Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 9 November 1993, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. Kevin Richard Rozzoli) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Mr SPEAKER: Order! Further to the resolution of the House of 12th May and my statement to the House on 7th September, I wish to inform honourable members of a request for the continuation of filming the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly after question time. The request was considered by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee at its meeting on Thursday, 28th October. As there is no extra cost involved, the committee agreed that the existing arrangements for filming be allowed to continue after question time until the dinner break, or until 6.15 p.m. when there are no private members' statements or when there is no dinner break. The arrangements will be trialed over the remaining weeks before the summer recess and then reviewed by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee.


Mr Speaker, pursuant to section 78(1) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, laid upon the table the report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption on the investigation into the conduct of Brian Zouch, dated November 1993.

Ordered to be printed.


The following bills were returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:

Marine Pollution (Penalties) Amendment Bill
University of New England Bill
Higher Education (Amalgamation) Amendment Bill
Southern Cross University Bill

Mr CARR: Is the Premier aware of a proposal to create 2,000 apprenticeships with $25 million from the Building Services Corporation? Has this plan been jettisoned because, according to a confidential Cabinet minute, $70 million in BSC funds is to be raided to cover HomeFund losses?

Mr FAHEY: The Leader of the Opposition continues to put facts together that clearly do not stand together. He has asserted today that there is an opportunity to create 2,000 apprenticeships through the Building Services Corporation. Earlier this year the operations and core responsibilities of the Building Services Corporation in terms of the licensing of builders and others connected with the building industry were the subject of an inquiry. It is clear from the resulting report that the building industry could not establish a case for licences in the building industry being independent of all other licences from the Government and other agencies. It had a stand alone arrangement which in the past saw moneys put into the construction and operation of a motel in the Newcastle area. Projects of that nature came from the funds of or fees paid by the building industry. They seemed to have little or no relevance to controls and standards of quality in regard to the licensing of builders.

The Government will not walk away from the fact that there is a need for consumer protection in relation to the licensing of builders. In that regard it will ensure that the community is protected against shoddy workmanship. The Building Services Corporation had that as its prime responsibility before it got into many other areas that were not its core responsibilities. On the question of apprenticeships, it is clear from statistics that there has been a downturn in apprentice intake over the past couple of years. That is of great concern to the Government. It is something that comes first and foremost out of the recession - the Labor induced recession.

There has been a reduction in employment generally and certainly a reduction in employment in the building industry and many other industries that employ tradespeople and apprentices. These events can be traced solely to the Federal Labor Government and the recession it induced and for which it is responsible. The Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment has had a considerable amount of work done to seek ways and means of ensuring that out-of-work apprentices are given every support and to ensure that down the track when there is a return to more employment there will be available through the apprenticeship scheme the appropriate range of skills among young people that will be required.


Mr ZAMMIT: Will the Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services advise the House what steps have been taken to address the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman's report into a complaint of an assault on a motorist in Cabramatta in 1990?

Page 4965

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the honourable member for Strathfield for his question, which reflects a motion passed by this House on 28th October. First, let me repeat what I said to the House on that day: I was ashamed and angered by what the Ombudsman's report disclosed. Today I am pleased to report that all the recommendations made by the Ombudsman have been accepted and are being acted upon. I can assure the House that I shall closely monitor progress to ensure rapid implementation. The Ombudsman made a number of recommendations for disciplinary action to be taken against certain police officers.

I am advised by the commissioner that departmental charges of misconduct have been laid against three officers. Two other officers have been reprimanded regarding their conduct. I am aware also that the Director of Public Prosecutions has said that criminal charges should be laid against a number of officers. I understand that, subject to a full brief of evidence being prepared, it is quite possible that serious criminal proceedings will soon be commenced against two of those officers. In view of this action I do not propose to say anything further in relation to the particular circumstances surrounding this complaint. I will, however, make one general comment. The action taken shows exactly how seriously the Government and the Police Service view the consequences of this disgraceful incident.

That the full force of the criminal law and the police disciplinary system has been employed is a clear example to other police officers that similar conduct is totally unacceptable. Let it also be said that the poor performance of a few individuals should not be allowed to undermine or taint the commendable effort of the many. The focusing of attention on incidents such as these should not have the effect of discouraging the efforts of all those officers who are working so hard to build a Police Service that we can all be proud of. It should also be remembered that the resolution of this matter was made possible by a covert internal police operation. Unlike the disgraceful situation under the discredited Unsworth Government, these matters will not be swept under the carpet by this Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for The Entrance to order. I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Not only are the watchdogs put in place by this Government barking; they are biting, and biting hard.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coogee to order. I call the honourable member for Swansea to order.

Mr GRIFFITHS: There is no place in the Police Service for officers who cannot or will not meet the highest standard of behaviour that the community is entitled to expect from its police officers. Loyalty is a commendable and necessary attribute of a police officer. However, loyalty is false, misplaced and dangerous when used to protect colleagues who have acted improperly. This case aptly illustrates the pitfalls of such loyalty. The Ombudsman's investigation raises a number of issues beyond the actions of individual officers. Those issues relate to police training, professional ethics and race relations. A number of incidents over the past few years have revealed that police and ethnic relations require attention. In response, the Police Service has introduced a number of initiatives.

However, despite these efforts there continues to be a very real concern in my mind. For this reason I sought the assistance of the Ombudsman in inquiring into aspects of police community relations and making recommendations on how the performance of the service might be further improved. In fact, I met with Mr Landa this morning to discuss the inquiry, and I expect the terms of reference to be settled very shortly. The Ombudsman's report highlighted concerns about the training and qualification of internal investigators. The Ombudsman recommended a review of the internal investigators course. He recommended also that successful completion of this course be a mandatory minimum requirement for all internal investigators.

The object of these recommendations is to ensure that officers undertaking internal investigations are appropriately qualified. This objective has my strong personal support and is totally accepted by the Police Service. However, there are qualifications other than completion of the investigators course that equip an officer to handle internal inquiries quite competently. An officer who has completed the detectives course and has a number of years of criminal investigatory experience would be just as capable of handling an internal inquiry as an officer who has less practical experience but has completed the internal investigators course.

It is therefore proposed to implement the Ombudsman's recommendation by developing a set of criteria, compliance with any one of which will qualify an officer to undertake internal investigations. The commander assigning the investigation must also accept responsibility for his or her decision to assign the matter to a particular investigator. The commander must be satisfied that the officer taking the case has the capacity to complete the investigation properly. Matters such as skill, demands on time and relationship to persons involved in the investigation will have to be carefully considered.

In addition to reviewing the content of the internal investigators course, action will also be taken to widen the opportunity for officers to undertake the course. Special attention will first be given to providing training to officers in areas identified as having a comparatively high frequency of complaints. I believe the Police Service is making a genuine and determined effort to work with all sectors of our community. Like all institutions in our society, the police are challenged by the changing nature of Australia. This Parliament faces the same challenge if it is to reflect truly the people it serves.

Page 4966

I believe the depth of the Police Service commitment to delivering effective policing in a multicultural society is reflected in the range of initiatives that are already in place. There is a genuine effort to recruit officers from Aboriginal and non-English speaking backgrounds. The goal is for the composition of the Police Service to reflect the multicultural community that it serves. A committee with community representation has been established to advise on the recruitment of officers from Asian backgrounds. An interim report is expected by the end of the year and a final report is due by 31st March, 1994.

The Ombudsman's report detailed shocking and shameful activities by police officers. Those officers will be dealt with severely. The serious deficiencies in police practice that were revealed will also be rectified. I am confident that the Police Service is genuinely striving to make itself more responsive to the community. I remain confident that there is no endemic racism in the Police Service. However, it needs to be remembered that the attitudes of the service will reflect the attitudes of the society towards ethnic minorities. If we are to build a truly multicultural Australia, the attitudes of many police and many Australians must change. I believe that the Police Service has the necessary strategies in place to achieve change. I also believe that this process will be enhanced by the forthcoming inquiry to be conducted by the Ombudsman.


Mrs GRUSOVIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier and Minister for Economic Development. Is he aware of a submission from the Master Plumbers Association seeking Building Services Corporation funding to employ 170 apprentices? Does the Premier's decision to rip $70 million out of the Building Services Corporation mean that this vital job creation proposal will not go ahead?

Mr FAHEY: The honourable member for Heffron knows that if she wants details of such matters she should ask the relevant Minister. The relevant Minister is in the Chamber and would be aware of any submission from an employer group, such as the Master Plumbers Association. I shall get information on the Master Plumbers Association submission - if there is one - and report to the honourable member for Heffron in due course.


Mr RICHARDSON: Is the Minister for Transport and Minister for Roads aware of criticism by the Opposition and unions of the Roads and Traffic Authority's DRIVES computer system? Could the Minister advise how the DRIVES system was rated by -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not sure whether the Minister for Transport and Minister for Roads heard the question. I certainly could not hear the last part of it. The Chair does not appreciate outbursts such as those that have just taken place. Among the reasons that a question should be heard in silence are, first, so that the Minister to whom the question is directed can hear it and, second, so that all members in the Chamber and people in the public galleries can hear the question. I ask the honourable member for The Hills to repeat his question.

Mr RICHARDSON: Is the Minister for Transport and Minister for Roads aware of criticism by the Opposition and unions of the Roads and Traffic Authority's DRIVES computer system? Could the Minister advise how the DRIVES system was rated by the Australian Information Industry Association recently?

Mr BAIRD: Now that I have heard the honourable member's question properly I shall be delighted to answer him and outline the real situation relating to the DRIVES program.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Illawarra to order.

Mr BAIRD: Many hundreds of people within the RTA are expecting an apology from the honourable member for Kogarah for his absolutely outrageous allegations about the DRIVES program. He continues to complain about DRIVES. The honourable member issues press release after press release: "RTA - (still) driving your dollar further into the ground"; "Another DRIVES bungle". The Daily Telegraph Mirror reported "Blunder may have cost $80m". The honourable member constantly attempts to insult the group working on the DRIVES program.

Mr Carr: Tell us about the Olympics, Bruce. Wear your Olympic tie.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.

Mr BAIRD: I will get to the Leader of the Opposition in a minute.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time.

Mr BAIRD: Honourable members may recall that in September this year -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to order.

Mr BAIRD: - the honourable member for Kogarah claimed that up to 8,000 motorists had been issued with the wrong registration labels. In fact, as I informed the House at that time, only a handful of people were involved, not 8,000. The truth has never stopped the honourable member for Kogarah, as honourable members know. Over the past two years the honourable member has issued a series of press releases discrediting DRIVES and the conscientious RTA staff who operate the system. In January last year he said that DRIVES was a giant stuff-up. In August last year he went so far as to call for a public inquiry into the RTA and its computer system. His latest press release, dated 16th September, was headed
Page 4967
"Another DRIVES bungle". He went on about how DRIVES was the biggest disaster and the need for a public inquiry. The DRIVES bungle was the end of the world as we know it, according to the gospel of Brian.

One month later the RTA received from the Federal Minister for Industry the Australian Information Industry Association national award for excellence, the top award in the country for outstanding excellence. These awards are intended to recognise the best application of information technology to business problems in Australia. Again the honourable member for Kogarah was wrong, wrong and wrong. DRIVES has exceeded its original targets. Waiting times for simple transactions have been slashed. For instance, it now takes an average of two minutes to renew a vehicle registration and just over four minutes to issue a photo licence. According to surveys carried out, three out of every four customers have said that they believe service has improved since the introduction of DRIVES.

