Minister from time to time may determine. I ask the same question that I asked in my contribution to the second reading debate: is it envisaged that members of the public service who may be appointed, other than the ones nominated - for example the three departmental heads appointed to this council or someone else under clause 2 who may be appointed - will be eligible for or subject to special remuneration as determined by the Minister from time to time?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.55]: I take it that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is trying to establish whether those members of the public sector who are appointed to the council are entitled to additional remuneration?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Yes.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I suppose under this provision, unless there is some contrary provision in the bill, and it does not jump out at me, it certainly would be possible for public sector members of the council to receive additional remuneration over and above their normal public sector remuneration for their service on this council. However, my understanding is that that would be an unusual arrangement. As I understand it, most members of the public sector who are appointed to statutory boards, councils or committees in their capacity as members of the public sector, are generally not remunerated as they would be if they were from outside the public sector.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: There is no intention to do that?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: So far as I am aware, no.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.57]: Proposed section 49B, page 12, relates to the Commissioner for Public Employment. How will the commissioner be chosen and, if he has already been chosen and gazetted, under what authority has he been chosen and gazetted?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.57]: I would not have thought his appointment could be gazetted under this Act, because the Act is not yet in existence. The pro tem commissioner is a longstanding New South Wales public servant, Mr Ken Cripps. I am not in a position to know at this stage who might be appointed commissioner under this Act.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule 5

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.58]: I move Government amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Pages 34-36, Schedule 5[5], line 19 on page 34 to line 9 on page 36. Omit all words on those lines.

This amendment removes the proposed change to clause 3 of schedule 5 to the Act which would have included de facto spouses as a class of persons entitled to receive the money value of extended leave entitlements on the death of a public servant. The original proposal prompted the question of including same-sex partners as de facto spouses. The Government considers that this issue should be considered in the review by the Attorney General of the De Facto Relationships Act and domestic relationships generally, rather than in the context of reform of the Public Sector Management Act. This amendment will simply mean that on the death of a public servant, extended leave entitlements will be received only by the de jure spouse of the public servant.

Page 1027

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [4.00]: The Opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [4.00]: I move Government amendment No. 3:

No. 3 Pages 42 and 43, Schedule 5(8), line 30 on page 42 to line 3 on page 43. Omit all words on those lines.

This is a consequential amendment to the bill resulting from the delay in its progress through Parliament. The amendment will delete a redundant provision - clause 33 of new part 5 of schedule 7 - which relates to establishment of a council before 1 July 1995. As that has not happened, and in view of amendment No. 1, the provision should be removed.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [4.01]: The Opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

Pursuant to sessional order business interrupted.



The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I direct my question to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is it a fact that in an in-depth analysis of the New South Wales economy released yesterday by ratings agency Moody's states, "The fiscal effort needed to eliminate net debt would be better used to provide tax relief or to maintain essential spending." In light of this statement and the fact that the same report identified that the coalition left New South Wales in a good financial position, how does the Treasurer substantiate his fiscal strategy of increasing taxes and cutting essential services, which is the direct opposite of the strategy urged by the Moody's report?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition prepare and write his own questions. If he picks up a question written for him by one of his colleagues in the lower House, he will generally end up with egg all over his face. The Hon. E. P. Pickering gave honourable members that advice regularly, and it was good advice. If the Leader of the Opposition will not take that good advice from me, he should take it at least from his own colleague the former Government leader in this House. The suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition makes in his question is nonsense. At no stage did Moody's suggest that the Government should reduce taxes, particularly at this stage. Moody's said that debt elimination provides a clear and readily understood long-term policy goal. As such it might be an additional source of discipline for governments, which are always under pressure to ease fiscal policy.

As this Government manages to reduce debt, each and every year debt servicing costs - which I might point out to honourable members currently amount to almost $1 in every $10 of revenue received in the budget sector - will be relieved in proportion to the level by which it is able to reduce the debt. That will provide obvious scope for the provision of additional public services, taxation relief or further debt reduction. That, of course, is what happens when the debt is reduced. I would much prefer to provide Government services or reduce taxes than pay the current enormous interest bill.

However, I was delighted with the Moody's report, which said that Moody's AAA rating on the domestic currency debt of New South Wales is based on the State's economic strength and the Government's prudent fiscal and financial management. It is a tremendous advertisement for New South Wales and a great endorsement of the financial and economic strategies of the Carr Labor Government. Everyone in the business community, in particular, tells me that the previous Government was treading water for at least three years, but this Government is prepared to make the tough decisions that need to be made.

It is fascinating that today the Opposition is saying that the Government should reduce taxes, because only a few days ago the shadow treasurer, Mr Phillips, in his latest potboiler entitled New South Wales Economic Update, said that the deficit would be $723 million this year unless the Government took drastic action. That is the same Mr Phillips who spoke on radio station 2GB this morning telling the Government to cut taxes. I do not know whether he spoke on radio station 2GB without having read the Moody's report, but if he has not read a report when representatives from a radio station ring him at 5.30 a.m., he should say, "Let me read it first. Then I will give you an interview." He makes a complete fool of himself not only when he misrepresents what Moody's said, but when he completely contradicts what he said only a few days ago.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I ask the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services whether he is aware that a 55-year-old constituent of mine, who has Down's syndrome and is suffering from dementia and whom I shall identify only by the initials ACWJ of Ballina, has recently been raped and robbed twice in his home whilst in the care of the department? Has the office of the department in Ballina been requested by the family of my constituent to ensure his safety by offering him group accommodation where he can receive care and support, instead of being left to fend for himself in a
Page 1028
small apartment? Why has the family received no response from the department? Will the Minister please intervene to ensure the safety of this very vulnerable human being?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I advise the honourable member that the person she referred to in her question was placed in a Department of Community Services group home in November 1993 on a crisis basis. The department provided the interim accommodation placement as a temporary measure. Whilst it would be preferable that the person the honourable member referred to be placed in a group home setting, no departmental placement is available. The home at that time was in the process of changing to a community-based support model. The department did not have the resources available to take on this person's full-time care in a group setting. However, it has been able to build up the current support package within its existing resources.

The type of disability of the person referred to may preclude him from achieving independent living in the community. In order to assist him to live in the community which he is familiar with, the department has designed a specified support package to provide for his special needs. Investigation by officers of the department into the allegations of recent thefts revealed that the items were not stolen but were misplaced. The person referred to by the Hon. Franca Arena, due to his disability, was unable to assist with any further inquiry into that matter. Since the alleged assault an apprehended violence order has been taken out against the perpetrator. After the police interviewed the person referred to by the Hon. Franca Arena they recommended not proceeding with a charge but that an apprehended violence order be taken out. The person in question has been referred to the sexual assault service. He has been attending a protective behaviours workshop and his support hours from the department have increased from 34 to 40 hours per week. I have asked Mr Denis Myers, the area manager of the department's far north coast area office, to urgently review the support needs of this person to determine if an alternative and more secure environment is available.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Leader of the House, and Minister representing the Premier a question without notice. What are the short-term and long-term harmful effects of the French nuclear testing in the Pacific - over 10,000 kilometres from France - on humans, the environment, marine life, et cetera? What action has the New South Wales Government taken to register its strong protest over the French nuclear testing.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Whilst I share the concern of all honourable members over the French nuclear testing in the Pacific, and also the Chinese testing, I do not hold myself out as an expert on the health or environmental effects of such testing. I will obtain an expert answer for the honourable member. I take the opportunity of congratulating the Hon. Franca Arena, the Hon. I. Cohen, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, the Hon. Janelle Saffin and the Hon. J. F. Ryan -

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: All acting in the interests of their constituents.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: They were indeed. I congratulate them on the attention they were able to focus on the issue by their recent protest. Those protests have had remarkable success around the world in drawing attention to the issue.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: Will the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council confirm to the House whether the Government has allocated funds for the purpose of natural disaster relief? Is it not a fact that the previous State Government set aside $200 million in the advent of natural disasters? In the advent of another Newcastle earthquake, Nyngan flood, Sydney bushfire or prolonged drought, how does the Government plan to fund natural disaster relief? Will the Treasurer explain to the rural taxpayers of this State why drought relief has to be funded by cuts to essential rural services and additional water taxes?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have no idea where this $200 million magic pudding comes from! Does the Leader of the Opposition mean the Treasurer's advance?

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: That is right.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Of course, that was not expended on drought relief.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: It was on the earthquake.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The earthquake did not happen last year. Of course there will be a Treasurer's advance in this budget as there is in every budget. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should be honest. He is not referring to a $200 million disaster fund but to the Treasurer's advance, which is in each and every budget. He should not try to mislead the House into believing that there was a separate fund for disaster relief. There was no such fund. It was a Treasurer's advance, and there will be a Treasurer's advance in this budget and every subsequent budget -

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: For disasters.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: For all the purposes for which Treasurer's advances are made.


The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. What strategies has WorkCover put in place to protect employees from dangerous goods stored in the workplace to ensure that accidents like the Revesby chemical blaze, which occurred earlier this year, are not repeated.

Page 1029

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Under sections 8 and 9 of the Dangerous Goods Act WorkCover licenses premises that store dangerous goods. Owners of premises where dangerous goods are stored who do not have a licence to store those goods can be issued with a $500 on-the-spot fine. Prosecution can also be taken when dangerous goods are stored in such a way as to pose a serious risk. Since 1990 there has been no charge for this licensing. Through various campaigns and contacts with holders of expired licences WorkCover has been endeavouring to ensure a high level of compliance with licensing requirements. To aid with compliance, WorkCover has developed one of the most sophisticated databases in the world - the stored chemicals information database.

This key WorkCover initiative provides information on the nature, quantity and location of potentially dangerous goods stored at over 50,000 chemical depots. Emergency response services such as the police and fire brigades have access to this database, which assists them in responding to emergency situations by providing immediate access to the type and nature of chemicals and how best to combat them in the event of a fire or explosion. However, any database is only as good as the data supplied. If companies are not registering with WorkCover, fire brigades are forced to second-guess the nature of the fire. Following the chemical fire in an unlicensed factory in Revesby earlier this year, WorkCover conducted a survey and found that 11 other dangerous goods sites were unlicensed in the same street as the fire.

Subsequent surveys in the suburbs of Seven Hills and Wetherill Park found that nearly a quarter of the sites visited were in breach of the dangerous goods regulation by not having a dangerous goods licence. In the first week of October this year WorkCover will commence a blitz throughout New South Wales that will specifically target compliance with the licensing requirements of the Dangerous Goods Act. The following group of premises will be specifically targeted: first, premises where licences have lapsed; second, premises that are identified as having the potential to store dangerous goods; third, premises that are randomly targeted.

A total of 19 inspectors will be involved in this project across the State. In the metropolitan area six inspectors in two teams will conduct visits over a two-week period. WorkCover will take enforcement action, usually by way of a $500 on-the-spot fine, when unlicensed premises are found. The blitz will be preceded by newspaper-type coverage and a limited amount of paid advertising. A small low-key pilot blitz was conducted in the country north region in May and June 1995. During this blitz a number of complaints were received from employers who were issued $500 on-the-spot fines. During the month of June WorkCover received double the usual number of applications for dangerous goods licences. It is expected that in time this blitz by WorkCover will be effective in better regulating dangerous goods in the State of New South Wales.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: Is the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council aware of an article by Brooke Turner in the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 September 1995 stating that the New South Wales Government has given three preferred bidders in the $300 million Walsh Bay Redevelopment an extensive arts facilities wish list as part of tender documents released the previous week? In view of the importance of the Walsh Bay arts redevelopment proposal, will the Treasurer give details of the steps taken by the committee to limit the preferred tenderers to three? Having limited the number of tenderers to three, on what basis has the Government determined that the public should not know the details of the tender document?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not familiar with the matter that the Hon. J. M. Samios has raised, but I will refer it to the appropriate Minister and endeavour to obtain an answer for the honourable member.


The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: Will the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services inform the House of the priorities and directions he has set for child protection in this State?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am pleased to report that seven years of disgraceful cutbacks and outright neglect of the New South Wales child protection system were reversed from the moment the present Government was elected. The people had the good sense to elect a Labor Government, which is devoting itself to rectifying problems in child protection services in this State. Given what we know about the effect of abuse and neglect on the lives of children, there can scarcely be a more important issue for our society to grapple with. I give the House my personal commitment to direct my energies to ensuring that the needs of children and their families remain at the forefront of the Government's social policy agenda.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Is that a Carr promise or a Ron promise?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: That is a promise of the Government, and it is a personal promise of mine. Following the previous Government's seven-year policy of reducing resources to the community sector generally - but particularly in the area of child abuse - there are now such severe pressures on the system that we are prevented from responding to children and families where problems are beginning to develop. Under the previous Government chronic understaffing and budget cuts resulted in resources being concentrated at the crisis and post-crisis end of the process.

It is my intention to redirect resources and to reshape direct and funded child protection services to create and maintain family independence. I am doing this through a number of strategies. First, the
Page 1030
Government is currently recruiting 60 child protection officers - the delivery of a promise Labor made in opposition - and the Premier has announced that the second 30 of those positions will be recruited before Christmas this year. The Government's earlier intention was to recruit only 30 officers this year, but I am happy to say that, with the agreement of the Premier and my colleague the Treasurer, who is sitting beside me, delivery of the promise has been speeded up. Officers will be placed around the State according to need.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What about the north coast?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The north coast is an area of high need and will get its fair share. The specialist child protection workers to whom I am referring will improve significantly the supervision, prioritisation and skill base of the department, which was decimated while the coalition was in office.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: That is a lie.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The officers will be deployed according to various child protection statistics, and areas of high need will do well out of the process. The Hon. D. J. Gay, who referred to something I said as a lie, should know that when the Hon. Virginia Chadwick was Minister in this portfolio 77 specialist child protection officers were removed from the Department of Community Services. Twenty only of those were restored when my immediate predecessor in the previous Government, the Hon. Jim Longley, was Minister. I am putting back into the department the other 60 officers to bring things back to where they were when the Hon. Virginia Chadwick started her vandalism in 1989. Appointment of child protection specialists represents the beginning of a process of recovery for the previously neglected and vandalised child protection system.

Second, I have lent my personal support to MOSAC, the mothers of sexually abused children group in Campbelltown, where I recently opened a facility. Together with the Minister for Police I launched Operation Paradox. During Child Protection Week I launched a new poster series featuring early childhood, lower primary and upper primary children and adolescents under the protective behaviours program. Third, it is plainly important that we build an interagency approach involving the education and health departments and the police to coordinate violence prevention work and family counselling work across the State. I have reorganised the Child Protection Council to ensure that it spends as much of its time and resources on prevention as it does on crisis response. Fourth, I have recognised the fact that child care plays an important role in preventing child abuse by providing time out for both the parents and the children. For the first time in Australia we have successfully negotiated reservation of 5 per cent of new long-day places for children at risk. That represents the equivalent of 502 places - a most important contribution to child protection. I am grateful for the agreement of members opposite on that announcement.

