Opposition Policy Plagiarism Allegation

Mr TONY STEWART: My question is directed to the Minister for Police, representing the Attorney General. Can the Minister inform the House of the Government's assessment of Opposition policy on judicial accountability, law enforcement and related matters?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The New South Wales Government is committed to giving the community a greater voice in our judicial system, making it more open and more transparent. The legal system can often seem intimidating and out of touch for the general public. That is why the Premier made an election commitment to ensure the community has a voice on the Judicial Commission. Former Commissioner of Police Ken Moroney and Martha Jabour from the Homicide Victims Support Group will represent the community on the commission, which examines complaints made about magistrates and judges. I congratulate them on their appointment. It is our policy to have openness and transparency in the legal system, greater accountability and a voice for the general community. Those opposite, however, are still a little confused about their approach to this all-important issue—

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: —especially their spokesperson and songbird on all things legal—the Michael Bolton of Mobbs Hill, the Bubble of Beecroft, the choirboy of Cheltenham—

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: I will desist from using the language I used with the Minister for Planning yesterday, but you know the standing orders require even the Minister—

Mr Frank Sartor: You haven't withdrawn that yet, Barry.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: You didn't ask, Frank. I assumed you accepted it.

The SPEAKER: Order! What is the Leader of the Opposition's point of order?

Mr Barry O'Farrell: I suggest that you remind the Minister of the standing orders, which do not allow him to use those terms in this House when he is referring to a member.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. As I have ruled on a number of occasions, members should refer to other members by their correct titles.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Last month the shadow Attorney General, the member for Epping, released a policy paper called "Restoring Faith in Justice—Promoting Transparency in Judicial Appointments in New South Wales". He was even kind enough to write his name at the bottom of the paper so we know what his vision is for the New South Wales legal system. Unfortunately, that is the only input he had. It is disturbing when one reads the paper of the member for Epping because it is very familiar. The Opposition document starts by saying that the public is confused about how judges are appointed and that positions should be advertised. He then outlines different models of judicial appointment—and that is where it gets really interesting. I read the opening paragraph of the first model he outlines entitled "Career Judiciary":

In most civil law systems, individuals train for a career either as a lawyer or as a judge. The bench is regarded as another arm of the bureaucracy where promotion through the ranks is determined on the basis of technical ability and seniority.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order No. 128 (1), which states:

The following general rules apply to questions:

(1) Questions cannot be debated.

If the Minister wants to debate Coalition policy, statements or announcements, he should move a substantive motion.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is not debating the question. The Minister is responding to a question that asked him to comment on the impacts of those proposals. The Minister has the call.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I just read one paragraph from this document, and the document goes on, of course. But what is strange is that same opening sentence I just read under the same heading is in an article published in the Melbourne University Law Review in 2003. The paper goes on to state the key proposal of the member for Epping as a Judicial Appointments Commission. This is a body that would cost millions of dollars and in the United Kingdom that has meant a delay of 12 months in getting judges appointed to the bench.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Planning will cease interjecting.

Mr Brad Hazzard: We understand your commitment to ensuring that the standing orders are upheld. Standing Order 130 specifically precludes debating the issue when answering a question. I ask that you enforce that standing order.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have listened very carefully to the Minister's answer. He was asked to comment on the impact of certain proposals. At this stage he is within the leave of the question.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: It seems the member for Wakehurst is a bit jealous. He probably wants to steal someone's policies as well. Also canvassed in this paper is the model adopted by some American States of the Missouri plans. Once again, déjà vu, it was almost identical to that in the 2003 Melbourne University article. The member for Epping goes on to outline his "Way Forward for New South Wales". The university paper did not have a heading that said that; he had to think that up for himself. I will read a couple of sentences from the section headed, "Way Forward for New South Wales":

While there is as yet no definitive empirical evidence on whether such commissions have increased the quality of judicial appointments, it is significant that they have been perceived as having had this effect.

I go back to the Victorian document and read a couple of sentences from it. The sentences might sound familiar because they say:

While there is as yet no definitive empirical evidence on whether such commissions have increased the quality of judicial appointments, it is significant that they have been perceived as having had this effect.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Mr Speaker, you have now had another 3.45 minutes to establish whether the Minister is debating the issue. I ask you to enforce Standing Order 130, which relates to debating the question. Otherwise, I ask you to enforce Standing Order 59, which relates to tedious repetition.

The SPEAKER: Order! The question was in order, and the Minister is answering it. Members often quote from documents and refer to the impact of various policies.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: As the Deputy Premier reminds me, that is the same sentence. The sentence in the document produced by the Opposition and the sentence in the 2003 Melbourne University article are the same. But, wait, there is more! A book entitled The New Judiciary also got the cut-and-paste job from the shadow Attorney General, the member for Epping. He copied a paragraph of the article word for word, but this time he included a footnote, suggesting that he had referenced the idea, not quoted all 105 words. The Opposition, stung by the fact that it has no policies, has simply lifted someone else's policy. The shadow Attorney General was once charged with prosecuting the law. He should now be charged with petty theft. He is touted as one of the Opposition's star recruits.

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will cease interjecting.

Mr Donald Page: Point of order: Standing Order 73 prohibits members making reflections on other members. The Minister has been making a reflection on the member for Epping for about 10 minutes with no possibility for the member for Epping to respond. Mr Speaker, I ask you to rule that the way he is answering the question is in complete contradiction of Standing Order 73.

The SPEAKER: Order! The point of order of the member for Ballina is valid. If members wish to attack other members they should do so by way of substantive motion.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Talk about turning the page! I earlier drew a comparison between the member for Epping and Michael Bolton. I regret that and withdraw the comparison, because I am advised that Michael Bolton has written many of his own songs.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Mr Speaker, you just ruled on Standing Order 73. The Minister is clearly flouting that ruling. Will you please direct him—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. Members should not be thin skinned.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The author of this document, the plagiarist of Pennant Hills, the Helen Demidenko of Dundas Valley, must immediately amend this policy with a footnote—

Mr Chris Hartcher: Mr Speaker, you have previously upheld the Leader of the Opposition's point of order. Members are referred to by their electorates. This Minister is flouting that ruling.

The SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Minister will address members by their correct title. Has the Minister concluded his answer? If not, I ask him to do so.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I have concluded the substance of the answer, but the fact remains that this policy is copied from others and is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Question time concluded.