At the same time DRIVES is saving the taxpayer $18 million a year. RTA officials are already working on further ways in which DRIVES can be used in the fight against car theft. A register of written off vehicles will be set up to stop stolen vehicles being registered using the details of written off vehicles. DRIVES will also be used to help wipe out fraud in driver knowledge tests. The computer system will automatically record each applicant's results to eliminate any chance of fraud or mistakes. The honourable member for Kogarah continues to criticise the DRIVES program instead of proclaiming what it can produce: savings of $18 million and reduced waiting times in RTA offices. He should not forget that a couple of weeks ago DRIVES won a national award. It is plain that the Opposition does not understand roads. The Leader of the Opposition exemplified that when he visited the North Coast.

Mr Photios: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If I am to deliberate on the point of order I need to hear it clearly. The Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs has the call. I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order for the second time.

Mr Photios: When the honourable member for The Hills was asking his question you called for decorum in the House so that you and honourable members could hear the question. At this end of the House honourable members are finding it absolutely impossible to hear the Minister because for the past three minutes the honourable member for Port Stephens has been doing a race call and flagrantly disregarding the decorum of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard what the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs has said, and I appreciate his advice. I do not always notice immediately everything that occurs at the far end of the Chamber. I shall now give the member for Port Stephens my closest attention.

Mr BAIRD: I remind the House that the Opposition does not understand the issue of roads. Recently the plans of the Leader of the Opposition to overcome the problems of the Pacific Highway were quoted in the Coffs Harbours Advocate. He pledged $300 million to upgrade the Pacific Highway to a four-lane divided road from Newcastle to Queensland.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Newcastle to order. I call the honourable member for Eastwood to order. I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order.

Mr BAIRD: The Roads and Traffic Authority estimates that the $300 million would provide a four-lane highway only for 37.5 kilometres of the 700 kilometres. In addition, the Leader of the Opposition would use the $300 million to replace the Raleigh Bridge and upgrade Main Road 76, the major North Coast link from Bellingen to Armidale.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order. I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the third time.

Mr BAIRD: The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition is about $3 billion short.


Mr MOSS: My question without notice is directed to the Premier and Minister for Economic Development. Has the HomeFund Commissioner said that the Government's mismanagement could "have a serious impact on the State's finances and Budget?" What impact will the restructure of HomeFund have on the State's debt and credit rating?

Mr FAHEY: In recent days there has been some conjecture about liability in respect of HomeFund and comments have been noted, particularly those of the Auditor-General. The HomeFund Commissioner has commented also on his broad inquiry into the matter and his endeavour to seek as much information as possible to adjudicate - as is his responsibility - on liability in individual cases. I note that at this stage the commissioner has not made any adjudication on any individual case. In his discussions he has indicated that he has some interest in the ultimate restructure or otherwise of HomeFund. Honourable members know that the restructuring of HomeFund has been on the agenda for a considerable time. Companies such as the AMP and others put forward proposals in the earlier part of this year. I assure honourable members that those proposals have been, and will continue to be, examined thoroughly. I hope that sufficient data, including actuarial advice, will become available soon to enable Cabinet to give some consideration to that question.

I should like first to deal with liability. It is unclear whether liability will ultimately be determined in individual cases to be in the hands of the lawyers, the co-operatives, FANMAC, the borrowers or the Department of Housing. The commissioner has the responsibility of determining that in due course. It is,
Page 4968
therefore, extremely difficult to talk about where liability might lie. Having regard to some of the speculation that occurred last week and to some of the comments the commissioner made about the background, honourable members should never forget that the scheme was started by Labor.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order for the second time.

Mr FAHEY: Honourable members should never forget that Labor actively promoted the HomeFund program as a means of ensuring that housing was made available to a particular section of the community.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Heffron to order.

Mr FAHEY: In the time that has elapsed since Labor commenced the scheme - which, I might say, the Government embraced when it came to office in 1988 as a means of providing housing for low income earners - nothing has been heard from the Opposition except claims that it is all the Government's fault.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bulli to order. I call the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to order for the second time.

Mr FAHEY: A committee has been deliberating on this matter for some considerable time. Blame has been laid at the feet of everyone except the Labor Party, which initiated the entire scheme, and, of course, two particular employees of the honourable member for Heffron, who are beyond reproach in the eyes of the Opposition. Everyone else is tainted, but the Opposition washes it hands of responsibility for the whole matter. Recently I came across a brochure promoting HomeFund loans. It is worthy of examination. The brochure does not hide Labor's links with the scheme. I concede that in that respect the brochure is honest. It hails HomeFund as a Labor initiative and goes on to say that the scheme should be expanded.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Heffron to order for the second time.

Mr FAHEY: It says that the scheme should be expanded to offer home loans to more people. The only thing missing, says the brochure, is the Government's will to act. I also have a letter to a co-operative housing society, seeking the co-operative's support for the expansion of HomeFund. The letter says:

FANMAC has proved its worth through the HomeFund Low Start loan scheme and no-one can question the efficiency of the Co-operative Housing Societies.

While HomeFund Low Start loans are an excellent product . . .

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection in the Chamber.

Mr FAHEY: The Opposition does not want to hear this. The letter continues:

. . . now is the ideal time to move to expand the role of FANMAC and hence the Co-operative Housing Societies.

The letter also says:

Should the State Government facilitate such an expansion there is no doubt in my mind that N.S.W. homebuyers will be significantly better off.

No doubt in whose mind? Whose mind are we talking about? Is this some greedy FANMAC bondholder? Is it some member of the Government who is trying to promote this? The author is the honourable member for Campbelltown.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs to order.

Mr FAHEY: Yet here he is criticising the Government, urging the co-operative -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs to order for the second time.

Mr FAHEY: The hypocrisy of Labor! It continues to do its utmost to bring this particular scheme down, to do its utmost to destroy the housing industry, to do its utmost to play the political game to the detriment of so many individuals in this matter. I can understand the honourable member for Campbelltown doing an about turn as he sits on this committee.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Burrinjuck to order.

Mr FAHEY: As honourable members know, he has had some difficulty wrestling between the Left and the Right in recent times, wrestling with his conscience on that matter.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Cronulla to order.

Mr FAHEY: The motive behind this turnaround by the honourable member for Campbelltown is to ensure that in that race call that the honourable member for Port Stephens is so busily broadcasting to his colleagues at that end of the bench he comes up shortening in the odds and comes a little closer, not just to getting to the frontbench, but to moving right to the frontbench, where the true deceiver is sitting.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Monaro to order. I call the honourable member for Burrinjuck to order for the second time.

Mr FAHEY: Of course, he has to have all the qualities of Vintage Crop if he is going to make it because he has to be a hurdler as well; he has to jump over the honourable member for Liverpool on the way through to the top spot. Honourable members know that there is no such thing as a Vintage Crop on the opposite side of the House.


Mr FRASER: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Is the Minister aware that the Opposition recently launched a water management
Page 4969
proposal for New South Wales? If so, has he been advised how this would affect existing water management authorities, particularly on the North Coast?

Mr SOURIS: Some months ago, before the honourable member for Mount Druitt went away on a bit of a holiday, he issued a discussion paper amongst water users -

Mr Beckroge: On a point of order. The honourable member for Mount Druitt had the leave of this House to attend a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order involved.

Mr SOURIS: The point is, the honourable members does not want to be away for too long because while he is away his leader is likely to rush out one day and produce an Opposition policy on water. Here it is on a single sheet of paper, a press release, issued in Dubbo last week.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection. The Chair appreciates that much of the interjection is of a good humoured nature. However, the proceedings of this House must be conducted with decorum and in a manner that enables honourable members to hear what is being said.

Mr SOURIS: I am sure the honourable member for Mount Druitt would have been winging his way home if he had known that the Leader of the Opposition would be in Dubbo about a week ago making his announcement. "Labor Leader outlines water management policy". That is it. There is no need for a big survey. There is no need for anything else. There it is, a single sheet of paper. Honourable members will note that it says:

The Labor policy will establish a North Coast water authority with responsibility for water supply and sewerage.

I am interested to know who on the Opposition benches said, "Hear, hear!" I do not know whether it was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the honourable member for Port Stephens.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Murwillumbah to order. I call the honourable member for Port Stephens to order.

Mr SOURIS: On that particular day I had a conversation with eight National Party members of Parliament all along the North Coast who are deeply concerned about the implications of this policy for their electorates. I spoke to the honourable member for Murwillumbah, the honourable member for Ballina, the honourable member for Lismore, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and Minister for Mines, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting the Minister for Roads and Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Oxley and the honourable member for Myall Lakes.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Liverpool to order. I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order. I call the honourable member for Ashfield to order.

Mr SOURIS: The National Party thanks the Labor leader for announcing such a policy, giving us a wonderful platform in the lead up to the next election. The Leader of the Opposition proposes to remove responsibility for water, sewerage and drainage from 15 local government authorities along the North Coast, from the Hastings River to the Queensland border, and establish the most massive bureaucracy the State has seen in a long time -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Oxley to order.

Mr SOURIS: - a bureaucracy that would be centrally located and would need about a thousand vehicles to operate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Monaro to order for the second time.

Mr SOURIS: It would cause several thousand job losses in local government water, sewerage and drainage authorities up and down the coast. It is hard to believe that the Leader of the Opposition, in the absence of his spokesman on water resources, would be so mad as to go inland to Dubbo and announce a policy that will devastate local government, because that proposal would remove the autonomy of local government, taking away its major functions in respect of water, sewerage and drainage management.

I and my colleagues on this side of the House have a great respect for local government. We believe that local autonomy, local decision-making and local management is the way to go in respect of these very sensitive issues - issues which, under the proposal of the Australian Labor Party, would give a massive bureaucracy jurisdiction over a complex array of various rivers and catchments and water authorities up and down the North Coast, a bureaucracy that would be almost impossible to organise and operate in such a way that it could have any form of policy or uniformity.

Indeed, it seeks to destroy the vital role of total catchment management, a movement that has been gaining ground since 1989, when it was introduced into the Parliament by my colleague the Minister for Public Works and Ports. From that point it has become the flavour of the decade, the most respected conservation and land management movement in New South Wales. The Labor Party's policy would seek to destroy the vital role that catchment management plays in respect of water management and resources of this State. Indeed, so concerned was local government when it became aware of the contents of the Labor policy that the Northern Rivers Regional Organisation of Councils issued a statement which in part reads:

NOROC is particularly concerned at any proposal which attempts to take water and sewerage management out of the hands of the community and place it in the hands of

Page 4970
some new superbody . . . What we reject, however, is the whole takeover mentality which effectively takes decision-making away from the community and places it in the hands of a centralised bureaucracy.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Port Stephens to order for the second time.

Mr SOURIS: Referring to Mr Chris Clare, the Secretary of NOROC, the statement continued:

Mr Clare said in country areas the community tended to be closely involved in decisions relating to water and sewerage. This could at times cause delays because of the need to resolve community debates, however NOROC considered the process healthy, enabling the issues to be determined with real community input.