Fifth, I have asked the Standing Committee on Social Issues, under the very able leadership of my colleague the Hon. Ann Symonds, to report on the whole issue of children's advocacy. Children are one of the least powerful groups in our community. The committee will review the adequacy of current mechanisms for children's advocacy. I trust that these initiatives, with appropriate funding from a Government that recognises the importance of child protection - at the expense of highly paid public servants, and with the elimination of unnecessary consultants - together with my personal commitment will turn around the decline of child protection services and will deliver a first-rate system in this State. We must foster a new culture that acknowledges the need for early intervention and preventive measures by building children's resistance and promoting family strengths.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. If the Government moves to accept brothels as a legitimate form of economic activity, how does it propose to provide for the occupational safety of prostitutes and for the safety of their customers? Will local councils be left with this responsibility? If so, will this mean that health and safety inspectors have to go on condom patrols, as has been suggested in the press?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith has raised a timely and controversial issue with which the Parliament will need to deal. I will explain some of the background of the Government's thinking on this issue before dealing with the precise questions raised by the honourable member. Quite apart from the corruption problems identified by the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, prostitution is notorious for another reason; that is, it is impossible to eradicate despite criminal sanctions. Instead of continuing to waste time and money failing to stamp out the activities of brothels, this Government has decided it is time to take decisive action in order to address the health, violence and corruption problems that follow the unregulated operation of brothels.

I am pleased that the Opposition - through its leader, Mr Collins, and its shadow Attorney General, the Leader of the Opposition - has already indicated that it will support this important law reform. Under the Disorderly Houses Amendment Bill the Government will allow the operation of brothels provided they do not disturb the community. Local councils will be able to ask the Land and Environment Court to close down a brothel if it is disturbing the local community because of its hours of operation, noise or traffic created, or because it is operating near or within view of a school, church, hospital or place regularly frequented by children.

If, as the Government expects, the bill is passed, it will no longer be an offence for a person to own, manage or work in a brothel. However, it will be an offence to coerce or force a person to engage in
Page 1031
prostitution. This offence will carry a maximum penalty of $5,000 or 12 months imprisonment or both. The provisions relating to child prostitution in the Crimes Act will not be affected. The aim of this law reform is to attack the corruption that can occur with the operation of unregulated brothels, in that the threat of closure can lead to the demand for and payment of bribes.

The other major aim of the bill is to give sex workers greater access to health services that are offered in properly run brothels, such as medical supervision to ensure safe sex practices are observed including the enforced use of condoms. The Government hopes the reforms will also reduce street prostitution by encouraging sex workers to work in a safer environment, one in which they have better access to health services and protection from violence and other abuse. I am pleased that there has been a general recognition of these aims throughout the community. The effect of these laws will be that brothels are not closed down under the Disorderly Houses Act merely because they are brothels. The proposed laws will not only protect people working as prostitutes but also people working with them in these establishments, such as receptionists and cleaners. They will not protect people who force others into prostitution in order to exploit them.

A letter from the Leader of the Opposition to the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 August this year recorded his support for this principle, stating that he had always supported decriminalisation of prostitution, with controls. I am pleased that the Opposition has apparently supported this move and has committed itself to the principle. I hope it has enjoyed the spirit of bipartisanship so much that it might try it once again on other issues. The honourable member specifically raised occupational health and safety questions. There is no doubt that brothels would be subject to the occupational health and safety legislation and that proprietors of such establishments would be required to provide a safe working environment for employees.

I do not envisage, as the honourable member suggested, that such premises would be the subject of visits from health inspectors employed by local government. The proposed legislation would not provide for that; it would simply provide a facility for the local council to apply to the Land and Environment Court in appropriate cases to close down the establishment, but the Government would not propose to apply any regulatory regime by local government in relation to these establishments.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: I wish to ask a supplementary question.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: On a point of order: it occurred to Government members with an understanding of the standing orders that the first question of the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith was out of order because it related to an order of the day.

The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. In view of the fact that Justice Grove of the New South Wales Supreme Court has refused his application for the further detention of Gregory Wayne Kable under the Community Protection Act, will the Government now consider repealing this legislation as a matter of priority? If not, why not?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The question raises the issue of general legal policy concern. On 21 August this year the Supreme Court, constituted by Justice Grove, ordered the release of Mr Kable. I made it clear publicly that I was concerned about aspects of that decision. However, the decision as to any appeal was vested in the Director of Public Prosecutions, and he determined that there was no reasonable prospect of an appeal against the judgment of Justice Grove succeeding. Courts generally have expressed a variety of concerns about the Community Protection Act, which led to the incarceration of Mr Kable. The constitutional validity of the Community Protection Act is being challenged in the High Court of Australia. Recently the High Court granted Mr Kable special leave to appeal to attack the validity of that legislation. That grant of special leave was opposed by the Solicitor General for the Crown but was nonetheless granted by the court.

It is expected that that constitutional challenge will be heard by the High Court early next year. Interesting and profound questions are raised as to the relationship between a sovereign Parliament and the judicial system - questions about the separation of powers and whether that document is applicable to State constitutions and the like. Honourable members will no doubt be further enlightened by the High Court's pronouncements on those difficult and important issues. The legislation as determined by the Parliament only applies to Mr Kable, so there seems to be no pressing practical reason to repeal it. I will consider any representations made, but I have no proposal to put to the Cabinet or the Government which would effectively repeal the legislation.


The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Will he consider replacing the royal coat of arms in the State's courtrooms with the coat of arms of New South Wales?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The honourable member has raised an interesting matter, and indeed some members of the judiciary have raised the same matter. With the inevitable move to the republic it is timely to reconsider the coat of arms used in courtrooms in New South Wales. I am happy to give the matter proper consideration as always, in close consultation with the judiciary.

Page 1032

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Does the Treasurer believe that someone like him - who has publicly misled the people of New South Wales over his public promise to remove tolls - should continue to hold a commission as a Minister of the State?

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Who wrote that rubbish?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. J. R. Johnson made a very pertinent interjection: who wrote that rubbish? In the first three weeks of the parliamentary session this year the Hon. D. J. Gay developed a reputation for asking the silliest and most trivial questions. The Hon. D. J. Gay would be well aware -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You are a liar.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will not rise to the bait. The Hon. D. J. Gay would be well aware that the Government has committed itself to an additional program of road funding in the west to the extent of $75 million per year as a result of its inability to abolish the tolls at the cost which it had previously anticipated. In the then Opposition's costings prior to the election that cost was estimated at something less than $80 million, and that was the cost which the then Government - in its own costings of the Opposition's promises released prior to the election - agreed with. The then Government did not indicate that there was some favoured tax treatment as part of the arrangements.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You said you were only going to spend $73 million. We costed it at $80 million.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: This Government's costing was something less than $80 million; I do not remember the precise figure. The then Government costed it at $80 million. Given the additional costs associated with the tax treatment of the M4 and M5 deals, the Government decided to honour the spirit of that commitment by providing the amount it had initially intended to spend on the removal of tolls by the provision of additional roads in the west.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: I wish to ask a supplementary question. The Minister did not say whether he will resign because he lied to the people of New South Wales. He reaffirmed the lie.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member will ask his question.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The question is: when will the Minister resign? He cannot continue to be a Minister, having lied to the people of New South Wales. When will he resign?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I hardly think that that is a question. I am sure that this Government will be re-elected in 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011, and it is about that time that I will retire.

The Hon. I. COHEN: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Why does the Department of School Education not have an environmental education policy, as it had under the previous Government? Why has the department not given environmental education top priority to reflect the Government's so-called green platform?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall be happy to refer that question to the Minister for Education and Training for a considered reply.


The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. What is the role of the Women and Work Unit within the Department of Industrial Relations? In what way does it differ from previous women's units within the department?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Unlike the former Government, the present Government is committed to ensuring that the Women and Work Unit within the Department of Industrial Relations is adequately resourced to perform its key role in women's employment issues. In particular, the Government is committed to enhancing and advancing women's pay and employment equity, and equal employment opportunity. The unit has recently been retitled the Department of Industrial Relations Women's Equity Bureau - WEB - and has already begun to play an essential role in facilitating these broad goals. Following an extensive review of its role and function, increased resourcing will enable WEB to assume a much higher profile in the development of an industrial relations policy that progresses the interests of women in New South Wales.

As an important step towards this greater recognition, the manager of WEB has been involved with the working party currently reviewing industrial relations legislation in New South Wales. This role provides valuable input into the development of an effective equity framework in the New South Wales industrial relations jurisdiction. The expansion of the Women's Equity Bureau will enable it to undertake research and to provide policy advice to the Government on women's industrial relations and employment issues within the new legislative framework. As part of this function, the unit has begun to research the Government's pay and employment equity and equal employment opportunity policies and strategies.

The WEB has a key educative and consultative role to play in informing and encouraging equitable pay and working conditions. This will be undertaken in consultation with representatives from employer groups and unions. In addition, the WEB will undertake a number of key forums for various industrial parties and community organisations to
Page 1033
promote an understanding of the major equity implications of the new industrial relations framework. The Women's Equity Bureau, on behalf of the Government, will make representations before State and Federal industrial tribunals in matters that deal with equity issues. Since March, the WEB has presented Government submissions to both the State family leave test case and the second stage of hearings before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

The Women's Equity Bureau will continue to promote work and family policies as a key aspect of improving women's employment equity and productivity. Together, these measures will assist trade unions, employers and employees to develop and implement industrial relations practices and policies that ensure pay and employment equity for women. I am sure that Opposition members will be better informed, if not wiser, for having had this update of previous information given on this important aspect of the work of the Department of Industrial Relations.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Is it true that New South Wales Health is concluding a contract with the Department of Veterans' Affairs to supply nursing services through the community nursing network of areas and districts? Does part of that service contract with the Commonwealth involve giving priority to veterans?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am not familiar with the circumstances referred to by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. However, I shall be delighted to refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health so that a considered and full reply can be furnished.


The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Does the Government intend to retain the exemption from stamp duty for farmers transferring properties to their children?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: We always expect an intelligent question from the Hon. Dorothy Isaksen. As my colleague the Hon. J. R. Johnson interjected, Government members often ask questions that we would expect to come from Opposition members, particularly National Party members, who have no regard at all for the plight of farmers. It is a fact that for quite some time the Labor Party has supported the removal of stamp duty for farmers wanting to transfer their farms to their sons and daughters. Indeed, I can remember meeting representatives of the National Farmers Federation when they came to the then Opposition with their claims for the adoption of that policy. At the time we were happy to agree to that suggestion.

Certainly, that change helped to encourage younger people with fresh ideas and enthusiasm to take over their family farms. But given the increasingly difficult conditions on the land, it is apparent that that initiative did not go far enough. Drought, spiralling farm debt and volatile commodity prices have driven young people off the land in droves. Many farmers must now look beyond their children to find new blood to take over their properties. This Government understands that situation. As the Treasurer of New South Wales, I am therefore pleased to announce that the Government has removed stamp duty for farmers who want to transfer their farms to their nieces and nephews. This new initiative will save $40,000 on the transfer of a $1 million property.

The Government will also be relaxing the existing arrangements so that the concession covers more farmers. Opposition members might be aware that farmers who have, say, only a 25 per cent stake in their farms are not eligible for the stamp duty exemption. Until now they have needed a 100 per cent stake in their properties to qualify for the exemption. But now farmers who have as little as a 25 per cent stake will be eligible for the stamp duty exemption. In addition, the Government has changed the rules to allow retiring farmers to keep their homesteads and a few acres of land without losing the exemption. That is a very important concession.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: What is the cost?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Whilst the Leader of the Opposition might not understand it, I am sure the son of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: What is the cost?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: A mere trifle. That is a very interesting point. That so-called cost stopped this sensible concession from being introduced for many years. In fact, that cost was almost negligible. In the first full year the total cost was of the order of $9 million. The cost is so small because farms were simply not being transferred to the next generation, because of the stamp duty impediment. In a sense, all we are seeing is the transfer of farms that would otherwise not have been transferred. We can then look at the revenue that has been forgone by the exemption in cases in which there has been a transfer and put a dollar figure on them.

[Interruption]

It was in the vicinity of $9 million. We do not know whether any of that $9 million would have been received by consolidated revenue because, without the concession, there may not have been any transfers. It is a difficult figure to calculate but I expect that the forgone revenue, which will be very small, will enable a number of farms to be transferred to the next generation - farms that would not have been transferred but for the exemption. While I do not expect the Leader of the Opposition to understand anything about this issue, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does. In fact, I am pleased to be able to
Page 1034
announce that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is an authority on rural matters not only in this State and this country but worldwide. When I was in Hanoi I turned to page 6 of the Hanoi People's Daily and read a press release on onions issued by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. It is reported in today's Sydney Morning Herald that on 3 September 1995 Mrs Pushparani Chellappah took her life and the lives of her two young children, one aged five years and one aged eight months, in her St Clair home. Apparently she was isolated because she could not speak English. She was unable to communicate with anybody and was suffering post-natal depression following the birth of her child. How true is the social worker's statement that there are inadequate services to meet the needs of the growing number of migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds? In light of this alarming event what does the Government intend to do about the lack of adequate ethno-specific community services for those from non-English speaking backgrounds? How will the Government ensure that this sort of horror is not repeated?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I take it that the facts to which the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho refers are not subject to a current coronial inquiry or other judicial proceeding. If they are, the matter would be sub judice. Assuming that is not the case, there are people in our society who are relatively isolated in a social sense and for whom various support services are both desirable and necessary. This Government intends to augment the community services system and to provide more support than was provided under the previous Government for various services that offer assistance to individuals, such as those referred to by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho - for example, family support services.

Prior to the election I said that the community services grants program, which funds family support services and other services, would be augmented to the extent of $2.5 million per year for each of the next four years. That is an undertaking that I view seriously. I believe that family support services deserve the additional support to which I am referring. It may well be that some aspects of the honourable member's question fall partly within the purview of the Ethnic Affairs Commission and do not come under my administration.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho: It is not only a language problem.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I appreciate that this is more than a language problem; it is one of social isolation. People from non-English speaking backgrounds who are not fluent in English are often doubly disadvantaged, which makes them more isolated. In response to that part of the honourable member's question which refers to ethno-specific and multicultural matters, the Department of Community Services allocated $9.9 million for ethno-specific and multicultural projects in the 1994-95 financial year. That allocation included specialist community resources and crisis support projects for young people, women, families with children, frail aged, people with disabilities and people who are homeless and in crisis or victims of domestic violence.

