Phillip Harold Bell Royal Commission Report

Mr WHELAN (Strathfield - Minister for Police) [2.16 p.m.]: Late yesterday the Director-General of the Cabinet Office received correspondence from the Police Integrity Commissioner, Judge Urquhart. It contained a copy of the confidential separate report of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service concerning Phillip Harold Bell and a covering letter. The report examines Bell’s activities from 1959 to 1975 and police investigations of those activities up until 1992. Judge Urquhart’s letter states in part:

I confirm that the copy of that separate Report, which was handed to the Premier by Justice Wood, has been held by me in safe custody at the Premier’s request pending the completion of all proceedings relating to Mr Bell.

By letter dated 7 May 1999 I was informed by the Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions that Mr Bell had filed a Notice of Abandonment in relation to his conviction appeal . . . the appeal is now deemed to have been dismissed by the Court.

I am further informed by the Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions that on 19 April 1999, the Director of Public Prosecutions wrote to Mr Bell advising that he had decided to proceed no further on the other matters remaining in respect of Mr Bell and that there are no outstanding charges in relation to Mr Bell . . .

Given the information which I have received from the Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions, I now advise that the separate Report can be tabled and publicly released.

I table the letter and the report.

[Notices of Motions]

Mr Hunter: Point of order: I remind you of rulings you gave in the previous Parliament relating to the length of notices of motions. Surely this notice falls into that category. I ask you to rule it out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lake Macquarie is correct. During the last Parliament I took a strong stand in relation to the length of notices of motions. It seems to me that the notice the member for Wakehurst is giving is lengthier than those I have allowed in the past. The member for Wakehurst is entitled to finish giving notice of his motion. However, when he has done so I will ask him to hand the notice to me and I will then make a decision in relation to it.

I note that the member for North Shore has not handed her notice of motion to the Clerk. She has informed me that the notice is handwritten. The standing orders provide that notices of motions should be in typed form, if that is possible. If members present their notices in the proper form they avoid the difficulty of remembering and recording the statements they made in the House. On this occasion I will overlook the indiscretion of the honourable member for North Shore. However, if future notices are not presented in compliance with the standing orders I will rule them out of order.