So concerned was NOROC that it made contact with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr Clare stated:

We have recommended to Dr Refshauge that the Opposition should have discussions with local communities and their representatives before proceeding further down this track.

The response from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was:

He has undertaken to address our concerns and indicated his own strong sympathy for retention of decision-making at a local level . . .

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Monaro to order for the third time.

Mr SOURIS: At this stage the Opposition spokesperson for water is out of the country, the Leader of the Opposition is making statements and writing cheques that he cannot cash, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is contradicting him completely. On behalf of the National Party, and especially my eight hard-working North Coast National Party colleagues, I thank the Opposition for such a ridiculous policy and for the opportunity to campaign as hard as we intend to campaign to unite the 15 North Coast councils and communities with our cause, which is to retain local autonomy for water, sewerage and drainage, to retain jobs in those areas and keep the decision-making where it is best kept.


Mr HATTON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services. In the Frenchs Forest investigation did Assistant Commissioner Cole admit that he was recreant in his duty, amongst other things, in not promptly reporting matters to the Ombudsman and to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, according to law? In light of the Minister's strong statements today on police involved in the Cabramatta matter and disciplinary action taken against other police officers in the Frenchs Forest investigation, what action is to be taken against Mr Cole?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the honourable member for South Coast for his question. I will certainly have it researched in detail. I think the honourable member for South Coast will respect that, because we are now talking specifically of a line said by Assistant Commissioner Cole. I will provide an answer from the evidence given so that the answer is proper, and I will also give it in writing.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order for the third time.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Given the status of Assistant Commissioner Cole as of today, there is no way that disciplinary action can be taken against him until he is dealt with by the Police Board and the Crime Commission. Honourable members should remember that there is no time limit on when Assistant Commissioner Cole can be brought before the Police Board or the Crime Commission, particularly the Crime Commission, even if he has subsequently left the service. It is impossible to discipline the man without the hearing being completed.


Mr HATTON: I ask a supplementary question. Does that mean that Mr Cole continues on full pension benefits until he is dealt with?

Mr GRIFFITHS: As I indicated to the House two weeks ago, the board had determined on medical advice that Assistant Commissioner Cole should have the opportunity to present for medical assessment by the superannuation board to see if he is medically unfit to continue. I emphasise to the House that that will be the third independent medical assessment of Assistant Commissioner Cole. Until that medical examination takes place, it would be improper for me to comment further.


Mr TINK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister for the Ageing. Will the Minister provide the House with details of any plans the Government has for new programs to support people with disabilities who are leaving school?

Mr LONGLEY: I thank the honourable member for Eastwood for his question. I know that this is an area in which he has a particular concern because he has made representations to me on behalf of a number of his constituents, as indeed have a number of honourable members on this side of the House, with regard to Karonga school. Today is an historic day for people with disabilities in the community, and, indeed, for the New South Wales Parliament. Following this morning's Cabinet meeting, an historic first-ever meeting was held between the ministerial committee on disability and the New South Wales Disability Council. The Premier today affirmed the Government's statement of principles for people with disabilities and their families.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Campbelltown to order.

Page 4971

Mr LONGLEY: These fundamental principles are enshrined in the Disability Services Act which passed through the Parliament earlier this year. The application of these principles and the disability service standards will ensure the provision of quality services for people with disabilities in the community. Today we have also announced a new $3.6 million post-school options program. It marks a turning point in the forward planning and development of flexible service options for our school-leavers with disabilities and their families. Everyone knows that New South Wales leads Australia in achievements for people with disabilities. Today's announcements are exactly the types of positive, substantive initiatives that will ensure that we continue to lead Australia and to meet the real needs of our community.

Let me recount some of our achievements in the disabilities area: the establishment of the Guardianship Board of New South Wales; the Disability Services Act; the Commonwealth-State disability agreement, which over the next three years will improve existing accommodation and existing support services in New South Wales, as well as establish new services; the complaints and appeals legislation; the creation of a Commission of Community Services; the launch of the brain injury action plan and an additional commitment of $1.4 million to help meet the long-term care and support needs of people with an acquired brain injury; and the establishment of area disability and community support services committees to ensure that people with disabilities, their families and their carers have a much greater say in service planning development and delivery.

In addition to those achievements, we have had the announcement today of the post-school options program, which involves a major financial commitment of an additional $3.6 million a year. This new program will ensure that school-leavers with disabilities, their families and carers will receive the assistance and support they require. Under the program post-school options to be developed across the State at the beginning of next year will be more flexible and responsive to the needs of individual school-leavers. In the first year the program will assist 290 school-leavers who have moderate to high support needs through the establishment of a range of appropriate community access, day activity and independent living planning programs. The program will also assist up to 200 individuals and their families through the establishment of additional respite care cottages in high priority areas of the State.

I acknowledge that this exciting program owes much to the work of my colleague in another place the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism and Minister Assisting the Premier, who has worked particularly hard to ensure that students with disabilities upon graduating receive the services and support that they individually require to live in and fully participate in the life of the community. With the passage earlier this year of the Disability Services Act and the signing of the Commonwealth-State disability agreement, the framework for ensuring the co-ordinated and integrated establishment and provision of quality of disability services in our State is in place.

Today's announcement of $3.6 million of new funding, along with the Premier's affirmation of the statement of principles, is a further positive step forward and shows once again that New South Wales is leading Australia in achievements and initiatives for people in our community with disabilities. All members of this Parliament can be very proud of both today's announcement and the Government's ongoing work with and commitment to people with disabilities in our State.


Mr SMITH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and Minister for Mines. Has the Government reached an agreement with developers which will see Paddy's Markets resume at the Haymarket? How will this agreement affect stallholders?

Mr CAUSLEY: I thank the honourable member for Bega for his question and for his interest in this subject.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne to order.

Mr CAUSLEY: I also note that there were a lot of representations at the beginning of question time about the number of questions which should be asked during question time. The Opposition treats the Parliament with contempt. Where is the Leader of the Opposition? He has gone, as have a number of other members of the Opposition. That is how interested they are in question time.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Eastwood to order for the second time.

Mr CAUSLEY: I made it very clear in a statement to this House -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr CAUSLEY: - the last time we met that I had lost patience with the developer, Kajima. They would not give us a certificate of completion to allow the stallholders at Paddy's Market to return to the Haymarket. I made it perfectly clear that the Government would use all the powers it had legally and under statute to ensure that the stallholders would be returned. I am pleased to say that after negotiations, which were long and tortuous, an agreement was reached last Friday morning. The developer, Kajima, agreed to give a certificate of completion to allow the Sydney Market Authority to go on site, to fit out and to allow the stallholders back to the Haymarket. That fitout will cost about $2 million and unless there is some disruption, from either a group in that area or from a union dispute, the stallholders will be back in the Haymarket before Christmas. I promised I would do that.

I want to make it clear that the negotiations were complex. There is no doubt that the developer, Kajima, did not want the stallholders back in the Haymarket. They obviously saw the site as being
Page 4972
prime for a lot better development than a market such as the Paddy's Markets. The Government had a commitment to the stallholders, unlike the commitment given by the previous Labor Government, which threw them out on the street with nowhere to go. The Government has given a commitment to get those stallholders back. Uppermost in my mind during negotiations was the fact that we had to get the stallholders back to the Haymarket.

There has always been a sticking point in this particular issue: the assignment of the lease under the legislation which was drawn up by the previous Labor Government. A number of stallholders have spoken to me and have said that they would like to run the market themselves and that they should be taken out of the hands of the Sydney Market Authority. The sticking point always was that if we were going to assign the lease, it had to have the agreement of Kajima, the developer. That was in the legislation we were left with by the previous Labor Government: we had to get the agreement of the developer to assign the lease if the stallholders wanted to run the market themselves.

I am mindful of the fact that we had a threat of legal action, which could have drawn on for two years and would not have seen the stallholders back at the Haymarket. The Government had an agreement with Kajima to ensure we got the stallholders back. We agreed that on the assignment of the lease it would be for only 10 years rather than 99 years, as was provided in previous legislation. I make it very clear to the stallholders that there will be no assignment to the lease, not even to the stallholders, unless it is brought back to this Parliament. I give that undertaking. I think that will alleviate any fears that might be dreamt up by members opposite, including the honourable member for Port Stephens who, like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is prone to make statements.

There are a number of other issues. The weekend press raised the question of the rents of the stallholders and said that they have been finding it very difficult to carry on a business at Redfern. I want to make it clear that in the negotiations we managed to get an agreement from Kajima that there would be no increase in rents in 1993 - in August, the rents will be the same as are being paid at Redfern at the present time. The stallholders will be able to get back to the Haymarket and establish their businesses again. Any fear that there will be an increase in rents is unfounded. I assure the House that I will give a direction to the Sydney Market Authority that the rents will not be increased and that they will be maintained at the level they are in Redfern.

It has been the practice of the Sydney Market Authority to take a 10 per cent commission of the value of stalls when the stallholders have sold their stalls. In an attempt to help the stallholders, the Government has decided that this practice will cease. The Sydney Market Authority will not be placing a 10 per cent charge on stallholders for the sale of their stalls. However, over the years some practices at the markets have been hard to follow. One in particular is that stallholders, even though they are tenants, somewhere along the line have been allowed annual holidays and sick leave. I find this hard to justify in a situation in which they are not employees but tenants. That practice will have to cease because we cannot allow such conditions in a commercial lease. That has to be understood.

There is no doubt that the current legislation will protect stallholders. The majority of stallholders are pleased that the Government had the tenacity to see the matter through and to get them back to the Haymarket. If no one causes problems, we will get them back to the Haymarket before Christmas. The honourable member for Port Stephens may snigger away as he usually does about these issues. All he has wanted to do is cause trouble and to take a position with some stallholders who do not want to go back to the Haymarket. All his actions have been designed to cause friction within the group so that the stallholders do not get back to the Haymarket. I was determined to get them back and the Government has got them back. With the concessions that the Government has made, stallholders will be able to establish themselves in a sound business back at the Haymarket.


Pursuant to section 57(4) and (5) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the Clerk announced receipt of report No. 74 of the Public Accounts Committee into financing of urban infrastructure.


Mr SPEAKER: In accordance with the sessional order I draw the attention of the House to the following unanswered question upon notice: No. 1492, standing in the name of the Chief Secretary and Minister for Adminstrative Services.

Mrs COHEN: That question was submitted on 5th November.


Petition praying that the House will enact legislation to reintroduce capital punishment in extreme cases of murder where there is absolutely no doubt that the offender committed the crime, received from Mr Windsor.

Petition praying that the House will consider the installation of emergency telephones on the F6 Freeway from Yallah to the north of Wollongong, received from Mr Rumble.

Page 4973

Petition praying that stage 2 of the Phillip Parkway, Rooty Hill, linking Eastern Road with the Great Western Highway, will receive high priority, received from Mr Amery.

Petition praying that CountryLink timetables be maintained, received from Mr Glachan.

Petition praying that laws relating to road accident fatality or injury be re-evaluated, received from Mr Mills.

Petition praying that the House will call for a referendum asking the people of New South Wales to vote on the provision of capital punishment for those people who are convicted of a violent crime, received from Dr Kernohan.