The department employs 50 bilingual district officers in identified positions in community service centres throughout the State. They provide support and assistance to clients of non-English speaking backgrounds and a consultancy service to the department's generalist staff working with families from non-English speaking backgrounds. Clearly, the matter referred to by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho is important. Obviously, she referred to a tragic instance. If there are any other matters of relevance on which I can advise her subsequently, I will do so.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Education and Training. What is the future of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Environmental Education within the Department of School Education?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I will refer that question to the relevant Minister for a considered response.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. What is the Minister's opinion of the suggestions made at the weekend by the Premier and Minister for Police that amendments should be made to the Crimes Act to allow certain juvenile offenders to be held in protective custody in adult gaols? Does the Minister agree with academic and community research which indicates conclusively that sending juveniles to adult gaols increases the likelihood of those young people becoming hardened criminals?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Unlike the victims of child abuse and neglect, young people who commit crimes must be held responsible for their actions in a humane and constructive manner prior to their rehabilitation. It is important to emphasise that this does not indicate any softening up of the treatment of juvenile offenders in New South Wales, but I will outline the way in which young offenders are dealt with in courts.

Unlike the situation depicted in the material referred to in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, there is neither confusion nor disagreement within the Government, or between myself and the Premier, regarding the placement of serious juvenile
Page 1035
offenders in adult gaols. Provisions exist in the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 for serious indictable offences, such as murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault, armed robbery and drug trafficking, to automatically transfer the trial and sentencing to the adult court system, and such offenders may receive up to the maximum term of imprisonment in an adult gaol in these cases.

A further category of indictable offences, which includes all cases other than minor summary offences, are at the discretion of the court to decide whether they are dealt with in the adult or the juvenile system. It is the intention of the Government to review these categories of offences and the extent to which the judiciary utilises discretionary powers. The proposed changes to the legislation that the Premier and the Minister for Police were referring to would follow upon that review.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.


The PRESIDENT: I draw to the attention of honourable members the distinguished presence in my gallery of the Hon. Dean Brown, Premier of South Australia.


THE PRESIDENT: I shall now leave the chair. The business of the House will be suspended during the joint sitting. The House will resume at the conclusion of the joint sitting following the ringing of the bells.

[The President left the chair at 5.03 p.m. The House resumed at 5.20 p.m.]

The President reported that at a joint sitting this day Mark Raymond Kersten had been elected to fill the vacant seat in the Legislative Council caused by the resignation of the Hon. Robert James Webster.

The President laid upon the table the minutes of proceedings of the joint sitting.

Ordered to be printed.


Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Schedule 5

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.34]: I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions regarding proposed section 26A, page 33, relating to eligibility lists. Will such lists being held by departmental heads be made public and will they be subject to freedom of information discovery? I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the departmental head may, without advertising, fill a position from a list that has been generated following applications for a previous position where the departmental head holds the applications and draws up an eligibility list in order of merit, again decided by the departmental head. Such an eligibility list in order of merit can then be used for the subsequent filling of positions when the departmental head determines that a position should be filled by advertising or by not advertising. More importantly, what checks will be made to ensure that the system is not open to the sort of nepotism that existed in the public service up to 1988? What steps can be taken to ensure that nepotism does not creep back into these sorts of appointments?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.36]: In relation to whether such lists will be public, without advice my expectation is that they would not be. In relation to whether they would be subject to freedom of information, again without advice, my expectation is that such procedures, like any others in the public sector, would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. As I understand it, it would only be if there were a specific exemption under that Act that those lists would not be available under the Freedom of Information Act. The honourable member asked a number of questions about the sorts of positions for which such eligibility lists could and would be used. I draw his attention to proposed subsection (4), which states:

(4) An eligibility list is applicable not only to the position in relation to which it was created but also to any other position that the appropriate Department Head determines it should be applicable to on the basis that the position is substantially the same as the position in relation to which the list was created.

The purpose of schedule 5 is fairly clear: to create eligibility lists that will apply for a period of up to six months for either the position that was advertised or for a position that is substantially the same. I would have thought that given those provisions it is patently a commonsense provision.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.38]: I thank the Minister for that explanation, but it does not go to the issue of what steps are being taken to ensure that nepotism does not creep in. I draw the Minister's attention to proposed subsection (5), which states, amongst other things, and again without advertising, that:

. . . the appropriate Department Head may (despite section 26(3)) select from among the persons who are on an eligibility list that is current and applicable to the position (and who are available for appointment) the person with the greatest merit according to the order of merit in the eligibility list.

In other words, not with the greatest merit but with the greatest merit according to the order of merit on the eligibility list. The Minister has written that
Page 1036
tautology into the legislation.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.40]: I do not think it is tautology, I think the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is being pedantic. If the departmental head were to select the person with the greatest merit, that person would be the one who was ranked highest on the eligibility list.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What about nepotism?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: What about nepotism? The provision will safeguard against nepotism.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.40]: Where is the accountability of the department head in determining the order of merit? Having determined the order of merit in selecting candidates or changing the order of merit from time to time, as I assume would happen, what would stop a department head moving somebody up or down the order of merit depending on his whim? Where is the accountability if the list will not be made public? Where is the accountability in process for the departmental head to ensure that there is a proper selection process? Will the regulations contain mechanisms by which the director general or head of a department will set the eligibility criteria for the order of merit? What mechanism will be used to ensure it is not just the director general who says who is better and who is worse?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.42]: How else does a head of department select on merit? The same principles will be involved.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and passed through remaining stages.

Message sent to the Legislative Assembly seeking its concurrence with the Legislative Council's amendments.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.45]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Bill 1995 prohibits the possession of films, computer games and publications which contain child pornography.

The introduction of an offence for the possession of child pornography accords with the recommendations of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence in its 1993 report "Paedophiles and Child Sexual Abuse".

The proposed offence provides for a penalty of up to $10,000, 12 months imprisonment, or both. The proposed legislation will complement existing provisions contained in the New South Wales Crimes Act, which make it an offence to employ or procure a child to be employed for pornographic purposes.

More importantly, the proposed legislation will assist police in taking action against paedophiles. Previously, police have largely relied upon powers in customs legislation to seize child pornography and other refused classification material, where it could be proven that the material had been illegally imported into Australia. However, these powers are limited as it is not possible to prosecute for possession of copies of imported material. Repeat offenders have therefore not been deterred by existing laws.

The bill provides that material suspected of falling within the refused classification category on the grounds that it contains child pornography must be classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification before police can bring a prosecution.

That office currently classifies material in relation to the sale, advertising or publication of films, videos, publications and computer games and it is considered preferable that the office continue this role in relation to possession. This will mean that the courts will not be placed in the position of having to act as censor. This approach also ensures there is a degree of consistency in determining whether material falls within the prohibited category.

The bill also amends existing censorship legislation in New South Wales for the purpose of clarifying the censor's discretion in determining whether material constitutes child pornography.

The present legislation refers to material which depicts "a person who is, or is apparently, under the age of 16 years". These words have been replaced with a reference to "a child, or a person, who in the opinion of the censor, looks like a child". This change is intended to clarify the censor's discretion in refusing material where it is difficult to determine the age of the person depicted. This provision is particularly relevant in light of the increasing amount of material of this nature which is being imported from overseas.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [5.45]: The Opposition supports the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Bill. However, at the Committee stage the Opposition will seek to amend it significantly. The House will recall that on 27 October 1994 I introduced the Crimes (Prohibited Material) Amendment Bill. The Opposition and members on the crossbenches supported that bill. It was introduced into the Legislative Assembly but was not dealt with before the Parliament was prorogued. The bill now before the House significantly truncates the operation of the Crimes (Prohibited Material) Amendment Bill. The bill is limited solely to child pornography; it does not address the most significant matters that were addressed in the Crimes (Prohibited Material) Amendment Bill which related to the possession of material that was refused classification by the censor or was a prohibited publication under censorship laws. That is most disappointing and it is quite surprising
Page 1037
that the Government would not be prepared to reintroduce the bill previously passed by this House.

The Parliamentary Library has produced in the bills digest series a publication by Gareth Griffith which is an analysis of the Crimes (Prohibited Material) Amendment Bill. The amendments I will seek to move in Committee will propose to return the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Bill to the terms of the bill previously supported in this House. Child pornography must be addressed. The Australian Law Reform Commission clearly enunciated that need in its report on the issue when it said:

The production of child pornography is likely to involve child sex abuse and is often associated with child sex abuse offences.

In my second reading speech on the Crimes (Prohibited Material) Amendment Bill I referred to a report of the Australian Bureau of Crime Intelligence entitled "Paedophiles and Child Sexual Abuse", which found in similar terms to the Australian Law Reform Commission. Police have told me that on every occasion that they search premises associated with paedophile activity, there is always present material that would be refused classification by the censor or would be a prohibited publication under censorship laws. The reason I introduced the bill in another form, which is identical to the form of the bill before the House, was to allow prosecution of those persons for possessing such material. That is why the penalties are specific.

In many cases it is difficult to obtain prosecutions for paedophilia. However, if police raid premises during an investigation but are unable to obtain a prosecution for paedophilia, at least those involved can be prosecuted for possession of material that has been refused classification. I hope that the prosecuting authorities deal with that offence in the harshest possible way. I understand that in raids on such premises hundreds of items of proscribed classification material have been seized. I fear that at times the police lay one or two charges whereas they would be entitled to lay a separate charge for possession of each item of material. The courts should impose the most severe penalties.

I hope that the Attorney General will say in his response that the courts and prosecuting authorities will be expected to deal with these offences in the most heavy-handed way so that the most appropriate penalties will be imposed. In the bill, as in my earlier legislation, there is provision for the censor to classify such material retrospectively. Offenders can be hit in the harshest possible way. I re-emphasise the reason I introduced my legislation. I was seeking to deal with those who possessed refused classification material, which includes child sexual abuse, bestiality or sexual acts accompanied by offensive fetishes or exploitative incest fantasies, and also unduly detailed or relished acts of extreme violence or cruelty, explicit or unjustifiable depictions of sexual violence against non-consenting persons, as well as detailed instruction or encouragement in matters of crime or violence and the use of proscribed drugs.

The community is totally opposed to videos that show violence. Researchers and research experts say there is no connection between violence in the community and violence on videos. That is balderdash - though I would like to use more common street terms. Parents and others see a direct connection. This House has supported the view that there is a connection between excessive violence depicted on videos and violence in the community, and for that reason was prepared to attack those who relish such material and have it in their possession. I am not talking about R-rated or X-rated material. I am talking about material that is so bad that the censor says it should be refused any classification at all, or material that should be a prohibited publication.

I am not seeking to be a censor in suggesting amendments to the bill. If the censor says such material is not good enough to be allowed into our community, we should be prepared to treat with the criminal law those in possession of it. Another reason for attacking prohibited or refused material is to hit those who bring it into this country. Customs agents do their best but cannot close it off. There is a market in this country for such material. The most disadvantaged in our community - women - are used in the manufacture of this material, and they are being exploited. If we cannot hit or catch the profiteers who manufacture the material by exploiting others and market it to those who want to relish it, we should be able to deal with those who have it in their possession. That does not mean going into private homes, but it does mean being able to go into known commercial premises on the streets of Sydney and in the suburbs.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: In George Street.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: In George Street, in Pitt Street, and in Kings Cross. The authorities should be able to go into those premises and say, "You have this material in your possession. You know it will not be classified. You are marketing it for that reason, so we will prosecute you for having that sort of material in your shop in this State." I am astounded that the Government and the Attorney General, notwithstanding that only 12 months ago this House decided such activity should be a criminal offence, are not willing to introduce the provision. I shall give the House another opportunity to amend the legislation to return it to the state it was in only 12 months ago. I am astounded that when the Government was given the opportunity in the lower House to embrace these amendments it did not do so. I shall give this House an opportunity to send a clear message to the Government that manufacture of this type of abusive material will not be supported in this State. As it is difficult to attack those who manufacture it, an attack should be made on those who make a profit out of it on the streets of Kings Cross and in the suburbs of Sydney. Let us hit, in
Page 1038
the harshest way, those who profit at the expense of the abused in our community. The only way to do that is to support the amendments I will move in Committee. Gareth Griffith, in his comments in the Bills Digest paper, draws a distinction that suggests there was a problem with the original bill. He stated on page 16 of the digest:

However, the situation is complicated by the fact that the highest classification available for computer games is the new "MA" category.

He seems to suggest there will be an anomaly in that ordinary films and video can be rated R and X but that video or computer games can have only a maximum classification of MA, and that anything above that classification will be refused. Mr Griffith further states in his paper that the anomaly is further manifested because the censor is now directed in classifying computer games to adopt a harsher test than that for video games. There is no anomaly. It was a clear decision taken by me as Attorney General and by the other censorship Ministers to draw a clear distinction between - and to make a marked difference in the classification of - computer games, videos and films because of the interactive nature of computer games. It was the subject of considerable discussion at the meeting of censorship Ministers and was supported by all of them. Computer games are able to be played, particularly by young people, on a repetitive basis. Because of the interactive nature of computer games the minds of young people will be affected by depictions of violence and other issues.

Therefore, the former Government took the view that MA should be the maximum classification and sought to use the comparison that an MA classification would be almost the equivalent of an M classification and that the equivalent should be one classification less, to prevent young people obtaining access to computer games and videos. That view would be supported by all honourable members, because it is well known that young people can be affected by the interactive nature of that type of material. Children live by computer games. The censorship Ministers, as adults who do not necessarily know how to use computers, took the view that they had to be as restrictive as possible, but also to be sensible about it.

I ask members of this House to consider the reasons I introduced this legislation last year and why I strongly advocate that the legislation be amended to return to the legislation that was passed 12 months ago. The videos are about different manifestations of sexual abuse, and the profiteering from that abuse needs to be attacked. I will move an amendment in Committee to increase the age relating to those involved in the production of such material from 16 to 18 years. That matter was debated in this House with some opposition from left-wing members of the Australian Labor Party. However, the former Government took the view that it is difficult to draw a distinction between female children of 16, 14 or even 12 years of age or prepubescent males particularly of Asian and African backgrounds.

The censor indicated a great deal of difficulty in making judgments in this area. I commend the Government for pursuing the amendments that I made in previous legislation to expand the definition of child to include a person who looks like a child. I have never seen any of the films in question, but I am told that people are sometimes made to appear younger than they are. Because it is difficult to identify whether they are children, I propose that the legislation should increase the age to 18 years for those who are involved in the production of this material. Children 16 years of age are easily influenced and easily exploited. It is difficult enough to accept the involvement of people 18 years of age. It is appalling to think the community would accept the involvement of a 16-year-old child in the production of such material. A line has to be drawn.

Eighteen year olds are able to vote and are legally adults. Therefore 18 is an appropriate age at which to draw the line. However, it is not appropriate to encourage or permit 18 year olds to be involved in the production of this sort of material. It is accepted that the age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. That might be used as an argument, but it is not acceptable for the production of this type of material.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Not for homosexual activity.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Not for homosexual activity. If the age of involvement is increased to 18 years, it will be easier to make some decisions about whether the person involved is a child or looks like a child. There is an argument that if New South Wales adopts the age of 18 years it will not be in uniformity with the other States. When I introduced the legislation last year I undertook to the House that I would not proclaim that section until I had agreement from the other States. I would be misleading the House by omission if I did not indicate that I took to the censorship Ministers the proposition that there should be uniformity and that the States should adopt the age of 18. I did not receive support from the other States in that regard. I do not believe, however, that by losing the argument at that stage I had lost the argument for all time.

New South Wales should be prepared to set a standard. Child abuse is often triggered by this type of material. I would be happy if the Attorney General said the Government will not proclaim the section until agreement is received from the others States. The Opposition would be happier if the legislation were gazetted. We should not be ashamed to say we will lead the way. I hope the Labor Party and the caucus reconsider the position so that New South Wales can say it is prepared to lead the attack on child pornography and in setting standards on participation in the production of pornographic material. New South Wales has the largest market for this type of material because of its population.

If accepting these amendments and proclaiming them results in a different standard of production of child pornography, which has its impact on the rest of
Page 1039
Australia, so be it, but let us be proud that we are prepared to set standards and to lead the way. With those comments, I ask the House to support the amendments that I will move at a later time.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [6.08]: I am delighted to support and endorse the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. This is an important issue. It is a watershed issue of values in a civil society that cares about children. The Labor Government has made much of its introduction of this bill and its supposed concern to protect children. That can be seen by articles that appear in the newspapers. A headline entitled, "Prison for child porn" appeared in the Sun-Herald. That is a complete sham. This bill waters down similar provisions in legislation introduced by the former Attorney General last year. The Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, speaking for the Opposition at that time, was pleased to support the legislation.

The Minister and his Government have moved to delete the provisions dealing with material involving sexual activity between humans and animals and the provision raising from 16 to 18 years the age of consent to participate in child pornography. The Opposition would also like to see the bill deal with the very real issue of gratuitous violence against women. Pornography is not what it was a generation ago; it has moved into a new era of backlash against women and women's equality. Much pornography portrays women as animals or commodities for male consumption.

Sexual violence in pornography is not simply an Australian problem; it is an international one. We have regulations opposing it, although they are honoured more in the breach than in the observance, judging by some of the material that I have seen. Much of this pornography is completely unrestricted and is on display. Some of it is in the media, on television and in movies. I am sure that no honourable member would disagree with me when I say that there is considerable sexual violence in movies and that a combination of sex and violence sends a dangerous cocktail of messages to young people in our society.

The Government is not concerned that women continue to be less than equal and that violence against women is a major social problem. Apparently it believes that although advertisers spend millions of dollars in the belief that images can affect people's attitudes, and although we as a society see vilification as harmful and pass laws against it, somehow the deluge of misogynistic imagery in pornography will not harm anyone. The vilification of women is a major industry. If honourable members wish to pursue this issue further - it does not deal specifically with pornography but it does deal with the whole issue of violence and whether violence in the media can affect people, particularly young people - I refer them to the report on youth violence tabled today by the Standing Committee on Social Issues. The report contains an interesting section on the media, which will be discussed by the House tomorrow.

I do not propose to canvass the report now. Suffice it to say that in social science research generally, and in media research in particular, it is difficult, if not impossible in a technical sense to prove cause and effect; human beings are complex social creatures that do not fit into laboratory boxes like rats and they cannot be isolated from all irrelevant variables. There are thousands of studies into the correlation between media violence and sexual violence. Overwhelmingly, experts are coming to the conclusion that violence in the media is something about which we must be concerned. I am concerned about violence in the media and violence in relation to young people, but I am especially concerned about sexual violence. We acknowledge that there is a huge problem with the level of sexual violence in our society.

We have social strategies to deal with issues such as sexual violence and domestic violence, yet we do not seem to be prepared to come to grips with the sort of violent material that is particularly egregious and denigratory of women. I repeat the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. I am not talking about censorship and the restriction of material that is currently available; I am talking about material that is so vile and violent that the Commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification and the Chief Censor have decided that it should not be on sale in Australia. However, people are allowed not only to be in possession of such material but to be in possession of as much of it as they wish. If our society is not totally hypocritical about the continuing advancement of women towards equality, sooner or later it will have to come to grips with such material; and with what it is doing to women and attitudes towards women.

The most important change in the bill - that which most betrays the community's belief that this matter had been resolved and most betrays our children - is Labor's reneging on the previous Government's promise to raise from 16 to 18 years the age of consent for participating in pornography. It is a betrayal for two reasons. First, young people under the age of 18 are not considered sufficiently adult to undertake the obligations of many kinds of contract; they are held to be not old enough to exercise responsible judgment in such matters. Yet as things are now, and as Labor would like to see it continue, young people are considered to be old enough to participate in pornography, even though such activity may very well restrict their life options, making it difficult or impossible for them to pursue some career paths and adversely affecting their reputations. Allowing 16-year-old people to participate in pornographic films and photographs is a dereliction of duty of any society that claims to care about protecting children.

Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, the provision is, in practice, an endorsement of child pornography and a gift to paedophiles. Many 16 year olds have bodies that appear undeveloped, and some of them appear to be prepubescent. As long as the age of consent to participate in pornography is 16
Page 1040
years, the Office of Film and Literature Classification will find it difficult to deal with much of the pornography that is often aimed directly at the paedophile market. It is possible for an average 16-year-old person to appear physically immature. Consequently, any attempt to rule against juvenile pornography that uses such people would be subject to a legal challenge under the legislation introduced by the Attorney General and the Minister for Police in another place.

The Opposition amendment to add "a person who looks like a child" is enormously important in this regard because it would put real control back into the hands of the Chief Censor, and give the Office of Film and Literature Classification a yardstick with which to deal with this matter. I think that all of us can recognise a body that appears to be immature or a body of a young person that looks like that of a child. Therefore this amendment would give the Chief Censor and the Office of Film and Literature Classification clear guidelines. While the law retains 16 as the age of consent, and while the Government reneges on what was attempted by the former Government, such clear guidelines do not exist and child pornography will continue to be legally available in this country.

I draw the attention of the House to a few items that are classified regularly by the Chief Censor as able to be sold in this State and in this country because the Chief Censor cannot deal with them under the current guidelines. I draw the items particularly to the attention of the Attorney General as I am sure he will be interested in them. I have taken the items at random from an old issue of the Government Gazette. I will refer to items listed on only a few pages; I will not go through the whole list because that would take up too much of the time of the House.

Some of the items that are in restricted categories but still available for sale are: Showboy Teenage Special No. 17, Teenager No. 19, Teenage Sex No. 64 - presumably it was the sixty-fourth issue of that magazine - School Mädchen, or School Girl, No. 45, Teenage Schoolgirls No. 28, another Showboy Teenage Special, Sweet Little Sixteen, Teenage Dream Girls No. 14, Child Bride and Chained Chicken. They are just a few of the titles on several pages of this gazette; the sort of material that clearly panders to people who want to have very young-looking people -

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: It all started with Don Chipp. He was the Minister for Customs.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: That is a very interesting interjection by the Hon. J. R. Johnson. I am concerned about what Australia has become. Back in the 1960s a lot of the movement to open up the availability of material was very well intended. We then had a society in which it was difficult or impossible to read some works of literature. The sorts of things that were banned made a mockery of censorship. For a long time it was difficult or impossible to get hold of books by James Joyce and D. H. Lawrence - books that are considered to be literature. The consequence of opening up the censorship floodgates has been not to develop a more tolerant and civil society but to develop a more violent and intolerant society - a society that increasingly treats human beings as meat, as commodities and as less than human.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the difficulties being experienced by police in this country under the law as it now stands. Those difficulties are not confined to police forces in Australia. Two years ago Keith Enderbury and I - as members of the Standing Committee on Social Issues - were privileged to be in the Netherlands to examine the issue of sexual violence. When we met with Dutch police officers we thought we would be briefed on sexual violence, and it quickly became clear that they were concerned with precisely the same problem in the Netherlands, which is enormous there because the law makes it extremely difficult to obtain a conviction. The police were so desperate that they prepared a presentation showing the sorts of pornography that people in Holland could legally possess - although it was illegal to sell some of it - without any fear of reprisal.

We were informed that the children used in some of the films that we saw could not survive what was being done to them. That is what society comes to when we do not care about our children. The Dutch police were preparing that package as a presentation to the Dutch Parliament in the hope that they could make members of Parliament aware of the problem they were facing. I hope that such desperate measures will not be necessary here. I hope that we will move to protect our children before we reach the stage that has been reached in the Netherlands. If honourable members are concerned about moves to raise the age of consent to participate in pornographic films and pornography generally from 16 to 18, they might want to consider what is happening in the United States, where there are now widespread moves to raise to 21 the age of consent for participants, for exactly the same sorts of reasons that are being given in the House today.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to problems with the national agreement; he says that if New South Wales moves alone it will be out of step with the other States. I do not see that as a problem, because that already happens in some other areas of censorship. Victoria has laws that are not in line with the five-State agreement on the display of pornography. Queensland has some different laws. There is no logical reason why an individual State cannot have some exceptions to the agreement. If we raise the age of consent to 18 it will be easier to protect society from child pornography. It will be easier for censorship authorities to enforce the law, to genuinely move against child pornography and to refuse to classify what is, in effect, child pornography. I thought that issue would have been more important to this House than the national agreement. I do not have any problems with New South Wales being a trailblazer. That is an excellent idea - an idea about which the community would be very supportive as it is concerned about this matter. I do not believe parliamentarians have listened to members of the community in the past.

Page 1041

If the Government is so concerned about the national agreement it has the option - as did the former Attorney General, now the Leader of the Opposition, last year - of not proclaiming that section of the legislation. It should take up this issue and be a trailblazer. It should continue to educate the community on this important issue that we care about, and not proclaim it until we can get agreement. If the Opposition does not have the support of the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations in this House I would like to think that we have his support at least in spirit. I recall his words to this House last year when the former Government brought forward its version of the Crimes (Prohibited Material) Amendment Bill. He said:

In other contexts, perhaps, legitimate objections could be raised to the extension of various definitions and the like. But given that we are dealing with child pornography and obviously abhorrent activity that would be condemned by almost all members of the community, the Opposition supports these various changes. The definition of "child" in the Film and Computer Game Classification Act is to be made dependent on the opinion of the censor rather than upon the objective fact of age -

in other words, on the appearance of the child, something upon which the censor can hang his hat. He continued:

That is understandable given the difficulty of proving the age of a child or a person in a pornographic film.

The Attorney General, who certainly understood the implications of this legislation and was supportive of it, continued:

It is a difficult task for the prosecution to ascertain the identity and age of such a person.

The bill will increase from 16 to 18 years the relevant age of a person defined as a child.

He also said:

I do not have any difficulty about a toughening of the law in this area. The Opposition supports the bill.

I am disappointed that former Opposition members - the present members of the Government - no longer support these important changes. I beg Government members, including the Hon. J. R. Johnson, who has been somewhat vocal during this debate, to consider changing their views on this matter if they care about children. The safety and the future of our children are more important than the nitpicking arguments I have heard against these proposals. I am delighted to support the amendments.

[The President left the chair at 6.30 p.m. The House resumed at 8.30 p.m.]

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [8.30]: On behalf of the Australian Democrats I support the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Bill 1995. However, I still have concerns about how the bill will work and whether it will cover all the loopholes. Several issues of great importance must be addressed if such a bill is to be effective. I refer in particular to transmission of pornographic material by electronic means. Unfortunately, such transmission is very simple. Video footage and still photographs of unspeakable acts with young children and of young children and animals engaged in acts that would horrify any reasonable person can be accessed all too readily. Computer games and the printed word can also be easily accessed on the Internet and via bulletin boards.

At a meeting of Commonwealth, State and Territory Attorneys-General scheduled for mid-July the issue of child pornography and how best Australia is to tackle that problem was very high on the agenda. If New South Wales is to enact effective legislation - legislation with teeth - the Government would be wise to await the outcome of that meeting. As far as I can make out, whatever the Attorneys-General may have decided in July, their decisions are not yet on the public record. It is an offence under section 85ZE(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 to knowingly or recklessly use a telecommunications service supplied by a carrier in such a way as would be regarded by reasonable persons as being, in all the circumstances, offensive. I wish to quote from evidence before the Senate committee inquiry into community standards relevant to the supply of services using electronic technologies, an example of material available on a bulletin board:

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO USERS

. . .

If you are a normal user you can't download and upload from some areas. If you will be a member of bamse bbs user club you will be happy for all the dirty stuff in my closed areas with young dirty girls and animal sex. But if you want access to all the dirty stuff you must be a member of bamse bbs aalborg . . . user club . . . if you want free access to all areas. You must pay some money.

I do not intend to read into Hansard the final two pages, because I would prefer not to discuss the type of material being supplied through the so-called Bamse BBS User Club. I table those two pages. This material is now available in Australia. According to the West Australian, on 1 April a man was found guilty in Western Australia of peddling the type of material that is available from the United States delineated in the pages I have tabled. Much child pornography on bulletin boards originates in Mexico. A few months ago Robert Copella, a United States citizen, was arrested in Mexico and extradited to the United States on child pornography charges. Mr Copella, well known in computer circles, had previously operated one of the largest pornography computer bulletin boards in Chicago. Copella's customers began requesting more valid material featuring children. The need for Mr Copella to escape detection and law enforcement in the United States forced him to move to Mexico.

Although his computer bulletin board in Mexico was in operation for only 10 months before he was caught, Copella had already signed up more than 2,000 subscribers throughout the world who used their telephones and computers to download images daily from his computers in Mexico. He had made close to $1 million from his small enterprise. He had thousands of pictures available, including those of children as young as one year old being forced to have sex. Other popular computer images he
Page 1042
distributed featured children being tortured or forced to have sexual encounters with animals. In 1993 a computer bulletin board originating in Denmark sent pornographic images of children around the world. However, a task force originating in the United States eventually shut it down. The images ranged from child erotica to explicit sexual activity involving the exploitation of minors. Two men were eventually arrested by the Danish police, who found that about 6,000 customers were listed, including about 100 residents of the United States. Many of those were subsequently charged. Child pornography was also found on bulletin boards in Switzerland.

In 1993 Dutch police took a Swiss man into custody. He had installed a torture chamber in his cellar. He was arrested on suspicion of torturing two small children and filming their suffering and also of sexually abusing a 12-year-old boy. No doubt there are many other such cases, but on this occasion the accused claimed to have found the children through a network of dealers in children promoting themselves through a public computer network run by the Swiss post office. Although in each of these cases the perpetrators have been charged, the images remain. Magazines and videos are difficult to duplicate. However, consumers throughout the world now possess these pictures on computers. They take seconds to duplicate.