Petitions praying that the House not pass those sections of the Anti-Discrimination (Amendment) Bill that make unlawful vilification on the ground of homosexuality, received from Mr Gaudry and Dr Refshauge.

Petition praying that the Government provide a safe playground at Temora Public School, received from Mr Cruickshank.

Petition praying that Camden District Hospital not be privatised and that children's services be reopened to make the hospital fully operational, received from Dr Refshauge.

Petition praying that the children's ward of Shellharbour Public Hospital be reopened, received from Mr Rumble.

Petition praying that Berkeley Police Station be manned on a 24-hour basis and foot patrols be introduced, received from Mr Rumble.

Petition praying that more police be allocated to Warilla Police Station, received from Mr Rumble.

Petition praying that the House provide, as a matter of urgency, a permanent police station at Ingleburn and upgrade the existing police station at Macquarie Fields, received from Mr Knowles.

Petitions praying that the House reject any policy by the New South Wales Police Service to introduce rotational transfer, received from Mr Face, Mr Gaudry, Mr Hunter and Mr Mills.

Petition praying that the House order the establishment of a commission of inquiry under the environmental protection Act to consider the environmental and fiscal effects of the Multi Arts Centre proposed for Caroline Bay, East Gosford, order a half-term election for the ten aldermen of Gosford City Council on 18th September, 1993, and order the council to cease expenditure on the centre until the results of the election become known, received from Mr McBride.


Motion, by leave, by Mr West agreed to:

That, at 10.50 a.m. on Thursday, 11th November 1993, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would preclude the interruption of any business then before the House for the consideration of the following motion with debate being interrupted at 11 a.m. and the question being put:

(1) That this House commemorates the 75th anniversary of Armistice Day; and

(2) That members and officers of the House stand in silence for two minutes in remembrance of those who have made the supreme sacrifice.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the passing on 29th October of a resolution that Parliament, other than areas designated by the Presiding Officers, be a smoke-free environment and inviting the council to pass a similar resolution.


Mr SMITH (Bega) [3.22]: I bring up and lay upon the table of the House the report of the Select Committee upon Public Sector Superannuation Schemes.

Ordered to be printed.

Mr SMITH: I also lay upon the table of the House the minutes of evidence taken before the committee and associated documents. I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The Select Committee upon Public Sector Superannuation Schemes, under its terms of reference, was asked to examine the accuracy of the Government's costing projections and whether the funding for existing superannuation schemes was adequate to achieve a manageable level of unfunded liability and to finance current and future benefit payments. It was also asked to examine the adequacy of the First State Superannuation Scheme and undertake a comparison of the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme with other public sector
Page 4974
superannuation schemes. I am pleased to report to the Parliament that the committee came to a consensus on the recommendations tabled in the report.

Apart from the discrepancy highlighted in the Government Actuary's review, the committee accepts the accuracy of the Government's costing projections arrived at by Mercer, Campbell, Cook and Knight. The committee is satisfied on the evidence it received that the Government's current program of funding of the existing superannuation schemes is adequate to achieve a manageable level of unfunded liabilities and finance current and future benefit payments. The committee recommends that the New South Wales Government monitor the ability of the First State Superannuation Scheme to provide an adequate retirement benefit in relation to future trends in government superannuation charge levels and productivity bargaining.

The State superannuation office should continue to strongly encourage all members of the First State Superannuation Scheme to make their own contributions towards the scheme. It is generally recognised that it is no longer appropriate for governments, irrespective of their political persuasion, to sustain and finance major capital works projects from unfunded superannuation liabilities. This concern has been expressed by economic experts within government and by rating agencies such as Standard and Poor's and Moody's. This advice cannot be ignored. The Government cannot hope to maintain its triple-A credit rating if it does not make a concerted effort to ensure that unfunded liabilities in government superannuation schemes are under control.

This is important not only in the Government's inner budget sector, but also for government trading enterprises, the Government having moved some time ago to instruct GTEs to work towards having funded superannuation schemes. With regard to the sustainability of the First State Superannuation Scheme, honourable members should understand that employment in the public service is no longer regarded as being as secure as it previously was. In the general community people not only change jobs many times during their career, but in fact change vocation, it has been reported, on average three times in their working lifetime. That trend would appear to be accelerating.

The First State Superannuation Scheme is an accumulation-style scheme. The entitlements of members are fully portable and can move with the changes that an employee may make during his working life. Of course, in this type of scheme the amount of money received on retirement depends on the amount contributed to the scheme and the level of investment income generated on that capital, less taxes and charges. The employee bears the risk on the rate of return for this type of investment, whereas the SASS was a defined benefits scheme. The benefits under that scheme were usually specified in terms of a multiple of final average salary over the last two years or so of a member's employment, and the member, or employee, did not bear any risk.

Though an accumulation-style superannuation scheme, such as the First State Superannuation Scheme, is most desirable, modern and transportable, employees should be encouraged to contribute towards their retirement themselves. The committee has recommended that the State superannuation office should continue to strongly encourage members of the FSSS to make their own contributions and thereby take some responsibility for their retirement and the standard of living they expect at retirement. The catalyst for the closure of the SASS and the introduction of the FSSS was the Federal Government's legislation introducing the government superannuation charge. This charge, which starts at 5 per cent - 3 per cent for small businesses - and rises to 9 per cent, is giving a clear direction to all employers within the Australian economy that the Federal Government believes that these are the appropriate levels at this particular time for employers to contribute to superannuation schemes.

It is therefore my opinion that the State Government, as a major employer in the New South Wales and Australian economy, should not seek to outdo the private sector on superannuation contributions. There was much debate within the committee on an appropriate level of superannuation on which an employee could adequately retire. It was suggested that 12 per cent to 15 per cent may be the appropriate level. However, it must be remembered that 70 per cent of employees in the private sector are employed by small businesses, many of whom, up until the imposition of the government superannuation guarantee charge, would not have contributed to employees' superannuation at all. If they had done so, they would have contributed possibly at a much lower level than the corporate sector. One could also debate that employer contributions to employee superannuation schemes are a direct trade-off for wages. An examination of the national wage case decision, which provided for voluntary 3 per cent superannuation in awards, would suggest that there was no definitive direction as to whether it was a trade-off or not, and therefore arguments could be mounted for either case.

It is my belief and that of some committee members that it is the Government's role to be able to choose its own social priorities. One government, because of its priorities, may choose to contribute to the FSSS above the government superannuation charge, whereas another government may choose to contribute only that which it is legally bound to contribute under the GSC, preferring to expend moneys on different priorities for social justice or in other unrelated areas. I believe that the decision of the select committee allows the government of the day to make those decisions about priorities. Of course, we are told persistently that our population is ageing and that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Federal Government to provide adequate pensions to those who have reached retirement age. Far fewer people are working to provide pensions to the growing number of retirees.

Page 4975

I take this opportunity to thank the previous committee chairman, the Hon. Ray Chappell, who due to his elevation to the ministry was unable to complete the report. That left me in the unenviable position of taking over the chairmanship midstream. I also thank all members of the committee for the amicable and constructive way in which they discussed and resolved issues. It was a clear example of how select committees should work. I particularly thank committee staff, and I extend my appreciation for the most efficient and dedicated way in which Ms Catherine Watson, the committee's project officer, Ms Kendy McLean, assistant committee officer, and Mr Merv Sheather, committee clerk, carried out their duties.

Debate adjourned.


Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.30]: I move:

That this House calls on the Fahey Government to cancel the hospital licence granted to Australian Medical Enterprises to establish a hospital adjacent to St George Hospital.

I bring to the attention of the House a matter that goes to the heart of the integrity of health care in New South Wales. In September, under delegated authority of this Government, former Justice Yeldham approved a licence for a private company to run a hospital adjacent to St George Hospital at Kogarah. That company is a subsidiary of the now notorious National Medical Enterprises. The Fahey Government has blundered once more. This decision was made only weeks before a United States Federal Court judgment forced National Medical Enterprises to make the largest payout for medifraud in United States history - $125 million.

That judgment was delivered only weeks before a Singapore High Court judgment forced NME to pay $1 million compensation after it found that the company had engaged in the notorious practice of patient trading. In making the decision the Fahey Government also chose to ignore NME's perilous financial position, a position wherein NME's financial rating was downgraded twice in six months and a leading US brokerage firm predicted NME's bankruptcy within the current financial year. This matter is urgent because the Fahey Government's liaison with Australian Medical Enterprises goes further than just the St George development.

Today I can reveal the Fahey Government's secret deal to have AME set up shop on a second teaching hospital campus, this time in western Sydney. However, there is an issue of even graver concern. AME has now demonstrated the same lack of ethical behaviour here as its parent company has demonstrated in the United States and in Singapore. I can reveal that the company has already flouted the strict terms under which its licence was granted by the independent arbiter, a breach that should lead to an immediate cancellation of licence. In his decision former Justice Yeldham set tough conditions for the granting of licences to AME. I am compelled to inform the House that AME has breached those conditions - conditions set in the full view of this Parliament. The conditions were:

Neither the applicant (AME Hospitals) nor AME shall have at any time a board of directors (including any alternate directors) comprising a majority in number of directors who are present or former directors, secretaries, or executive officers (within the meaning of the Corporations Law) of any of:

(A) NME Incorporated;

(B) Any body which a related body corporate to NME within the meaning of section 50 of the Corporations Law; or

(C) Any company (other than AME or any subsidiary of AME) which is an associate of NME within the meaning of division 2 of part 1.2 of the Corporations Law.

AME has seven directors; three are Australians, four are not. In a blatant breach of the Yeldham agreement AME has appointed four directors or alternate directors to its board who are all directors and senior executives of NME. AME director Michael H. Focht is a resident of the United States of America. He is NME's director of operations and a senior vice-president of NME Incorporated. Focht was NME's senior executive vice-president and director of operations during a period of the most horrifying scandals involving NME, which I shall detail shortly. AME director Scott M. Brown is a resident of the United States. He is NME's senior vice-president and corporate secretary of NME Incorporated. Scott Brown was intimately involved with the operation of NME during the same period. AME director Michael Ford is a resident of the United States. He is senior president of NME's international division and also a director of NME's Subang Jaya medical centre in Malaysia.

AME director Carl Vincent Stanifer is a Singapore resident. Mr Stanifer is vice-president of NME's international division and its chief financial officer. In breaching the conditions laid down by former Justice Yeldham this greedy company has displayed utter contempt for former Justice Yeldham, utter contempt for the Parliament of New South Wales, which drove the Fahey Government to establish the Yeldham inquiry, and utter contempt for the concerns and welfare of the people of New South Wales. I call today for the Fahey Government's abandonment of its sleazy liaison with AME and for the withdrawal of its licence to operate hospitals in New South Wales. I now wish to examine the latest of the long trail of scandals in which NME has been involved.

Within days of former Justice Yeldham's 1st October decision courts in the United States of America and Singapore made two momentous findings against NME. The first was the order by a United States Federal Court judge for NME to pay out $125 million to insurance companies for medifraud. That represents the largest settlement for medifraud in
Page 4976
United States history. In the second judgment NME was forced by a Singapore court to pay out $1 million after the court found that the company had engaged in the infamous practice of patient trading - offering a financial benefit to a doctor in exchange for the admission of hundreds of extra patients. This matter goes to the heart of AME's integrity because at the time of the offence a Mr Dennis Brown was in charge of the hospital that offered the bribe. Mr Dennis Brown is now the chief executive of AME.