Copella's images of children being tortured numbered hundreds of thousands. They are still being traded by computer daily - in private, across the globe, in a few minutes. They never have to pass through customs or inspection, and they have been seen on the Internet by many. This State does not have the sophisticated measures that exist in the United States and in Europe to trap those who sell pornographic images by way of the Internet. They must be found. The bill refers to magazines, videos, computer games and pornographic films but does not deal with this easy transmission of images through the Internet.

People have been arrested and charged in Mexico and the United States. This type of pornography is a criminal offence in Denmark, which for many years has been regarded as a permissive country. In other Scandinavian countries, where the way of life is regarded by many as extremely permissive, this type of pornography is not permitted; it is still a criminal offence, and rightly so. According to a press release reported in the West Australian, one man in Western Australia has been found guilty of such an offence. When David Campbell Allen appeared before the court in Perth the magistrate said the key question was whether the presence of the pictures on the screen constituted possession, when the user had not known precisely what pornographic material would appear, but he found that it did constitute possession. However, he did not record a conviction. He dismissed the charge because it was Mr Allen's first offence and because adverse publicity and resultant death threats, his arrest and appearance in court had already penalised him.

Mr Allen had told the court he had used a modem attached to his home computer to dial a Mexican bulletin board advertising bizarre and extreme pornography, including child pornography. He downloaded a catalogue with a list of files describing in sickening detail what was available. The files I have asked to have tabled go into such sickening detail. He had intended only to look at the written material, not at the pictures. He explained that he was transferring housekeeping files when several pictures appeared without warning on his screen, some of nude children aged about six years and another showing a girl aged about 13 years engaged in sexual intercourse with a man. He said he immediately deleted these pictures.

He came to the attention of the police in Western Australia after they had searched his home because they had received information that he had been in touch with a European bulletin board that supplied child pornography. They did not find the child pornography but they charged him after he volunteered the information that he had contacted the Mexican bulletin board and had seen the pictures. He was convicted solely on his own admissions to the police. In Western Australia it must have been possible for police or for Telstra to put some control over what he was receiving on his computer, because when he found himself returning to the Mexican bulletin board he had an ISD bar put on his phone so he could no longer dial overseas. That protected him from people sending material he did not wish to receive into his home. However, if people had business overseas or wanted to contact relatives overseas, they would find it almost impossible to have an ISD bar put on their telephones. The majority of people would not contemplate it.

I have referred to only some of the problems that should be brought to the attention of members of this House, even though I support the bill. A considerable amount of material is contained in the report of the Senate select committee on community standards relevant to the supply of services utilising electronic technology. I refer to the official Federal Hansard report of Tuesday, 4 April 1995, which deals with three things to which I wish to refer. The first relates to the Internet. The activities of Mr Robert Copella had been brought to the attention of the Senate select committee. He was so popular with his consumers that he made a great deal of money and the American Government finally had him extradited. He was charged and found guilty of dealing in child pornography. The problem of encryption was brought to the attention of the Senate select committee. The committee stated:

Though it was briefly mentioned . . . we were surprised that the task force paid so little attention to the rapidly growing field of encryption technology. It is now possible for computer users to encrypt information, using techniques that are extremely difficult to decipher. It is difficult to decipher the information and the techniques . . . Not only is it difficult to decipher, it also makes it possible to hide one communication within another, in an almost undetectable form. This is relatively easy to do and, if it became common practice, would render the detection of illegal material extremely difficult.

Page 1043

This evidence was given to the committee by Mr Auer. The report of the Senate committee states:

The passing of laws forbidding ownership or transfer of certain types of digital material would, we feel certain, result in an immediate and large increase in the use of encryption technology. The fear of intrusion into private communications would encourage the use of encryption by legitimate users also. We regard this as a very serious barrier to successful enforcement of any legislation that relies on identifying illegal digital material in transit or otherwise.

I believe the Government will have to take that into account also. It is a reason for delaying the introduction of the legislation until the outcome of the meeting that was held about six weeks ago between the Attorneys-General of all States is known. Perhaps the Attorney General will be willing to give honourable members further information about that, if such information is now in the public domain and is no longer privileged. As I pointed out earlier, it is a crime for a person to be in possession of pornographic material and of pornographic material that is purveyed by way of a telecommunications service. That is why I am slightly concerned about some of the provisions of the bill. The bill will give the police increased powers to enter premises and to look at pornographic material on film, in computer games or printed material.

I am beginning to wonder what might happen in the case of people who use the Internet maliciously by putting material on a person's computer via modem without the knowledge of the owner of the computer. A person could destroy the reputation of the owner of a computer by maliciously tipping off the police that Mr X had pornographic material on his computer. The police could then enter the premises and find that material. Though the material had not been placed on the computer by the owner, the owner could be charged under the proposed legislation with possession of pornographic material.

I hope that the Government will look carefully at this matter because I do not believe that honourable members want people to be charged with criminal offences because they have been made the subject of a malicious transmission of prohibited material either through the Internet or by E-mail. Should there be a notification clause? People who immediately reported to the police the discovery of E-mailed child pornography on their computers could gain some protection from prosecution through bringing the matter to the attention of the police.

Technology has made it possible for malicious people to damage the reputations of others. Unfortunately, as honourable members are aware from what has been happening in the other States - particularly in Western Australia - it is the fashion of the times to attempt to destroy the reputation of those in the public arena. That is particularly the case in relation to people in the political world. Though people who might unwittingly find themselves in possession of pornographic material could be cleared in a later court case, their reputations could be irreparably damaged. I ask the Attorney General to address those concerns in his reply.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I support the bill. However, further legislation will soon be needed. I believe that Federal legislation may be introduced on 1 January 1996. If this bill is regarded as an interim measure only and mirror legislation in 1996 reflects what is happening in the Federal sphere, that will be a valuable step forwards. I should like to say on the public record that I have received correspondence from the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties. Although it is the Council for Civil Liberties, it also supports the legislation.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [8.56]: In my first speech to the House, I mentioned that children are our future and we are their future. That is a very telling statement and one that needs to be repeated time and again so that we realise the responsibility that we have in that what we do will largely determine our children's present and future quality of life. This responsibility should and must weigh heavily on the shoulders of honourable members because, by passing such legislation, we can, to some extent at least, help to influence community attitudes towards recognising the uniqueness and value of children and the importance of that oasis called childhood.

Given that any legislation that protects our most vulnerable and powerless citizens must be applauded, I enthusiastically support the intention of the bill to make it easier for the police to apprehend and prosecute paedophiles in situations in which current legislation does not apply. Child sexual assault, which is often referred to as the silent assault, is not a pleasant topic. It is only since the 1980s that the general public has started to become conscious of its existence, yet, sadly, some still deny its existence or at least deny that it happens in their neighbourhood. Many still minimise its significance and the impact on the child, and others invent and subscribe to myths that children lie or fantasise about being sexually abused. Still others shrug their shoulders and say that it is part of life and there is nothing that can be done.

My message to the people is that child sexual assault has existed for centuries and exists now. It can have a devastating short-term and long-term impact on both boys and girls. My message - indeed, plea - to the people of our community is that if they are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem. Child sexual assault is a cowardly, manipulative and despicable act. It is almost always a planned event. People who work in child protection refer to the grooming process that perpetrators undertake either to soften up or to isolate their potential victims.

Honourable members must not forget that, although the bill refers to the possession of child pornography, in the case of the actual physical use of children to make child pornography magazines and films, children are sexually assaulted in a most despicable way. Children who are subject to any form of sexual abuse - our children - have been used as a worthless piece of meat; they have been corrupted and devalued as human beings, and our nation should do all within its power to prevent any recurrence of this despicable act.

Page 1044

Sexual abuse is an assault on the very essence of what makes children so appealing to us - their trust, their openness, their wonder and their spontaneity. It is an assault on their hope for the future and can often lead, among other things, to their self-respect and health being irretrievably damaged. This is especially so where the abuse has been by a loved one, or loved ones, where it has been chronic and accompanied by violence, and where the child who has been brave enough to tell has not been believed. No gaol sentence we can legislate for can return the happiness to these children's faces, and no fine will replace the loss of trust in others, for no legislation and no punishment will ever replace a child's loss of childhood.

I welcome this legislation because at the very least it conveys a clear message to the community that this Government will not tolerate the abuse of children, whether it be real or symbolically portrayed. It also sends an empowering message to people in the community that they will have government support should they report those whom they have reasonable grounds to suspect are exploiting children. Finally, I would like to quote from Matthew 18:6-9 in the St James version of the Bible, which states:

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.02]: The Call to Australia group is pleased to support the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Bill, the object of which is to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to prohibit the possession of films, computer games and publications containing child pornography. The bill will also amend the Film and Computer Game Classification Act 1984, the Indecent Articles and Classified Publications Act 1975 in related aspects described in the bill, and the Search Warrants Act 1985. We commend the Government for pursuing this legislation, which was originally introduced by the former coalition Government. We would like to see the bill strengthened in certain areas, and we will support the amendments foreshadowed by the Opposition's shadow attorney general, particularly the amendment relating to increasing the age of consent from 16 to 18 so that the net is cast wide enough to ensure that action is taken against people involved in child pornography.

A penalty of 12 months imprisonment or a fine of $10,000, or both, can be imposed on a person possessing child pornography. That was a step forward in the legislation introduced by the former Government. We are pleased that the Labor Party is pursuing that aspect of the legislation. Civil libertarians and others have debated whether that is the right path to follow: to deal with the concept of possession and not simply the sale or hire of pornographic material. This concentration on the sale or hire of pornographic material left a big loophole which we have been speaking about since the late 1970s. This has presented a problem for people such as Dr John Whitehall, a leading paediatrician, and other researchers who have worked with me and have been involved in helping abused children. They realised that there was a loophole, but in the early days there was no move towards making possession a crime.

We are pleased that this concept is now acceptable to all honourable members. However, in the interim children have been abused, particularly in the manufacture of child pornography. Others have been abused as a result of child pornography. Those who use child pornography transfer their visual fantasy of a publication to the sexual abuse or molestation of a child. Over the years I have talked to many police officers in the vice squad and in other areas who have specialised in dealing with child abuse. They have said that it is common, when apprehending adults who abuse children, particularly paedophiles, to find in their vehicles open copies of pornographic material. So there is no question of an association between this material and these activities. Various commissions have been asked to prove whether there is a link between such literature, films or videos and the activities of these people; and there is overwhelming evidence of that from many quarters.

New section 357EB will increase the powers of a police officer to apply for a search warrant authorising the entry and search of premises in respect of which the officer believes an offence under proposed section 310A is being committed. Schedule 2 will amend the Film and Computer Game Classification Act and the Indecent Articles and Classified Publications Act. The definition of a child for the purposes of classifying a film, computer game or publication will be amended so that it will cover a person who is a child or who, in the opinion of the censor, looks like a child. This is a modification of the present test of assessing whether the person depicted or described is a child. Often one of the devices used by the sick and greedy people involved in this industry is to use a person over the age of 18 who gives the impression that he or she is a child. The bill states that if in the opinion of the censor the person looks like a child and the purpose of the people making a film, video or magazine is to make that person look like a child, that is child pornography. On 23 May 1995 when the Minister for Police was speaking in debate on this bill he linked it with a move to crack down on the activities of paedophiles in this State. He said:

More importantly, the proposed legislation will assist police in taking action against paedophiles. Previously police have largely relied upon powers in customs legislation to seize child pornography and refused classification material, where it could be proved that the material had been illegally imported into Australia. However, these powers are limited as it is not possible to prosecute for possession of copies of imported material. Repeat offenders have therefore not been deterred by existing laws.

This demonstrates the weakness in customs powers to crack down on this material. The legislation is necessary to deal with people in possession of this material and people who produce material in Australia. I have been looking at some of the evidence concerning pornography and its relationship to children. In 1986 the United States Commission on
Page 1045
Pornography found that pornography is often seen as the sordid background of much child abuse - a point that has been made by other speakers.

Dr Simon Miranda has worked in the area of child abuse for about six years and his experience as a clinical psychologist has been almost exclusively in the realm of intra-familial sex abuse. During this time he has examined about 1,000 children ranging in age from two to 17 years. In every case there was a suspicion or a more formal accusation that the child had been sexually abused by a member of his or her family. Before beginning this work, Dr Miranda, like other academics, had no interest in pornography as such, and was completely ignorant of its effect upon families and its connection with sexual abuse of children, but because of his investigations he gradually realised that there was a close relationship between pornography and incest. I know that honourable members of this House are strongly and deeply concerned about incest and this type of abuse, but they fail to consider the potential link between not just the sexual abuse that may occur with paedophilia-type activity - a man molesting children in a park - but the whole issue of incest. As Dr Miranda said, this is one of the factors in the increase in incest in certain family situations.

Dr Miranda observed that pornography was used to break the resistance of the child to the sexual advances of an adult. In one instance a man showed his 10-year-old son pornographic magazines and films to prepare him for incestuous relations with his own father. When children are exposed to scenes of couples engaged in sexual activities or of adults having intercourse with children, they gain the impression that what they see is natural and acceptable behaviour, and therefore that girls and boys should not be afraid to participate in such conduct with older persons.

Children are also victimised by strangers known as paedophiles. The sexually exploited child unit of the Los Angeles Police Department has been very active in this area, and I have had a great deal of personal contact with that unit. Honourable members may remember that as coordinator of the Australian Festival of Light I organised the visit to Sydney of two detectives from that unit to brief community leaders in Sydney on sexually exploited children. I was most pleased when two officers - Detective Martin was the leader - were invited to brief members of the New South Wales Police Service and give them the benefit of their skilled experience and knowledge. These American detectives were, it is sad to say, specialists in this area because there is so much sexual exploitation of children in Los Angeles.

Those detectives gave evidence to the United States Attorneys General Commission on Pornography and showed the association between this material and child abuse. At that time the detective leading that unit was Detective William Dworkin. During the investigation he interviewed more than 1,000 sexually exploited children, spoke to more than 1,200 child molesters and examined thousands of photographs, magazines, video tapes, and films which depicted children engaging in sexual activities with other children and even animals and adults. Moreover, he examined more than 15,000 letters between paedophiles describing their sexual contact with children and the manner in which they exploited children for sexual gratification.

His evidence revealed that paedophiles come from all walks of life and different social, economic, cultural, and racial backgrounds, yet they had one characteristic in common: when they see a child, they regard it as a sex object. Paedophiles prefer children of a certain age, and when the victim advances beyond that age the paedophile will lose interest in him or her and seek out a younger juvenile to take that child's place. The rejected child is confused and dismayed; yesterday he was the paedophile's close friend but now the bond has been broken. Rejected children may gravitate to the cities where they join the ranks of street kids and perhaps become drug addicts and prostitutes.