The same Dennis Brown was at the helm when a young Australian, Peter Wynne, died needlessly in the Singapore hospital. The Parliament must ask why the Fahey Government chose to ignore the litany of allegations and findings against NME. Why did the Fahey Government force the granting of licences in Australia only days before the devastating $125 million payout in the United States? In this case, NME was sued by 19 insurers alleging massive overbilling and medifraud totalling $740 million. If NME had attempted to clean up those activities or co-operate with the investigators, perhaps AME could be trusted. NME did not co-operate, and there is no room for trust. To complicate and confound legal proceedings, NME established a $65 million slush fund and launched a bitter counterclaim against 16 major insurance companies for $250 million damages.

Washington lawyer Thomas W. Brunner - representing the insurance companies - mocked the hopelessness of NME's position. He said, "The company's allegations are silly and legally insupportable. The timing of these suits reflects NME's increasing desperation". Fortunately, NME's deceit did not work. There is a third judgment against NME about which this House must be concerned, an $8.5 million payout in penalties in the Texas Crime Victims' Compensation Fund. And its crime? A network of health crime in which innocent patients were kidnapped and subjected to physical abuse and life threatening treatment so that NME could fill its coffers. That amounts to three major settlements against NME in less than one year.

As if those problems were not enough, the Fahey Government found it necessary to grant licences to AME just as the United States Government launched a huge criminal investigation into its American parent company. Those investigations involved raids in August by more than 600 Federal Bureau of Investigation agents on 20 NME offices, including its Santa Monica headquarters. That probe was co-ordinated from the highest level - the Justice Department's criminal division in Washington. The agents were investigating allegations of criminal misconduct by NME hospitals sanctioned by their top corporate executives. NME has a company song which contains the following chorus:

I was looking for patients in all the wrong places,
Slumming for admissions in non-insured spaces,
Spanning the globe, covering my bases, for a six month length of stay . . .
Hoping to find a cost cutting measure . . . That won't cause me a decrease in pleasure.

That is the company to which this Government gives hospital licences in our State. Allow me to catalogue NME's financial disasters in the past eight months. The bad news began in April when NME's founders and board chairmen John Bedrosian and Richard Eamer showed that they had no faith in NME's future and dumped almost their entire stock holdings of NME. A short time later Standard and Poor's downgraded the company's rating to triple-B. Following further investigation and further allegations and court actions Standard and Poor's downgraded NME's rating to double-B speculative. In the United States NME is seen as a speculative stock. Many investment companies are suggesting that NME is not a company in which to invest but a speculative company that is likely to go bankrupt within this financial year. [Time expired.]

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Minister for Health) [3.40]: This motion is a major attempt by the Opposition to establish guilt by association. With one exception, all the accusations made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition relate to an organisation called National Medical Enterprises, an American-based organisation. The Australian-based organisation is named Australian Medical Enterprises. Those two organisations must be separated in terms of their operations in Australia. A number of matters must be determined, but the core of the issue is whether the people who control Australian Medical Enterprises are fit and proper people to run hospitals.

The Southern Sydney Area Health Service was negotiating with AME to construct a new hospital on the St George Hospital campus. The relevant Act of Parliament clearly specifies that the Director-General of Health, not the Minister, has the responsibility for issuing and cancelling licences. In the minds of some people there was a conflict about that issue because the granting of a licence could have benefited one of the hospitals run by the Department of Health. The director-general, exercising the power available to him, delegated the authority to an independent person, former Justice Yeldham, to examine all the information available from the United States and Singapore or from anyone who had made an accusation to determine whether the people who control AME were fit and proper people to operate hospitals in New South Wales.

Honourable members should remember that AME already operates nine hospitals in Australia - five in New South Wales and the remainder in Western Australia. The consequences of withdrawing the licence will have an impact not only on the proposed new hospital but also on every one of those hospitals. Former Justice Yeldham, after exploring all the facts and information - and remaining at arm's-length from the department, the Government and the Minister - determined that AME should be issued with a licence to construct a new hospital on the St George Hospital campus. Four main conditions were imposed: present or former directors or office-bearers of NME Incorporated must not be involved in the day-to-day administration of the private hospital; a majority of directors of the AME board must not be
Page 4977
present or former directors or office-bearers of NME Incorporated; shareholders other than NME Incorporated shall appoint a majority of directors to the AME board; and, AME must notify the Department of Health of any changes in its board of directors and report any other information to demonstrate compliance with the above conditions.

They are the conditions that were imposed by former Justice Yeldham after his review. The Department of Health took those conditions into account and moved to issue the licence. The only accusation that is relevant to Australia and Australian conditions is the composition of the board. I am advised that at the annual general meeting of AME, held on 20th October, the election of directors was completed in compliance with the conditions contained in the decision of former Justice Yeldham of 1st September. The constitution of the board of AME Hospitals Pty Limited, the applicant for the licence, remains unchanged vis-à-vis Mr R. M. Griffin, Mr D. M. Brown, Mr R. R. D. Walker and Mr R. J. Vivian-Williams. According to correspondence, the election in Australia is in compliance with the requirements of former Justice Yeldham. If AME does not comply, that non-compliance should be pursued by the department. If the information contained in the claim made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is correct, I would expect it to be investigated to ascertain what action is appropriate.

Guilt by association has substantial consequences for the health system in Australia. Honourable members should remember that many safeguards protect the interests of New South Wales consumers. Those safeguards include a requirement that all hospitals must comply with the standards of the Australian Council of Health Care. That body is at arm's-length from the Government and provides accreditation for hospitals. All hospitals must comply with those stringent conditions. The stringent conditions imposed by the Private Health Establishments (Day Procedure Centres) Amendment Act and its regulations, enacted by this Parliament, must be complied with. Every private hospital in this State is regularly inspected and monitored to ensure it complies with those requirements. For some time Australian Medical Enterprises has been operating five other hospitals in this State. Those five hospitals have complied with those requirements.

If that is not sufficient, the director-general has the power at any time to withdraw a licence. That should not be done lightly, because the passing of this motion and blindly cancelling the licence - and the Independents should listen to this - will have a number of consequences. First, the opportunity to construct a major hospital worth $90 million on the St George Hospital site will be removed. In conjunction with St George Hospital, the proposed hospital will provide essential services to an underresourced part of Sydney. Second, and more important, the motion calls for the Government to cancel the licence of the new hospital. If AME is not good enough to hold a licence for the new hospital, what about the other nine hospitals in Australia?

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition cannot claim that AME is not good enough to hold this licence but it is good enough to hold the other nine. If the licence is blindly cancelled without further investigation, the patients from every one of the other nine hospitals will have to be transferred. Hundreds of doctors, nursing staff and ancillary staff will be immediately unemployed. They will be the consequences of moving down this path too rapidly. I assure honourable members, including the Independents, that if the information contained in the grandstanding accusation made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about the structure of the board had been provided to the Acting Director-General of Health, it would have been properly investigated, because there is some question mark about that. The department will investigate the accusations made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to ascertain whether further action is necessary.

Honourable members know that the director-general - acting director-general as he is now - would immediately take appropriate action. I have received a note that says that the department is happy that AME has complied fully with former Justice Yeldham's requirements. That is the note I received during the course of this debate. It is a very important point and I give the House an assurance that, because of the confusing accusations made today - on that one issue as to whether they did or did not change - the department will look at that issue and take the necessary and appropriate steps. But we cannot just blithely pass over it and say, "Cancel the licence". [Time expired.]

Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [3.50]: The urgency motion being debated today has been denigrated by the Minister for Health as attempted guilt by association. The Minister asked the rhetorical question: Is AME a different entity from NME? That was very carefully addressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he moved the motion. Regrettably, the Minister made no attempt to argue the case that AME is a different entity from NME. I really do not think he could argue that case with any credibility. He had better get his supporters to argue that case, because he did not refer to it at all today.

The Minister also said - and this was in former Justice Yeldham's conditions - that AME has to notify changes to the board and to the Department of Health. Well, have they? Did they? The Minister read from a piece of paper. "I have this report," he said, and he read a list of names of boards of directors. Who wrote it? We were not told. Has it been tabled? I do not know. To whom was it addressed? What was the date of it? Where did that piece of paper come from? It is not fair to the House that the Minister should read from such a document without honourable members knowing its origin and its destination.

The Minister talked also about accreditation standards. Honourable members know that, when it comes to accreditation, breaches are slow to be found. That is one of the reasons that extreme care is exercised by the Department of Health when looking
Page 4978
at licences to operate private hospitals. Accreditation does not cover medifraud and the type of financial finagling that NME is associated with in its home country, the United States of America. I know the director-general has the power to cancel a licence but we have not seen a lot of that. There has been financial wheeler dealing by NME in the United States.

My colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked about the international reputation of NME, and what influence it will have on attitudes adopted by its subsidiary companies in Australia when it is going down the tube in the United States. By the end of April the Genesis Merchant Group of San Francisco, which manages billions of dollars of assets, advised investors to anticipate bankruptcy for NME. That is the mob that has been given a licence - or, at least, the subsidiary of the subsidiary of that mob.

[Interruption]

The relationship between NME and AME is so tight, so thoroughly controlled, that BHP would be proud of the association between those companies. I know how well organised and well managed BHP's own companies and subsidiary companies are. The same people do the same thing with the organisation of this hospital. It is tight, believe you me. It is important that we look at the conditions imposed by former Justice Yeldham, and the reasons for them. He said that he was entitled to take into account the fitness and propriety of people who are or have been directors or senior administrators of NME. He was so entitled; he was the adjudicator who advised the director-general. He said that that was so because:

NME at present has the right to appoint a majority of directors of the applicant and of its parent company and to influence the actions of those companies.

Mr Yeldham also stated:

The directors and the persons who will be concerned in the management of the applicant company and hence of the proposed hospital are to be regarded as fit and proper to be licensees if and only if the influence and the possibility of influence by NME, its subsidiary and associated companies, in the decision-making processes and the daily operations of the applicant in connection with the hospital is curtailed in accordance with the conditions I later impose.

Mr Yeldham expressed concern about the fitness and propriety of NME and some of its subsidiary and associated companies to hold a licence in Australia. He said that those concerns were of such a nature as to require conditions to be imposed to preclude the control or likelihood of control of the applicant company by any persons who have been concerned with the control or management at a senior level of any of the relevant American companies. Who is going to blow the whistle? The Government should blow the whistle on breaches it should be monitoring so carefully. A decent government would; this Government has not. It is not a decent government. The licence should be withdrawn, in view of the breach of the conditions imposed by former Justice Yeldham. The licence should be withdrawn, or the Minister should resign. [Time expired.]

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [3.55]: The Parliament should not grant urgency to this debate. The Parliament should not debate the question because it is a nonsense. The matter brought by the shadow minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is a nonsense. Time and again the Parliament has been held up by nonsense, either deliberate lies or total misconceptions, on the part of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This is yet another. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has come into the House with some new allegation, some startling new truth - I presume his staff have already distributed a press release downstairs. Well, the press release is wrong and the allegation is wrong. The matter raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a total nonsense and if the honourable member could not work it out for himself, his position on the Opposition frontbench is very much in question.