Detective Dworkin said that when children are seduced, some are drafted into child sex rings where they are instructed in the performance of sexual acts. Molesters use pornography to encourage children to have sexual relations with adults. Other children, however, are exploited by a single perpetrator. Often, children are used for child pornography. Photographs of juveniles engaging in various sexual activities may be taken by paedophiles for their pleasure or to be exchanged with other paedophiles or sold to publishers. Consequently, they appear in pornographic magazines.

As honourable members have said, it is obvious that the child who is sexually abused is severely damaged physically, psychologically and socially. He may even acquire sexually transmitted diseases. The short-term effects include depression, suicidal thoughts, feelings of shame, guilt, alienation from family and peers, and acute anxiety. In the long term, some may find relief through counselling, but many will suffer chronic low self-esteem, depression and anxiety about their sexual identity and possible entry into delinquency and prostitution. The victim may also be troubled by the knowledge that photographs of his sexual activities are in circulation and may be used to embarrass him in some future way. In 1992, in a letter to the Age headed "Pornography used in child corruption", Robert Falconer, Assistant Commissioner, Victoria Police described pornography as:

Sickening material in which women and children are degraded, abused and exploited. We are talking about sexual acts with four-year-olds, women having intercourse with animals, being pack-raped and brutalised with weapons. For each item of child pornography, someone has committed an offence of sexual abuse against a child. This material commonly is used not just for personal gratification but as a tool in the corruption and destruction of children.

He concluded by saying, "Our society needs to put our children's civil liberties before those of paedophiles and purveyors of child pornography." I could go on with similar quotes. I have a file on them about five inches thick, and if honourable
Page 1046
members have any doubts about what I am saying and would like further evidence, I would be pleased to share it with them. I am pleased to support the bill and the proposed Opposition amendments.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [9.18], in reply: I thank honourable members for their thoughtful and considered contributions to the debate and, indeed, for their support of the general thrust of the bill, although obviously there are differences as to precisely what should be the scope of the bill and what some of its detail should be, which no doubt will be dealt with in detail in Committee.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby asked for some information about the result of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General meeting of July this year in relation to pornography, particularly in relation to computers and the Internet. I will see if I can obtain that information and tomorrow give her any publicly available determination of the meeting of Attorneys-General. The honourable member was also concerned about the possibility of innocent or inadvertent receipt of pornographic material via the Internet. That situation should not, in general, attract criminal sanctions. Honourable members may be assured that technological developments that lead to the spread of child pornography in particular will be closely monitored by the Government. It is an issue that should be considered with a national focus, collectively by the States and Territories.

Two amendments have been foreshadowed and, as I have said, we will deal with them in Committee, but may I say something shortly about them at this stage. First, the Opposition says that, in addition to the specialised focus of this bill on child pornography, the possession of other material that is or would be refused classification under the Indecent Articles and Classified Publications Act 1975 and the Film and Computer Game Classification Act 1984 ought to be banned.

As honourable members know, this bill prohibits the possession of child pornography. The amendment proposes to extend the prohibition to include the possession of certain other material that detracts from the specialised focus of the bill. It is worth noting that as a consequence of recent legislation, computer games can be refused classification even if they contain a much lower level of sex or violence than would otherwise attract censorship. For example, a computer game will be refused classification if it contains realistic violence or nudity, including sexually explicit language - the kinds of things that do not result in a film being refused classification. The question is, therefore, whether it is appropriate for the unauthorised possession of, for example, a computer game containing nudity to attract a penalty of imprisonment for 12 months or a fine of $10,000 or both.

The Australian Law Reform Commission provides in its report on censorship procedure a detailed analysis of these issues. It concluded that there is no special policy reason to ban the possession of all refused-classification material, and recommended that mere possession not be an offence. It must be remembered that possession of material with an intention to publish it is an offence under existing law. No other jurisdiction presently bans the possession of all refused-classification material. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has agreed to implement a uniform scheme for censorship in Australia. Prohibiting the possession of refused-classification material does not form part of that scheme. To adopt such an offence would seriously undermine the goal of uniformity. I believe that the control of dissemination through the classification scheme is a reasonably adequate mechanism for dealing with refused-classification material and that the imposition of criminal sanctions for possession of such material should be restricted to child pornography.

The second proposed Opposition amendment will extend the definition of "child" from the proposed "persons under 16" to "persons under 18". All Australian jurisdictions are in the process of adopting uniform censorship legislation. The basis of the uniform scheme, the Commonwealth Classification Publications Film and Computer Games Act 1995, was enacted earlier this year. Model enforcement legislation has been approved by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and Cabinet and I will be introducing a bill in the near future. Creating an offence of possession of child pornography in New South Wales is an important step towards uniformity. As has already been said, all other jurisdictions have such an offence, and all apply the age limit of 16 years for child pornography.

Indeed, I am advised that at the SCAG meeting on 3 November 1994 the Leader of the Opposition canvassed his proposal to change the relevant age for child pornography, and that Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland said they were not prepared to agree to the change; and no jurisdiction said that it would agree to the change. Having given undertakings when in Government to develop a uniform State censorship regime, it is perhaps inconsistent of the Opposition to propose amendments that will move New South Wales out of line in an area that is presently uniform. The law currently allows young people aged 16 to have sexual relations. It may be regarded as anomalous to prohibit, by criminal sanction, those relations depicted on a film or in publication. Nevertheless, all of these matters can be properly considered in Committee and, indeed, further consideration can be given to them before the Committee stage. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.


Bills received and read a first time.


Page 1047
Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

Bill received and read a first time.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [9.27]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill extends the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991 until May 1996, by which time New South Wales will have strong, comprehensive legislation covering all threatened species and all ecological species. Currently there are 234 species of fauna listed as endangered in New South Wales. Some, such as the Lord Howe Island woodhen, are found nowhere else in the world. Others, like the yellow-footed rock wallaby, occur elsewhere in Australia and, though not yet endangered nationally, must contend with a host of threats, including habitat loss and fragmentation, habitat degradation, the introduction of exotic species, direct exploitation, pollution, and cumulative effects.

Plants have not suffered to the same extent. However, at least 30 species known to have occurred in this State at the time of European settlement are now extinct. Legislation covering endangered species and ecological communities has been enacted by Victoria, Queensland and the Commonwealth, and is currently proposed in both Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. Endangered flora legislation has been operating in Western Australia since 1980 and parallel provisions for fauna are proposed. In New South Wales the legislative basis for the protection of endangered species is the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1994. In 1991 the Land and Environment Court's judgment, and subsequently the Court of Appeal's judgment, in the Chaelundi case resulted in a wider interpretation of the provision in the National Parks and Wildlife Act prohibiting the taking or killing of protected and endangered fauna. The prohibition now also extends to disturbing fauna habitat.

In December 1991 in response to the Chaelundi decision, the Labor Party Opposition in this State introduced, and the Parliament eventually passed, the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act. In brief, the Act amended the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act so that proponents of actions which take or kill endangered fauna, including modifying habitat, must prepare a fauna impact statement and apply to the National Parks and Wildlife Service for a section 120 licence. As its title implies, the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act was intended as an interim measure pending the introduction of comprehensive threatened species legislation. This Act was extended by the coalition, with Labor's support, in the form of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1992 and the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Amendment Act 1993.

Unless it is further extended, the Act will be partially repealed on 1 October 1995. Provisions which would be repealed are all the amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which provide for the assessment of impact on endangered fauna and section 98(5) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act. If this clause is repealed, people who obtain consent under the Environmental and Assessment Act for developments which will take or kill or significantly modify the habitat of any protected fauna, including possums for example, rather than just endangered fauna, would need to obtain a separate licence from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. This would lead to unnecessary delays in the development approval process.

I am informed that earlier tonight the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly sought to amend this proposed legislation to extend it only until 31 December 1995 rather than the proposed 31 May 1996. My advice is that comprehensive threatened species legislation will not be ready by that time and there will be an enormous consequence on industry as I have just outlined: timber mills will close, mines will close and jobs will be lost. I am informed and instructed that this is not mere speculation but advice from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Also, a different cut-off date as proposed would lead to the inability of the Government to engage in community consultation. For those cogent reasons it is important that this House adhere to the extension date proposed in the bill.

While the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act represents a significant advance in the conservation of endangered species which had been studiously ignored by the previous Government, there is no doubt that the current system for protecting endangered species has major shortcomings. There is no emphasis on the protection of critical habitat, no statutory provision for recovery planning and no requirement for action planning to address threatening processes. These are crucial issues. Since the destruction of habitat is probably the single most significant cause of species extinction, any effective legislative model for conserving threatened species must ensure the protection of critical habitat. Legislation must also provide for species recovery and the control of threatening processes.

Recovery plans would detail the actions to be undertaken to restore a particular species or community to a position of viability in the wild, while threatening processes operating on more than one listed species or community across a large area would be managed through a statewide action plan. Other failings of the current system can be attributed to its lack of integration with the environmental planning system. However, I am also aware that there is a widely held view that the endangered fauna provisions of the current legislation are serving as a reasonable
Page 1048
interim mechanism to curtail species endangerment in the short term. The Government's commitments in relation to the conservation of threatened species and the introduction of effective threatened species legislation are unequivocal. In introducing this bill the Government in no way resiles from its pledge to introduce comprehensive legislation.

Extension of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act will give the Government sufficient time to develop an agreed legislative proposal, release an exposure bill during this parliamentary session, and enact legislation in autumn in 1996. The Government is acting to ensure that legislation is introduced as quickly as possible. I can confirm that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is in the process of consulting government stakeholders on a proposed legislative model and has also held discussions with peak environment groups on the general form and content of threatened species legislation. The Minister has also requested the service to undertake a review of the existing endangered fauna licensing system, in consultation with environmental and industry stakeholders, to consider its effectiveness in protecting threatened species and the efficiency of its operation.

The Government's view is this is an important and necessary step to take in view of its commitment in the nature conservation strategy to continue with a licensing system in some form. I acknowledge that this general issue has been the subject of protracted consultation under the coalition Government, whose lack of commitment to introduce effective endangered species legislation was apparent. However, discussion and consultation to date have focused on the coalition's proposed legislation and Dr Macdonald's bill. It is clear that the Government's commitment to expand the scope of the legislation to include, amongst other things, flora and ecological communities will necessitate some important differences in approach and may have a significant impact on land use activities. In the circumstances it is absolutely essential to have focused consultations on the terms of the draft legislation and its operation.

The real challenge is to achieve an effective and efficient regulatory framework that works in conjunction with other land use planning systems. The Government has already taken the initiative to control land clearing activities that are widely acknowledged as one of the major threats to threatened species protection and biodiversity conservation generally with the introduction of State Environmental Planning Policy 46. Other initiatives which will have substantial benefits for threatened species include our commitment to establish 24 new national parks and nature reserves within our first year of office - achievement of this objective is on track; the proposed establishment of a comprehensive system of marine parks based on the Great Barrier Reef model; protection of high conservation old growth and identified wilderness forest through rescheduling of logging into regrowth forest; and the recent water package reform. After many years of management for extractive use, the provision of environmental flows to the inland rivers of New South Wales will mean real improvements in the health of our rivers and wetlands.

In many ways the National Parks and Wildlife Service is already pursuing the spirit of a more comprehensive approach to endangered species protection. For instance, the service has prepared detailed recovery plans for many species, including the little tern, the brush-tailed rock wallaby and others. While these plans do not have the binding force of statute, it is a head start on the work that will be required under our endangered species legislation, which will ultimately lead to the protection of the biodiversity and ecosystems of this State. However, ultimately the enactment of threatened species legislation will represent the achievement of one of our most important nature conservation objectives. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.37]: I have the pleasure of leading for the Opposition in this debate. I have the opportunity to remind members opposite of some of the promises made by their leader and party during the last election about this proposed legislation. The Opposition proposes to amend this bill to ensure that promises made by the Labor Party during the State election are kept. Promise keeping will be a theme of this session, and I suspect of the term, of this particular Parliament. Promises made by members opposite in order to get into office must be kept. The Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill aims to extend the date contained in legislation that was introduced in the last session of the Parliament by members opposite as a means of solving a problem created by a court judgment relating to the Chaelundi case.

Unless interim legislation was cobbled together to allow that particular legislation to come into force, the timber industry would have come to a grinding halt. The earlier legislation was intended to be a stop-gap arrangement that would hold over various industries that were going to threaten endangered species and fauna in our State to enable them to continue operations whilst the details of permanence and lasting legislation aimed at protecting endangered fauna and flora was brought into force. This legislation has a number of shortcomings, as was pointed out by the previous Government, but they are still contained within this bill: it is intensely bureaucratic about the manner in which it aims to solve the problem of managing any environmental impact on flora and fauna from the timber industry or other industries.

In my travels around the State I have been shown pages and pages of consultants' reports that have been produced in order to satisfy the legislative requirements of this legislation in order to carry out further extensions of business within farms, the timber industry and other related places. This has been at great expense to the property owners involved. The bill requires the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to act as a quasi-development control officer - a job normally the task of the Director of Planning - when she ought to be developing recovery
Page 1049
plans for endangered fauna and management plans for our national parks, and ensuring that wildlife and native fauna are protected in this State. It is not her fault that she is involved in this exercise; it is the fault of legislation which was meant to be temporary. The coalition accepted that fact when in office, and accepts it now as the Opposition. The promises about this legislation were made by none other than the current Premier.

In a press release issued by Bob Carr on 26 February 1995, at the peak of the election campaign, he promised nature conservation for future generations, together with an outline of the policy of his Government. Included in that promise was comprehensive endangered species protection legislation to replace the endangered fauna legislation which expires in December. Members opposite have become skilled at finding loopholes in their promises. I refer them to the policy statement released by the Labor Party during the election campaign that legislation would be introduced to replace the endangered fauna legislation on 31 December. The Labor Party made that specific promise in its policy manifesto.

The debate has been sprung on the Opposition. I do not have the manifesto in front of me but members can read it for themselves. The Opposition wants to keep the Labor Party to its promises and will introduce an amendment which no doubt will be warmly supported by many honourable members on the crossbenches. The processing of this legislation reflects the Government's method of operation - something we have come to expect of it. The Opposition knew that legislation under this title was about to be enacted because the expiry date of the Act was approaching. But until today the Opposition had received no information about this important measure. I am expected to lead for the Opposition, yet I saw the bill for the very first time less than two hours ago, and only because I bothered to hunt it up for myself. In the other place, while hearing the Minister delivering the tail end of the second reading speech, I asked for a copy of that speech so that I could have a minimal briefing on the bill. The Minister had only one copy, but she had given it to Hansard. I was not able to get a copy of it. I went to her office less than 15 minutes ago and asked for a copy, but I was unable to obtain it.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: That is really tough.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The honourable member says it is really tough. I have pride in representing the constituents of western Sydney.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What happened to the shadow ministers? Why have they dumped it on you?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The honourable member's interjection about shadow ministers is not at all helpful. What I have said about myself applies similarly to the shadow environment minister. He was no better briefed than I was two hours ago - and not for his want of trying. I have a habit of visiting councils in western Sydney to see how they operate. Rarely, if ever, is a decision made by local government - on minuscule developments of lesser importance than this measure - that is not given to all council aldermen regardless of their support of the mayor or of the incumbent ruling body of the council. Aldermen are given detailed briefings for and against a proposal, together with access to all council servants, at least three or four weeks before a decision is to be made. They have the opportunity to discuss issues in committee.

The Government knew that the Act was due to expire but made no attempt to contact the Opposition during the off-season - when there was plenty of time - about the Government's proposal or to provide a briefing and a copy of the second reading speech. As a result of the Government's ramshackle effort, the Opposition has been left, on the very first day of the sitting, to tear around the House trying to uncover details of the bill so that it can work out whether it supports it. I confess I do not have beautifully drafted amendments to the bill. The Opposition knows what it wants to do. Fortunately, the bill is reasonably simple in outline. However, I am not able to give all members a copy of the proposed amendments because the Opposition has not been briefed.

The secrecy of the Government will fall upon it, as the Sydney Morning Herald commented within weeks of Labor coming to office. It is tragic that the Government is seeking to do business in this way in the House. This is important legislation that will impact seriously on industry and the environment in this State, yet the Opposition is left with little briefing on what the Government intends even about the expiry date. The Minister might at least have informed the shadow minister that during the next session the expiry date of the bill was to be extended. I suspect that the reason the Government did not do so was that it knew the Opposition would do what it has already done in this House, that is, research the matter, find the Government's press releases and policy documents, and find that the 151st promise by the Labor Party has been broken. The Opposition will do what it can to ensure that the Government keeps its promises, and will move amendments to ensure that the Carr Labor Government, elected on lies, governs in truth.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.47]: Two hours ago I received a phone call from Val Scanlon of Conservation of North Ocean Shores, an organisation that is trying to stop the destruction of North Ocean Shores. She said that a few hours ago she had found a dead baby koala - I shall bring it down to Sydney next week to prove what is going on. This occurred in an area we have been crying out to be saved from destruction by a developer called Chum Vidgen, who owned most of the land but had part of it bought from him by the previous Government for a park. He is abusing State Environmental Planning Policy 46 by putting pieces of land in different names so that he can clear two-hectare lots and thus get around the new State environmental planning policy that is designed to stop land clearing.

He is also abusing SEPP 44 on koala habitat. I
Page 1050
saw a dead koala myself a few weeks ago near that land; another one was found there today. State environment planning policies 14, 26, 44 and 46 are not working at North Ocean Shores. We pleaded with the Government to step in and do something about that, yet even this very day land is being cleared and koalas are still being killed. A few weeks ago I was in a compartment in the ranges west of Byron Bay. In one compartment which had just been logged - a compartment that had been on Paul Keating's list of high conservation value compartments - we found a dead koala. It was indeed a koala - there were koala scats all around the place. The National Parks and Wildlife Service had not been notified by State Forests of New South Wales. The night after the council election I saw my second live koala near Goonengerry State Forest - in the middle of nowhere, among very few trees. I wondered how the koala would survive. Another promise made by the Government was that Goonengerry State Forest would be a koala park. There is a possibility that that promise may not be fulfilled.

On a daily basis animals from endangered species are killed throughout New South Wales. I have tried for many years to stop the destruction of endangered species habitat, and I am pleased that the Government introduced control with State environmental planning policy 46 on clearing vegetation. I am disappointed that, metaphorically speaking, a semi-trailer could be driven through that SEPP. Nevertheless, it represents some advance on the situation that prevailed previously. Controls on water usage are also an advance. I have seen the destruction caused in the west of the State by people who have literally been stealing water, putting Gwydir goannas into their water supply systems to stop the water being metered.

I am sure that at the end of this Government's term - many years down the track - it will be remembered as a green government. However, it has to abide by its promises. It promised that the threatened species legislation would be enacted by December 1995. Now the Government says that cannot be done; it wants another eight months. It has already had six months in which to enact it. The legislation is ready to go. Michael Kennedy - one of this country's experts on endangered species - Jeff Angel, Ray Nias, Sid Walker, Peter Wright and others have worked on this matter. There is no excuse for delaying the introduction of the legislation, either by Dr Macdonald or by the Government. A letter from the Australian Conservation Foundation, Total Environment Centre, Nature Conservation Council, Friends of the Earth, Humane Society International Australia, Wilderness Society, Worldwide Fund for Nature and Threatened Species Network, who represent many tens of thousands of supporters, states:

There has already been a year long consultation process through the previous Parliament's Legislation Committee on the Endangered and Other Threatened Species Conservation Bill, which looked at a whole range of issues relating to the then Government's Bill, the Independent member for Manly, Dr Peter MacDonald's Threatened Species Conservation Bill and proposed Labor amendments of the day. All relevant community and industry sectors participated.

Those organisations are concerned that delays to the introduction of the Government's threatened species legislation could result in pre-emptive clearing of endangered flora, utilising the minimum two-hectare exemption for vegetation clearance control in SEPP 46. The Australian Democrats were not aware, but should have been, that would occur, or that the Government wanted to delay the legislation another eight months. The Australian Democrats will support the Opposition's amendment to ensure that the legislation is extended to 31 December 1995 and not May next year.

If good threatened species legislation cannot be passed by December, even if it has to be amended, something is wrong with the processes of this House. I am sure other legislation, which is not yet written, will pass through the House before that time. The Government must grasp the nettle. The legislation must be passed by the end of the year if the Government is to fulfil its promise. The Democrats will hold the Government to its promise if that is at all possible.

The Hon. I. COHEN [9.53]: I concur with the statements made by my Democrat companion, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I also would like to see the enactment of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill at the earliest opportunity. New South Wales could be seen as a State in a country with the highest rate of faunal species extinction in the world. I have recently visited many forest areas with the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. The State Forests bureaucracy lies when it says it is logging in areas that are not of high conservation value. These are areas where there are koala scats and evidence of other animals and, unfortunately, even the carcasses of endangered species have been completely ignored by the so-called scientists representing State Forests.

A terrible rort is being perpetrated by the forestry bureaucracy. That bureaucracy refuses to look at the scientific evidence as it maintains an onslaught on native forests that will not survive at the current rate of use. This is an emergency situation. I support the legislation being brought forward as soon as possible. I endorse the comments of those who have spoken in this debate tonight. I have obtained information regarding Whian Whian State Forest, in the north of New South Wales. Negotiations have taken place between State Forests and the Whian Whian Heritage and Environment Network - WWHEN. After nine months those negotiations collapsed on Friday, 15 September. Significant progress had been made in the negotiations but an impasse was reached when State Forests refused to protect known localities of vulnerable and endangered plants or to adopt the current prescription of the National Parks and Wildlife Service for rare and endangered fauna.

Confrontation is inevitable unless the Government intervenes. Negotiations commenced during a blockade in December last year. I was
Page 1051
present at that blockade. The issues are academic - a real emergency both in environmental and koori cultural values. State Forests is determined to avoid the compartments in dispute and proposes to log another eight compartments, 79 to 86 in the south-east of Whian Whian State Forest. State Forests botanist, Rob Coyman, undertook a survey of rare and endangered plants. WWHEN employed a fauna consultant to undertake a survey within areas proposed for logging, and as part of the EIS process the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation undertook a faunal survey. The surveys revealed that the proposed logging area has an exceptional diversity of rare and endangered species and encompasses core areas for many species.

Negotiations collapsed on three grounds: a refusal to exclude identified localities of nationally listed vulnerable and endangered plants from logging; a refusal to adopt the current prescription of the National Parks and Wildlife Service for endangered fauna; and a refusal to protect all tallowwood trees, which are well-known koala feed trees. There are 34 rare and endangered plant species known to occur or likely to occur in the compartments, of which 23 have been recorded. It is recognised that most of the rare and endangered plants are found within forests excluded from logging, although a significant population of many of these species - including those listed in schedule 1 to the Commonwealth's Endangered Species Protection Act - are found within proposed logging areas. The areas identified with high densities of these species should be excluded from logging and WWHEN regards as non-negotiable that at least identified localities of schedule 1 species within the proposed logging area be excluded from logging. State Forests would not agree to this.

Some 51 schedule 12 fauna are known or likely to occur within these compartments, of which WWHEN had obtained the current fauna prescriptions of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and despite concerns about the adequacy of the current fauna prescriptions and that there are no prescriptions for many species, considered the application of these prescriptions to the logging operations as non-negotiable. State Forests refused to adopt and apply the current prescriptions on the grounds that in 1992 it was issued a licence which had far less onerous conditions. At this point it was realised that negotiations could not proceed, though the door was left open to resume negotiations should the National Parks and Wildlife Service vary the section 120 licence to take or kill endangered species to include the current prescriptions of the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Tallowwood has been identified as the principal food tree for koalas. Because of the preferential removal of tallowwood in previous operations there are now limited numbers of mature tallowwood trees in the areas proposed for logging. Although retention of all remaining tallowwood was recommended by consultants of both State Forests and WWHEN, State Forests would not agree to retain all tallowwood. After negotiations had failed, State Forests decided that all other agreed concessions would be invalid. A number of other outstanding issues have not yet been discussed in any detail. They include undertaking pre-logging surveys to target significant schedule 12 fauna which have not yet been adequately surveyed within the compartments; excluding logging from the few identified patches of likely logged eucalypt forests; adopting enhanced buffer zones around streams within the catchment of Rocky Creek Dam; and maintaining visual protection strips along existing and proposed walking tracks and roads.

Before negotiations can resume, the National Parks and Wildlife Service needs to review the current section 120 licence and amend it to include the most recent descriptions of endangered fauna, and the Government needs to decide whether it will direct State Forests to ensure the adoption of adequate prescriptions to protect rare and endangered plants. That is only one small example. There are countless examples throughout the State of New South Wales of endangered species continually under threat from a bureaucracy in State Forests that does not seem to have changed with the times. I acknowledge that the New South Wales Government is moving in the right direction, but it is moving much too slowly. We need this protection, and we need it now. The longer it is kept in abeyance the more forests and endangered species will be destroyed at an unprecedented rate in this State. I support other speakers who say that we need to bring the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill forward to December.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.00]: The Call to Australia group supports the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill. The object of the bill is to amend the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991 and the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Amendment Act 1992 to extend further from 1 October 1995 to 31 May 1996 the previous extension of the operation of those provisions of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991 that were originally due to expire on 1 December 1992, and the duration of certain licences to take or kill endangered fauna issued under section 120 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 after the commencement of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991.

As the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act will expire on 1 October, the bill has been rushed by the Government through the other place and into this House. Undoubtedly, it is an example of a problem. Whether there has been a breakdown in the Government's action in not doing this earlier can be debated endlessly. Practically, something must be done by this House. Under the sitting days program, the House rises on Thursday for two weeks. If the bill is not proceeded with, there will be a major upheaval in the State. It would seriously affect the logging industry and other development plans across the State. If the House does not pass the bill, all the amendments to the Environment Planning and Assessment Act that provide for the assessment of impact on fauna and section 98(5) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act will be repealed. If that section is repealed, people who obtain consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act for
Page 1052
developments that allow the taking or killing of protected fauna or the significant modification of the habitat of protected fauna, rather than merely endangered fauna, will need a separate licence from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. That would lead to unnecessary delays in the development approval process.

It has been pointed out by some speakers that the Government promised that it would have legislation by December. At the briefing this morning the Leader of the Government in the other place, Mr Whelan, promised that the draft exposure bill would be released in this parliamentary session, at least by December. That legislation would then lie on the table for community discussion and then be moved in the New Year, probably in March. That seems to be a practical solution to the problem. The foreshadowed amendment to change the date from 31 May 1996 to 31 December 1995 would create an impractical artificial time zone. We could finish up with emergency legislation in December, trying again to solve a serious problem. It also seems to me as a lay person not involved in this area in any detailed way that dealing with this matter in such a piecemeal way will cause a great deal more confusion and hesitation in the community.

A continuous three-month extension seems to be multiplying uncertainty in the community. It will be of benefit to the community to have stability. That is why Call to Australia will not support the amendment. We prefer to leave the bill as it is. The Government can still move within the time frame of 31 May 1996 as negotiations proceed. The proposed legislation may need more discussion than has been taken into account by the coalition or some backbench members and more community discussion before it is finally put into law. I favour consultation with the community and the logging industry so that the whole State does not come to a standstill. Also, we do not want the more serious development of the loss of jobs in this State. Jobs must be kept as a high priority by all honourable members of this House.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [10.06]: I shall speak briefly in support of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill. Its basic purpose is to extend the existing legislation. I feel as though I have made speeches on this bill, or on its predecessors, on many occasions. It is probably no surprise if I start by saying that the only real shock is the depth of hypocrisy and dishonesty to which Opposition members can sink on this bill. The Hon. J. F. Ryan and his colleagues in the other place had the unmitigated gall to argue that somehow or other they would protect endangered species. I almost did not believe what the Hon. J. F. Ryan said so I wrote it down. He said that the Opposition had been told that the timber industry would come to a grinding holt. That goes back to 1991 when this whole saga started. The Opposition, when in government, had four years to fix the problem. Coalition members have been dragged kicking and screaming to this point. Suddenly, they care about furry little animals and endangered species.

Opposition members will move silly amendments despite all the advice that once again we are in danger of ending up with a bill that will not be satisfactory if it is rushed. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile hit the nail on the head. Owing to the behaviour of members of the coalition parties over the past four years, the legislation does not protect endangered species in this State. If the amendment is carried, the Opposition will achieve two fantastic things at once. First, endangered species will not be properly protected. The advice from the National Parks and Wildlife Service and others is that necessary, proper legislation - the all-embracing and comprehensive legislation - will not be ready by the end of the year. Second, as well as not protecting endangered species, Opposition members will also be responsible for the destruction of jobs of timber workers and putting at risk the jobs of numerous others.

We have the same debate time and again. Opposition members expect honourable members to believe that they care about the sort of garbage that they mentioned tonight. They should be ashamed of themselves. I thought they had a little bit more decency. I do not criticise the Hon. R. S. L. Jones or the Hon. I. Cohen for thinking that they are not genuine in supporting this ridiculous amendment. I think they are genuine but that they are misguided. I think they have been told - and they should know - that they should accept that the legislation is not ready, that the National Parks and Wildlife Service has advised that there are grave problems and that it cannot not be ready next year. It is a furphy to say that there has been sufficient consultation.