Let me go through the new, startling evidence and the allegation raised by the honourable member. He said there are seven directors - he admits that two are alternate directors - and of the seven, he said, four are directors of NME or associated with NME. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition ought to know how boards work and he ought to understand that he has got it wrong. The board, when it sits, is constituted of five members. Three of the members of the board are AME directors - that is, Griffin, Herbert and Walker; two members of the regular board are Focht and Ford, and they are associated with NME. When the normal board of five members meets, clearly the majority is of AME members, as former Justice Yeldham said.

The other two NME members mentioned by the honourable member are Brown and Stanifer. They are associated with NME, but for whom are they alternate members? Are they alternates for the AME members of the board? No, of course they are not; they are alternates for the NME members of the board. To spell it out in great big letters and very simple words that even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition can understand, whenever the board meets there is always a majority of AME members on the board. To put it another way, again for the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who gets it wrong time and again, the two NME alternate directors are only alternates for the other two NME directors. The board can never meet when AME is in the minority, and that fully complies with the orders of former Justice Yeldham.

The time of the House has been wasted by this frivolous and ridiculous complaint of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He should apologise for taking up the time of the House. He should apologise to the people in AME who have worked very hard to establish the company in Australia. They run about six hospitals in New South Wales - nine hospitals in Australia - and they run them without complaint. There have not been complaints against AME. The honourable member should apologise to the company and to all people throughout the community he has needlessly concerned. That is his game. I can tell honourable members from my experience as a former
Page 4979
practising journalist that time and again the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would issue a press release only later to have to retract substantial matters of fact that he got wrong. On this occasion he has got it wrong again. He is interfering with the proper process of running the hospital system. He is interfering with the proper process of running the Parliament. He should apologise. The man is a disgrace in the way he carries on, especially in respect of matters that relate to such important issues as the running of the hospital system.

No one would defend the actions of National Medical Enterprises and no one seeks to. That is a matter for the United States justice process to determine. What did the New South Wales Government do when the serious matters relating to NME came to light? It immediately put a halt on the implementation of the licence given to AME to run the hospital and appointed an independent arbiter to review all available information, which included information from the United States of America about the operations of NME and its relationship with the Australian company, Australian Medical Enterprises.

Former Supreme Court Justice Yeldham was convinced that, provided the safeguards and conditions laid down were met, the operation of the hospital would be above board and completely okay in the eyes of the people of New South Wales. It is good enough for Mr Yeldham, Q.C., it is good enough for the Director-General of the Department of Health, and it is certainly good enough for this member of Parliament. Once again the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been revealed as a political opportunist who can only get it wrong. He does not know any other way. He has again been revealed as someone who lies and does not understand or represent facts appropriately. [Time expired.]

Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [4.0]: I am pleased to support the motion that the Fahey Government be called on to cancel the hospital licence granted to Australian Medical Enterprises to establish a hospital adjacent to St George Hospital at Kogarah. Generally speaking, people involved in the provision of private health services are the worst type of people one would ever meet in a lifetime.

Mr Phillips: That is the motive of both you and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HARRISON: People who profit from the sickness and suffering of fellow human beings - and I am happy to go on record as saying this - are beneath contempt. I will get round to talking about motives. It is no wonder that when the Government is seeking private companies to become involved in the establishment of private hospitals in this State, it utilises organisations like Mayne Nickless, which has been the subject of inquiry by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, and subsidiaries of the United States company, National Medical Enterprises, which has some hundreds of cases of abuse of patients in the United States. To argue that its subsidiary AME is completely distinct and separate is fallacious. That argument will not wash.

It is a matter of record that, subsequent to the granting of a licence to AME to conduct a private hospital in the area adjacent to St George Hospital at Kogarah, there were many scandals associated with NME. The first was when NME was forced by a United States Supreme Court judgment to pay the largest compensation payment for medifraud in United States history, $125 million. There was also the case where the Singapore High Court forced NME to pay $1 million in compensation for the disgusting practice of patient trading involving hundreds of patients.

This is the sort of company that the New South Wales Government goes to when it wants to hive off areas of the public health services in New South Wales. These leeches, lice and miserable bloody crooks are invariably sought out and invariably come forward, because they are happy to fatten on the sickness and suffering of fellow human beings. The Minister mentioned that certain motives are involved. The motive of this Government is to opt out of medical care in this State altogether. That was adequately demonstrated when the former Minister for Health spent tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars in an advertising campaign -

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order. The matter before the Chair relates to the urgency of debating a particular contract. It has nothing to do with either the policies or philosophies of the Government or matters dealt with by former Ministers. I ask that the honourable member be brought back to the question before the Chair.

Mr Harrison: On the point of order. I am responding to an earlier interjection by the Minister, who challenged my particular motives. It is not the first time that he has challenged me on this matter. He has named me in Parliament before as having a blind spot about it, and I admit to that blind spot. I am responding by talking about the motives of the Minister and his Government in dealing with the sort of crooks that they like to deal with.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The remarks of the honourable member for Kiama in regard to the first matter raised by the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai are in order. However, the honourable member for Kiama was drifting away from the ambit of the motion and I ask him to return to it in the short time remaining available to him.

Mr HARRISON: I refer specifically to an item in the highly respected Wall Street Journal of 27th August. Our friend the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai, who always likes to big-note himself as a journalist, would be the first one to agree with me on that point. The article, headed "National Medical Facilities Raided by U.S. Agents - Probe Is Being Coordinated By Criminal Division Of Justice Department", reads:

The widening government probe could include allegations that the company paid "bounty hunter" fees to obtain psychiatric patients and misdiagnosed patients so it could increase insurance recoveries, analysts said. Last year the company settled Texas state charges -

[Time expired.]

Page 4980

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.5], in reply: A number of allegations were raised by the Government. One allegation was that NME is different from AME and has nothing to do with the Australian operation. It is unfortunate that the Minister did not bother to read Mr Yeldham's decision, in which he said:

It is enough to say that the United States material provides grounds for concern about the fitness and propriety of NME and some of its subsidiary or associated companies to hold a licence in Australia.

The Minister may think it does not matter; Mr Yeldham thinks it does. It is about time the Minister started to think that it does matter. The Minister says that practices such as stealing patients, kidnapping them and locking them away, and US medifraud, make no difference and are irrelevant. Mr Yeldham says those matters do make a difference. It is about time the Minister read his own department's documentation. If the Minister does not read it, he has no right to be Minister. Before the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai shoots off his mouth he ought to read what Mr Yeldham said. He said that neither the applicant nor AME shall have at any time a board of directors, including any alternate directors comprising -

Mr O'Doherty: When they sit as directors.

Dr REFSHAUGE: He does not say that. The honourable member may think what Mr Yeldham means is different from what he said, but no one else thinks that. What Mr Yeldham says is that neither the applicant nor AME shall have at any time a board of directors, including any alternate directors, comprising a majority of directors who are either present or former directors or secretaries of NME or its associates. The Australian Securities Commission does not differentiate between directors and alternate directors. If the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai cannot get that through his head, obviously his contribution to this debate is minimal.

Mr Phillips: What did he intend?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Minister might ask what Mr Yeldham intended, but he should read what Mr Yeldham wrote. If the Minister now seeks to interpret what Mr Yeldham wrote, why did he bother to give the task to Mr Yeldham? The Minister said that he had all the material available to him. He should read what Mr Yeldham said. Mr Yeldham said he did not have all the material available to him. Why is the Minister lying to this House again? He should get it right, stand up for the people of New South Wales and provide quality health care instead of bringing in these scam mongers, people who pay out millions in insurance medifraud, who have stolen patients, been involved in patient trading, and given bounties to doctors to bring patients into their hospitals. The Minister is prepared to have those people run hospitals in this State. It is about time the Minister started standing up for the people of New South Wales. He is bringing in these scam people. He asked Mr Yeldham to make a decision but is now trying to put his own interpretation on it. Mr Yeldham's recommendations are not to be interpreted; they are to be implemented.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I appreciate that this is a spirited debate, but it should be conducted with decorum. I direct that comment to the Minister for Health and the honourable member for Kiama.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Minister for Health makes the lame apology that this bunch of crooks should run this hospital because this bunch of crooks happens to be involved in other hospitals. We cannot get rid of the crooks. What a system he has here! He says, "We will have to allow these crooks in, we will have to allow these shonks in, we will have to allow these kidnappers of patients in, because they run a few other hospitals".

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kiama to order.

Dr REFSHAUGE: Is that the way to run the system? Is that justice for the people of New South Wales?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Monaro to order.

Dr REFSHAUGE: Is that standing up for health care or is that standing up for the Minister's shonky mates? It is time that the licence was cancelled once and for all. I put on record that I have absolutely no problem with the directors of Markalinga Limited, the Australians involved with this. If the Minister is happy about bringing in sleazebags and giving them a licence to introduce their sleazy practices, it is about time we had a change of government.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Moss
Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr J. H. Murray
Mr Bowman Mr Nagle
Mr Clough Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Doyle Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Mr Harrison Mr Rumble
Mr Hunter Mr Scully
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Irwin Mr Thompson
Mr Knight Mr Whelan
Mr Knowles Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po' Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Davoren

Page 4981

Mr Armstrong Ms Machin
Mr Baird Mr Merton
Mr Beck Ms Moore
Mr Blackmore Mr Morris
Mr Causley Mr O'Doherty
Mr Chappell Mr D. L. Page
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Peacocke
Mr Cochran Mr Phillips
Mrs Cohen Mr Photios
Mr Collins Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Downy Mr Schipp
Mr Fahey Mr Schultz
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Souris
Mr Griffiths Mr Tink
Mr Hartcher Mr Turner
Mr Hatton Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Yabsley
Mr Kinross Tellers,
Mr Longley Mr Jeffery
Dr Macdonald Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Hazzard
Mr Gibson Mr W. T. J. Murray
Mr Langton Mr Petch
Mr Newman Mr Small
Mr Shedden Mr Smiles
Mr Ziolkowski Mr Zammit

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.


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

Motor Vehicles Taxation (Further Amendment) Bill

Bills received and read a first time.

Mr FAHEY (Southern Highlands - Premier, and Minister for Economic Development) [4.20]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

The Legal Profession Reform Bill (No. 2) represents the most significant change to the structure and regulation of the legal profession ever undertaken in New South Wales. The purpose of the Government's reforms is to create a more competitive market for legal services balanced with appropriate client protection. To guide the reform process the following principles have been adopted: first, the structure of the profession must facilitate its regulation in the public interest having regard to consumer choice and protection, while maintaining quality of service; second, all regulatory measures must be justified having regard to the effect they have upon the accessibility, cost, speed and quality of legal services; third, legal practitioners, through their representative bodies, being the Bar Association and the Law Society, must be closely involved in the regulation of their profession, to ensure that the profession is properly informed and to emphasise the profession's responsibility for maintaining its own standards; fourth, to ensure that regulation is not only in the public interest but seen to be in the public interest, community representation in, and external scrutiny of, the regulatory process is essential.

The Legal Profession Reform Bill (No. 2) provides for reforms in three main areas: the first concerns the structure and regulation of professional practice, the second concerns the complaints system, and the third, legal fees. The overall thrust of schedule 1 is to eliminate restrictive practices. Although the community has in many instances benefited from high-quality legal services, it remains the case that the New South Wales legal profession is characterised by a large number of restrictive work practices. These have created a costly and often cumbersome legal system. There are many demarcations between solicitors and barristers that offer a poor match between consumers' needs and the services which can be purchased on the market.

The reforms introduced in this bill, combined with other changes to the structure of the profession, will deal with restrictive practices in a number of ways. First, rules made by the New South Wales Law Society and the Bar Association will be reviewed to ensure that they are in the public interest and do not inhibit competition. Second, barristers will be allowed to enter contracts with clients so that they may, subject to any rules, accept work directly from them without the need for a solicitor's intervention. Third, provisions which discriminate between solicitors and barristers will be abolished. This applies to appointments to the judiciary and other offices. There will be no new appointments of barristers to the status of Queen's Counsel.

Fourth, barristers and solicitors will no longer be separately admitted - both groups will be admitted on the advice of one board and will undertake common entry level education and practical training. Fifth, the new fee setting and review arrangements will apply uniformly to barristers and solicitors. Sixth, all restrictions on advertising by any lawyer will be removed, although of course lawyers will not be allowed to mislead the public. Seventh, both barristers and solicitors will be issued practising certificates and be subject to the same system of regulation and complaints handling. Eighth, all lawyers, including barristers, will be required to hold professional indemnity insurance. All lawyers operating trust accounts will be required to pay a fidelity fund contribution.

Page 4982

I would note that the independent bar will continue, as the Government's reforms will allow the Bar Association to require that its members operate as sole practitioners. The Government's reforms will make legal services cheaper. Cheaper services will mainly be achieved by encouraging a better match between a consumer's needs and the services that can be purchased in the legal market. Eliminating the barristers' ban on solicitors working as junior counsel means that solicitor advocates will develop higher levels of expertise. Those solicitors whose advocacy expertise is already substantial will be recognised, and consumers will have more information about the availability of their services.

This will not make barristers redundant, but it will offer an additional type of advocacy to consumers, often at a lower cost. It may also encourage barristers to examine their charges and practices in order to become more competitive. Quality services will be protected. Increased price competition will not result in a dilution of quality. The continuation of an independent bar, the establishment of a legal services commissioner to protect consumers and the continued review of rules regulating legal practices will ensure that quality, and competition, are maintained. Legal services will match consumers' needs. Abolition of restrictions on lawyers' work practices will mean that consumers will be able to choose between different combinations of lawyers. There is a wide diversity of needs amongst clients and prospective clients of lawyers in relation to such matters as the type of legal problem, location, financial position and familiarity with the legal system.

There is also a wide diversity of preferences amongst lawyers in relation to the manner in which they practise arising from such matters as aptitude, experience, personality and location. It is important that the structure and regulation of the profession provide both clients and lawyers with substantial freedom of choice. Clients must have a choice as to how they obtain legal services, including choices between different price-service combinations. Lawyers should have the freedom to choose the manner in which they provide these services and organise their practices. Freedom of choice encourages flexibility, diversity, competition and innovation. If the structure and regulation of the profession unduly restricts this, it will adversely affect the quality, accessibility, speed and cost of legal service. At the same time it is necessary to ensure that measures are in place to provide appropriate client protection and ensure that the legal profession is properly accountable to consumers.

I believe that the Legal Profession Reform Bill (No. 2) has met the challenge to organise professional practice so as to best meet the needs of clients, practitioners and the community. The reforms to the complaints and disciplinary structure flow from the reference conducted by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. In May 1992 the commission released a discussion paper entitled "Scrutiny of the Legal Profession - Complaints Against Lawyers". The final report was released in February of this year. The Government substantially accepted the recommendations in the report and the Government's position was outlined in the statement of government policy on reform of the system of complaints against lawyers released in May.

The commission evaluated the current system and found that there is a profound gap between what angers clients about their legal services and what the profession takes seriously, so that consumer complaints to professional associations about rudeness, poor communications and so on are often ignored because they do not amount to legally-defined "offences". The Law Reform Commission also found the processing of complaints takes too long, consumers feel left out of the process and the language and processes used result in a distinct bias in favour of lawyers. The Law Reform Commission also found a number of positive features in the current system. The commission noted recent developments which indicate that the profession is willing to reform. For example, new mediation strategies have been introduced which avoid many of the legalistic practices of the past.

The commission accepted that the principle of self-scrutiny by the profession, which emphasises that the profession is responsible for its members' standards, conduct and practices, provided that is backed by some form of external scrutiny, be retained. The Government agrees that the system of complaints handling by the legal profession would be improved by external scrutiny. This will be achieved through the establishment of the new office of Legal Services Commissioner. The Government's reforms will provide a new complaints handling system which will make the commissioner the intake point for complaints.

The commissioner will also offer complainants assistance in the formulation of their complaints and advice on the avenues open for redress. The commissioner will effectively and rigorously supervise complaints handling by the Law Society and the Bar Council. The bill also eliminates the current complicated system of prosecutions and provide that complaints will be prosecuted before one tribunal. I also note that the reforms will encourage professional associations to mediate consumer complaints, where appropriate.

Schedule 3 to the bill contains reforms to legal costs. The main problem with legal costs is that they are often higher than the amount the community expects to pay. Some of the reasons for the high cost of legal services are addressed by other reforms in this bill, particularly lawyers' restrictive work practices. However, a major reason why legal costs are unacceptably high is that it is often difficult to shop around for legal services. Consumers find it difficult to compare costs, either because information is limited or because fees and charges are not described in ways that make such comparison easy. Currently, the New South Wales Parliament sets a scale of legal fees, but many lawyers charge fees in addition to this scale. The scale has in effect become the base rate, not an average or common fee.

Page 4983

Under the reforms in the bill the Government will require all lawyers, including barristers, to disclose the costs of their services, or an estimate of costs, prior to the provision of services. Lawyers and their clients will enter an agreement about fees. If a lawyer fails to disclose his or her actual or estimated costs, the client can request an independent assessment of the bill. Until this is done, the client need not pay the lawyer's bill. The lawyer will also be liable to pay for the costs of such an assessment. This arrangement will serve as a strong incentive for lawyers to disclose their costs. This kind of incentive also saves taxpayers' money because it does not require large public expenditure to regulate fee arrangements.

In some circumstances, a conditional fee may be paid to the lawyer if the client is successful. Conditional fees must conform with certain principles; for example, they must not be varied in proportion to the benefit won by the client. The Government is wary of the pitfalls of the American system of contingency fees and so will limit conditional fees to no more than 25 per cent of the total fee. The Government's reforms will also ensure that courts award all reasonable costs. This will largely eliminate the gap between costs available for award by the courts and the actual fees charged by lawyers, a gap which often results in the payment of substantial fees by successful litigants.

Some lawyers have objected that it is not possible to estimate their costs before the service is provided, because this might depend on unpredictable factors such as the attitude of the other party, the costs of expert witnesses, and so on. But the Government is not asking lawyers to supply a quote for their service. The lawyer's estimate can include qualifications about the estimated costs, given different circumstances. Nothing will prevent lawyers and their clients agreeing on fees covering a fixed period or a stage of their legal business after which the arrangement may be reviewed.

Where there is a dispute, fee agreements may be reviewed by costs assessors appointed by the Supreme Court, who will determine whether the fee agreement was entered fairly and without duress. If there is evidence that a lawyer has acted unprofessionally, the matter will be considered by the Legal Services Commissioner. The costs of fee assessment will no longer vary according to whether the client wins the claim for a fee reduction totalling a certain amount. Other elements of the Government's reforms will also rationalise anomalies in the fee assessment process; for example, there will be a common regime for barristers and solicitors. The difference in the tests applied to party-party and solicitor-client costs will be eliminated and delays in the review of costs will be reduced.

Full and frank fee agreements between lawyers and clients will increase price competition between lawyers and hence will tend to lower legal costs. Consumers will be able to compare the price and quality of different services more easily, choosing the offer that best suits their needs. Litigants will no longer be concerned that, although they have a just case to take before the courts and may well win that case, a court's award of costs may not cover their reasonable expenditure on legal services.

Individuals who cannot afford to pay a reasonable fee, but who have a good chance of winning their cases in court, will be more likely to obtain legal services, because lawyers will be able to charge a fee which is conditional upon success and which can be paid from the amount awarded by the court in, say, compensation or damages to the litigant. Cost assessment charges will no longer be weighted against the client, and so consumers will have better access to a fair fee assessment system. Taken together, the reforms represent a significant reform to legal practice. I commend the bills to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.


Debate resumed from 27th October.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [4.35]: First, I wish to comment generally on matters that the honourable member for Ashfield raised in relation to a series of amendments to the Coroners Act 1980 proposed in the bill. I shall attempt, time permitting, to address each of a series of amendments, items A to P, proposed by the honourable member for Ashfield. A reading of those amendments suggests that the honourable member does not acknowledge that during the past few years major and substantial changes to the coronial system have occurred. For some years as a practising barrister I attended coronial inquests. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the Chelmsford Royal Commission and the third Azzopardi inquiry, coupled with the establishment of the office of State Coroner, have all contributed to a realisation by the Government of the importance of providing a coronial system of a standard which increased public awareness demands.

Indeed, all the examples cited by the honourable member for Ashfield in support of his proposed amendments - the Hilton bombing inquest, the original Chelmsford inquest and the first two Azzopardi inquests, though not the third inquest - occurred prior to the completion of the inquiries previously mentioned and prior to the appointment of the first State Coroner. The honourable member for Ashfield referred in debate to the experience of the past 20 years or so, but he did not acknowledge that the coronial system has changed dramatically over that period. Those changes mean that the need for a great many of the honourable member's proposed amendments no longer exists.

I wish to comment briefly on some of the honourable member's detailed contribution in this House on 27th October in support of his proposed amendments. The importance of some of the discussions the Government has had in relation to the
Page 4984
bill is reflected in the response by the New South Wales State Coroner to a number of the amendments. The comments by Mr Greg Glass, the New South Wales State Coroner, in relation to the amendments proposed by the honourable member are apt. He said that these amendments have not been thought through and that each has ramifications which extend way beyond the purpose of the particular amendment. Honourable members must think very carefully about some, though not all, of the proposed amendments, which are clearly cosmetic. The Government accedes to certain amendments. However, with respect, a reading of a great many of the proposed amendments and the Coroners Act suggests that the honourable member does not understand the ramifications of the coronial system in relation to the judicial system as a whole, nor the ramifications of inquiries conducted by coroners vis-a-vis those conducted by magistrates who have later been appointed as coroners.

The whole idea of the Government's recognition of the coronial system has been to improve it and enhance the quality of service provided by coroners to ensure that they can respond to the many matters that come before them in a way which meets community expectations. From an administrative standpoint, the major change proposed by the honourable member's amendments seems to be the restructuring of the coronial system by introducing various provisions relating to assistant coroners and further delegations. Because time does not permit a detailed response, as it does at the Committee stage, I will deal with the amendments of the honourable member for Ashfield, items A to P inclusive. The first series of amendments moved by the honourable member for Ashfield relates to his definition of justice in section 4(1) of the Coroners Act. That definition seeks to expand in a very wide sense the level of organisation that can be represented before a coroner at a coronial inquest. For the record, that amendment seeks to expand the definition of "justice" to include an organisation which "includes any voluntary association, public interest group, society, trade union, corporation, government department, statutory corporation, or commission".