There has not been consultation on the Government's legislation. Discussion that took place in the past was on previous legislation - the original bill introduced by the honourable member for Manly. This Government's record in protecting endangered species is excellent. In the six months that this Government has been in office it has established new parks, prepared for the declaration of wilderness areas, introduced a State environmental planning policy on land clearing and done some work on water resources. This Government is moving as fast as it can on various environment issues. The agencies that have already been referred to are moving as fast as they can also.

As I said earlier, somewhat to my surprise Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile hit the nail on the head tonight. Over the past few years honourable members have dealt with a series of extensions of the original bill. Everyone has been prepared to admit that the legislation has shortcomings and that it is not satisfactory. We now have a chance to get it right. We will certainly be keeping our promises to get it right. Our big problem is that we now have this misguided amendment that will try to speed up the process, and that will almost inevitably end unsatisfactorily. There is no point in urging Opposition members to do anything. However, I repeat that when jobs are lost because of their dishonest and hypocritical behaviour they will bear the
Page 1053
blame. I certainly urge those members of the crossbenches who are supporting this amendment to think deeply about where they are directing their loyalty. Are they really doing the best for the koalas and other endangered species that were mentioned by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Hon. I. Cohen?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [10.12], in reply: Putting aside the various complaints and the rhetoric, in substance everyone agrees to an extension of this interim bill. The bill, which of course is identical to the existing interim bill, replicates existing law. We will deal in Committee with the narrow question: for how long should the bill be extended? But at this second reading stage I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 3 and 4

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.14], by leave: I move the following Opposition amendments in globo:

No. 1 Page 2, clause 3. Omit "31 May 1996", insert instead "31 December 1995".

No. 2 Page 2, clause 4. Omit "31 May 1996", insert instead "31 December 1995".

In my speech in the second reading debate I foreshadowed that the Opposition would move an amendment that would change the dates mentioned in the bill from 31 May 1996 to 31 December 1995. I note that these amendments are similar to amendments that were to be moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I thank those members on the crossbenches who have indicated that they will support the amendments I have moved which, first, will ensure that we have appropriate endangered species legislation operating in this State and, second, will ensure that members of the Labor Party fulfil some of the irresponsible promises that they made in Opposition. Honourable members might remember that, whilst I was making my speech in the second reading debate, I was looking for Labor's nature conservation strategy that was issued in February 1995. That document states in black and white:

Labor will introduce comprehensive endangered species legislation following the expiry of the Endangered Fauna Interim Protection Act in December 1995.

That was a promise made by the Labor Party in 1995. Bob Carr said that, as Premier, he would save the forests and that the environment would be his number one priority - that was why he became Premier. If he was serious when he made that promise the first instructions to his Minister for the Environment and to the National Parks and Wildlife Service and other government departments should have been to prepare relevant legislation to replace the Act. Everyone knew a year ago that the legislation would expire this year. The Government should have had preparations in hand to replace it. These amendments will ensure that the Government tells the truth. It has been allowed to get away with telling lies. Today we can draw a line in the sand and say, "Today the Government will be made to tell the truth." I commend the amendments to honourable members.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.17]: The Australian Democrats have been informed that this year State Forests wants to log 43 compartments that are on Paul Keating's high conservation value list. If we can stop those compartments from being logged by bringing that date forward to 31 December, so be it. It will be a damn good thing for the people of New South Wales and for the endangered species in those compartments. This will not result in the loss of logging jobs. We know, as we have been having detailed discussions on this matter, that it will be replaced with pine logging. The pine forests will be coming on stream this year and there will be more jobs in the pine forests than there will be in the logging of high conservation value old compartments like the ones we saw that had been logged. We saw areas that State Forests said were marketable regrowth. They did not have a single stump in them but trees several metres in diameter - magnificent old trees in rainforest understorey. That is what State Forests called marketable regrowth. It tells lies and it has been getting away with doing so for many years.

It is time to bring to a halt the logging of high conservation value areas in New South Wales. I know that the majority of people in this Chamber and in New South Wales support that view. The small, noisy demonstration outside Parliament House today did not represent the people of New South Wales. The people of New South Wales are represented by those who want to stop the logging in high conservation value areas. It is time for the Government and the National Parks and Wildlife Service to get their act together and to pass this endangered species legislation by the end of December 1995. We will assist them and pull out all the stops, if necessary, to do that. If we cannot do that in three months we should not be in this job. I am sure that the Government and the National Parks and Wildlife Service can do that. We will make sure that they do.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.19]: The Call to Australia group will not support the amendments moved by the Opposition for the reasons I gave earlier. We have had discussions with leaders of the timber industry who support the bill in its present form. Genuine efforts are being made to reach some agreement and to prevent wide divisions in our community. It is important for us to spend time discussing this legislation to get it right and to achieve widespread agreement on it.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [10.20]: The Government agrees with the substance of what Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has said in both the second reading debate and in Committee. The Government needs time for consultation, time to introduce a considered measure. It wants world-class legislation that will endure and really get it right. The
Page 1054
way to do that is to agree to a reasonable extension of the interim measure. Nothing that was said in pre-election discussion - some of the speeches were read out by the Hon. J. F. Ryan - precluded a further extension of the interim measure. A permanent piece of legislation was promised. Tonight we are seeking to allow the time and opportunity for that considered piece of legislation. As Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile correctly said, to specify the date that is currently in the bill does not preclude earlier legislation if it is practicable. If the Government is satisfied that sufficient consultation has taken place and relevant groups are satisfied with the model, the legislation that we introduce in this Parliament and the specified date will be varied or amended by that new legislation.

The Opposition, in a curious alliance with environmental groups, seems to want to force the Government to cobble together an unsatisfactory package, contrary to advice. The advice of the National Parks and Wildlife Service is that the Government needs the time it is seeking in order to get this matter right. I have already pointed out the untoward and serious legal effects if this specified date expires. If this interim legislation becomes ineffectual, almost everyone would accept that there will be problems with people who, it can be said, kill or significantly modify the habitat of any protected fauna and there will be threats to jobs. That is why the Government, on advice and after due consideration, has suggested the cut-off date of 31 May 1996. But that does not prevent the Government from doing it earlier if that proves to be practicable. For all those reasons the Government opposes the amendment.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Bull Mr Moppett
Mrs Chadwick Mr Mutch
Mr Cohen Dr Pezzutti
Mr Corbett Mr Pickering
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mr Rowland Smith
Dr Goldsmith Mr Tingle
Mr Hannaford Tellers,
Mr Jones Mr Ryan
Miss Kirkby Mrs Sham-Ho

Mrs Arena Rev. Nile
Dr Burgmann Ms Saffin
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Staunton
Mrs Isaksen Mrs Symonds
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Kaldis
Mr Macdonald Tellers,
Mr Manson Ms Burnswoods
Mrs Nile Mr Obeid
Mr O'Grady Mr Jobling

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.32]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [10.32]: I wish to warn honourable members about a group called Citizens Electoral Councils of Australia of Coburg, Victoria. Whilst I am loath to give these people any publicity at all, I feel it is important to bring to the attention of honourable members the existence of this group, which is very active in sending material to me and, I presume, to other members of Parliament. It prints a magazine called New Citizen which contains articles, the titles of which speak for themselves: "Prince Phillip's ‘Indigenist' Plot to Destroy Australia", whatever that means, "The Fraud of Aboriginal Land Rights" or better still "The Rise and Fall of Australia: the British Crown's Assault Against the Commonwealth".

The group proposes a republic, but even a republican like me finds its propaganda material abhorrent. Apparently the group, which at first I thought was connected to the League of Rights - it still might be, it is on the same looney planet - is an American group led by a Mr Lyndon La Rouche. It was established in Australia in Queensland in 1988. Mrs Rosemary Follett of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory Parliament has filed a formal complaint against the group with the Human Rights Office of the Australian Capital Territory for blatant incitement to racial hatred. This lunatic group is obviously anti-Jewish, anti-Aboriginal and anti-British. It spreads half truths and outright lies, and rings prominent people asking for interviews for their magazine. People should be wary of being interviewed by such people.

I was concerned that an eminent historian such as Professor Henry Reynolds would agree to be interviewed for the magazine EIR, which stands for Executive Intelligence Review, and thus give credibility to these people. But apparently Professor Reynolds knew nothing about the group and, like many other prominent people, was tricked into giving an interview, thinking that it was for a bona fide American publication. Aboriginal Human Rights Commissioner Mick Dodson thought he was speaking
Page 1055
to a researcher for a black United States senator calling from the United States of America. These people are dangerous. Mr La Rouche believes that the Queen of England leads an international drug trafficking ring. Need I say more? Please do not dismiss these people lightly. They are dangerous dealers in hatred, anti-semitic propaganda, anti-Aboriginal propaganda, half truths and outright lies on most subjects. Please be aware: next time you receive letters or magazines from the Citizens Electoral Councils of Australia Group from Coburg, Victoria, throw them in the right place - the garbage bin.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING [10.36]: I sadly join with the leader of the Government in this House in expressing my sincere and deep sorrow at the untimely death of Mr Norm Watson, who until recently was the head of the Department of Energy. As Minister for Energy I had the honour to work with Mr Watson for only a short while, but during that time I found him to be an extraordinarily fine and competent departmental head, one of the finest I have had the honour to work alongside. I was shocked to learn that he had died of a heart attack at the age of 51, after having played a game of tennis with his children. It is a tragedy for his family, and I am sure we all feel for them in their hour of sorrow.

In the short time I was Minister for Energy, Mr Watson applied himself vigorously to the extraordinarily complex task of starting to develop the reorganisation of the electricity industry in New South Wales and coming to grips with the concept of commercialisation of the electricity industry throughout the country. Anyone who had anything to do with this matter would know that it is one of enormous complexity and one which will, no doubt, be debated at length in the House with varying degrees of knowledge in the months ahead. The advice that Mr Watson gave me was always spot on. Whilst I received a wide range of advice, often diametrically opposed, from very many quarters on this matter - I assume the current Minister has the same difficulty - I found Mr Watson's advice to be a steadying influence all the way through. I think the Minister will agree with me that the current Government has moved with commendable speed in reforming the electricity generating industry in New South Wales, but I think the Government would be generous enough to agree that it has only been able to move with such alacrity as a result of the work done by the previous Government, much of which is to the credit of Mr Watson.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I agree with that.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I am pleased to hear that the Treasurer agrees with those comments. On behalf of my wife I wish to extend to Mr Watson's wife, Lynn, and his family our sincere condolences.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE [10.40]: An article in the NSW Police News of August 1995 entitled "Revolvers vs semi-automatic pistols" stated:

In the aftermath of yet another tragedy [at Crescent Head] the question must be asked "are the members of the NSW Police properly armed to protect themselves and members of the community against offenders intent on killing them?"

Are our members properly armed to effect an incident-free arrest of an armed offender?

Are our members armed with the necessary equipment to give them confidence to carry out their duties as safely as possible?

Is the NSW Police Service complying with their duty of care by ensuring its members are supplied with the proper equipment?

The article speaks about the Smith and Wesson revolver. It says that in 1991 the then New York Police Commissioner stated that his department would retain revolvers. The article said:

His reasons were the same that were given by Task Force Alpha. That is, the revolver is more reliable etc. What happened to change the mind of the N.Y.P.D.?

A further report in Autopistols magazine, Volume 1, published the results of a 50,000 round test conducted upon a Glock model 17. The report states:

At the end of two years and having fired 33,000 rounds and being presented from the holster more than 20,000 times, it showed surprisingly little wear. It shoots as accurately as at the beginning of the test. Additional findings were:

Although it has fired 33,000 rounds and had only been cleaned three times, the bore was without corrosion or noticeable wear.

It is most important that the police force is equipped with guns that are reliable. As honourable members are aware, an officer lost his life after only six shots were fired. The article continued:

This Department owes it to its members to avoid tragedies such as the murders of Alan McQueen and Snr Constables Addison and Spears. The truth is, these tragedies may have been avoided if those police were carrying better firearms than the outdated revolver presently used. And as long as that possibility exists then this department must begin a conversion program as soon as possible.

In the article Geoff Beresford put forward the argument against the Smith and Wesson revolver:

Some experts argued that semi-automatics should not be made general issue as they jammed and the average police officer will not maintain them. They also said that semi-auto's should only be available to specialist police, such as S.P.G. What they failed to tell us was that the semi-automatic pistol they used failed once after firing over two thousand rounds without cleaning. Clearly their arguments were not based on objective facts.

This was a test conducted in New South Wales. Regardless of what is happening with the royal commission, members of the Police Service must be armed properly to protect themselves so that they have confidence when they combat criminals. The police department owes it to them.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [10.42]: I inform the House of the outrage of the teachers of Coonamble High School, grave disquiet amongst the
Page 1056
pupils and their parents, and the disapproval of the whole community over recent administrative changes at the school. In the past 25 years Coonamble school has graduated from a central school to a high school with an enviable academic record. Its lines of communication and association are, naturally, back through the Central West through Dubbo where, until recently, its resource centre was provided. However, in recent changes, of which all honourable members would be aware, that involved the deregionalisation of the Department of School Education and the reallocation of resource centres, Coonamble has for the first time been associated with the Moree district.

The Moree district is some 335 kilometres from Coonamble, compared with 160 kilometres from Dubbo. Whilst in the most general sense there is a community of interest between these two towns, there is no geographical association between them. This change is a grave and retrograde step that will affect the quality of teaching in the school and individual pupils. This is not a beat-up by individuals; it has the solid backing of the core of teachers who serve that school and it is the subject of grave anxiety amongst the Parents and Citizens Association, the school council and the community. I hope that the Government will take into account the protests that have come from schools like Coonamble about the arrangements recently introduced, and will seriously consider reorganising the resource centres so that they more adequately serve the schools and the communities.

I express my grave concern about the extrapolation of this process. I am very proud of the progress made in a number of country schools under the schools renewal program, which gave autonomy to local school communities in the operation of their own affairs. From wherever examples may be drawn,

this process of rejuvenation of schools was a success. One matter that particularly lifted the morale of many country schools in the north-west of New South Wales and in more isolated communities was the capacity to attract staff who had seriously considered positions that were available, applied for them, gone before a selection panel and been appointed basically on suitability and merit.

Coonamble is another school where that opportunity was taken up, and the quality of teaching rose dramatically on the basis of the leadership of the principal and senior teachers appointed under that system. I am concerned that in decentralising the delivery of education the ability to control the destiny of the school and to introduce local emphasis will be lost. Indeed, many initiatives gained over the past seven or eight years will be lost. For those reasons I implore the Minister for Education to reconsider this arrangement and to redress the obviously unbalanced decision that has been taken in relation to Coonamble High School.

Motion agreed to.

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:14:39   :   Update this page