The Government vehemently opposes that amendment. It is quite clear that it will open the floodgates, and people will seek, amongst other things, to raise vexatious causes of concern and grievance matters. During the debate on 27th October, the speech of the honourable member for Ashfield took up about 12 pages of Hansard on this issue of widening the definition of "organisations" that can seek to be represented. It should be borne in mind - if my memory serves me correctly - that a provision in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, or the Land and Environment Court Act, allows for such standing to occur with regard to any person. Certainly that is not the equivalent of proposals sought to be introduced, because it is quite clear that in regard to a coronial inquest there is a defined category of persons who would seek to take issue with, or be represented in relation to, matters arising out of such an inquiry. In the Government's view it is most inappropriate that that definition should be so widely expanded.

Section 32 of the Act currently provides that the coroner can give leave to appear at an inquest to any person who, in the opinion of the presiding coroner, "has a sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the inquest". Clause 32 of the amendment bill proposes to add - which is sought to be amended by the honourable member's second amendment, numbered 1 - a provision for a presumption in favour of being granted leave to appear to a relative of the deceased whose death is the subject of an inquest. The definition of "relative" has also been extended to include people who are in loco parentis to that deceased or who were the guardians of the deceased. There is no record of any such person being refused, so far, a right of appearance at an inquest or fire inquiry. That matter was raised during the course of consultation and preparation of the bill.

Accordingly, the effect of the proposal of the honourable member for Ashfield would be to give a right of appearance to virtually every person in the State. The words used by the honourable member in regard to any "voluntary association, public interest group, society" and so forth are in very wide and ambit terms. This would clearly render coronial proceedings unworkable. Anyone with an axe to grind or a barrow to push could participate in a matter. In a number of recent inquests the participation of some people has not been justified. The Government's view is that it is best left to the coroner to grant leave to appear.

The appearance of certain groups of people at inquests or fire inquiries may be contrary to the wishes of those who have a genuine interest and right to be heard at such inquests. Of course, in cases of death the Government has carefully considered the position of family members. The proposed amendment of the honourable member for Ashfield is of such wide ambit that it would render the coroner powerless to prevent such appearances. No other court has been stripped of the right to regulate its own proceedings by controlling those who appear before it. For those reasons the Government vehemently opposes amendments A and I. Amendment B relates to the access to various statements and exhibits which come before the coroner and the right to demand that the inquest or inquiry be commenced. The Government opposes the amendments to add proposed subsection 17(3):

(a) Any person or organisation intending to appear, or be represented, at an inquest or inquiry may request the State Coroner to commence such inquest or inquiry.

(b) A request that the inquest or inquiry be commenced shall be made in writing, and shall be served on the State Coroner.

[Extension of time agreed to.]

The honourable member for Ashfield cited cases in support of his amendments where parties were not given early access to documents. Those cases occurred years ago, as far back as 1967. They cannot be used to demonstrate the present restrictive approach of coroners on this issue. The State Coroner's office has a policy of allowing access to
Page 4985
documents subject to the person seeking access being a person likely to be granted leave to appear at such inquest or inquiry, and subject, of course, to giving an undertaking as to confidentiality. It should also be remembered that in cases similar to the Hilton bombing, coronial inquiries coincide with the investigation of possible criminal offences as well. In such cases the release of documents could clearly hamper the criminal investigation process and make a successful prosecution difficult.

The honourable member's comments about the suppression of documents relating to government bodies or employees is clearly not supported by example. For that reason it cannot be given any credibility. The honourable member's argument about postponing the commencement of an inquiry is quite misleading. The Government is not supporting postponement by opposing his amendment; it is merely trying to avoid the proceedings being commenced prematurely. Commencing the inquiry does not assist the investigative phase; it merely wastes the time of the coroner and the parties and adds to costs. Indeed, the State Coroner, Greg Glass, stated:

The amendment creates a number of problems. On one interpretation, the provision seems to require the State Coroner to commence the inquest or inquiry, not the presiding coroner.

He continued:

Even if it is intended that the presiding coroner should conduct the matter, he or she is unlikely to be in a position to do any more than list the matter for mention. It is impossible to commence a full hearing within 14 days given issues of availability of witnesses, legal representatives, post-mortem and other forensic medical reports etc. In particular cases, arrangements can be made to take evidence from a witness who will shortly be unavailable (perhaps returning overseas) and then adjourn the hearing. Such arrangements are made now and do not require an amendment to the Act.

Proposed section 17(3)(d) seeks to impose an unrealistic time frame on the coroner, requiring the application of tests as to probative value and admissibility when the brief of evidence may not be complete. If the amendment is successful, the coroner should be given the power to demand that persons appearing at the inquest produce their evidence in the same way that the coroner will be required to produce his or her brief of evidence. Coroner Glass stated:

Paragraph (a) also suggests interested persons do not get access to documents prior to the inquest. The only occasions where access is not given, which are rare, is if this would prejudice inquiries or security of investigations or if it contains sensitive confidential material.

The Coroner is referring there to proposed section 17(3)(a). The Government opposes the amendments relating to proposed subsections 17(3)(d) and 17(3)(e). As the Coroner has said, there is some doubt about the necessity for those amendments. The amendments contained in item C represent what in fact occurs now. For the sake of clarity, if any is needed, the Government accepts item C on the list of amendments. Item D represents a total reversal of what occurs in the present procedure. I would have thought that if the State Coroner believes that the Act is working reasonably well, honourable members should consider carefully any amendment that is contrary to his wishes and will alter the present procedure, which is satisfactory in terms of the State Coroner's functions. In relation to item D, Coroner Glass stated:

It would make it impossible for Clerks of the Local Court to act as coroner because they are not Magistrates and thus cannot deal with proceedings under s.41 of the Justices Act.

He continued:

Even where the presiding coroner is a Magistrate, it will be difficult for him or her to ensure a fair hearing for an accused or person in jeopardy. It is quite wrong in principle for coroners to be involved in criminal proceedings. I believe that the Law Society and the Bar Association would be aghast if a coroner were to hear all the evidence at an inquest (where the rules of evidence do not apply) and then proceed to deal with the committal.

The amendment apparently does not provide any procedure for what happens where the coroner arrives at the conclusion that a prima facie case for an indictable offence exists but no criminal charges have been laid against any person (with the exception of the reference that "the Coroner is to cause that person to be charged with such indictable offence".)

For a number of reasons the Government opposes the amendments foreshadowed by the honourable member for Ashfield in item D. The Government also opposes the amendments in items E and F. Because of time constraints, perhaps I will deal with those amendments and the remaining amendments through to item P, if necessary, at the Committee stage. For the benefit of the honourable member for Ashfield I flag that the amendments contained in items M and N are not opposed. [Time expired.]

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [4.55]: This bill is important in regard to the re-evaluation of the role of the coroner. Many inquests, such as the inquest into the Hilton bombing and the Azzopardi inquests, come to the attention of the public. However, inquests into deaths resulting from medical negligence, fires or explosions often do not receive the same amount of public attention. Major problems are involved in obtaining access to the coroner and putting forward a case on behalf of a member of a family or someone else who has been directly or indirectly affected by the death in question. During the debate it has been claimed that giving these people locus standi before the coroner will lead to many people appearing before the coroner and the opening of the litigation floodgates. In the future, major problems may be created for people who may be held liable in the civil jurisdiction because of their acts or omissions. Such people should be able to appear before a coroner.

In some cases, it may appear that people may not be directly or indirectly affected and therefore have no right of appearance. However, as the evidence unfolds it may become apparent that they should be given locus standi. For many years the government of the day and those who administer the coronial court system have opposed any move to widen the ambit of the power of the Coroners Court. It is about time it was looked into. In his second reading speech the
Page 4986
Minister for Justice made it clear that he rejected any proposal to widen the powers of those conducting coronial inquiries, except in accordance with the provisions of this legislation. The Hilton bombing is a typical example. It has lingered on in society for years and has caused enormous heartache for many people. Honourable members will remember everything Mr Azzopardi had to endure during the three inquests into the fire at his premises.

People such as the honourable member for South Coast fought for Mr Azzopardi to be heard in his own defence. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has fought in the Legislative Council for reforms to the coronial system. These people have been heard mainly because of what happened to Mr Azzopardi. Honourable members are aware that the honourable member for Ashfield introduced legislation relating to Mr Azzopardi and that it was not supported. Mr Azzopardi is the prime example, above all others, on the macro side, if I can describe it that way, of what happens in coronial courts. However, there are many thousands of people on the micro side in coronial inquiries about whom one never hears. I can give honourable members an example of a young lad, who was only 21 years of age. He entered a particular district hospital and had his appendix removed. During the next four or five days he kept complaining of pain. He was described by some of the nursing staff as a whinger without much courage. On the sixth day he was moved to Concord hospital and on the morning of the seventh day he died. So he still does not have any courage, but he is dead.

The family decided they wanted a coronial inquiry. When I appeared before the magistrate initially acting for the family the magistrate said, "Basically, it was an appendix operation - septicaemia, peritonitis. There is nothing in this. Do you really want a coronial inquiry?" He tried to dissuade me but I stood my ground. He said, "All right, I will set this down for another day and you can think about your position, but if you do have this hearing, Mr Nagle, how long will it take?" I said, "Three or four days, your Worship". The Magistrate said, "Oh, these matters only take a day. That is all they take". The inquest took more than a day; it took seven or eight days.

Mr Photios: Your fees would cost a pretty penny.

Mr NAGLE: No, this was done at mate's rates. I can assure the House of that. The boy was a friend of mine and so was his mother.

Mr O'Doherty: Another act of charity.

Mr NAGLE: There are many acts of charity for people. A problem then arose about access to documents. When we were able to get the documents - and it took a long time to get them from the hospital - we were lucky enough to have a nursing sister who had theatre experience examine them. No other person was available because the mother was a pensioner, living in Housing Commission accommodation and unable to afford expert witnesses. However, the doctors and the hospital had the best of lawyers. Mrs X had a very good junior barrister.

The case progressed. After eight days there was a great argument between the police prosecutor, who was running the case, and his chief whether the two doctors should be indicted. At a later stage the magistrate said he had certain views that the young fellow in question had been treated very badly. Great difficulty was experienced in obtaining information from the hospital and listing the matter for hearing. It took such a long time because it was adjourned on numerous occasions. The inquiry would proceed for a couple of days and then be adjourned because someone wanted to call witnesses to rebut the evidence adduced on behalf of the deceased's parent. Also, the deceased's fiancee wanted to be represented but was told that, because she was only his fiancee, she might not have locus standi. The magistrate finally granted her locus standi.

When I hear it said that the amendment of the honourable member for Ashfield to allow any person or organisation to appear will open the floodgates of litigation, it takes me back to the famous decision in Donohoe v. Stevenson, and more particularly the case of Hedley Byrne v. Heller, and the comments about the floodgates of litigation the decisions in those two cases would open. Of course, they are now the sounding board for much of the case law and what happened later. I do not accept the argument of the honourable member for Gordon that opening the locus standi provisions for people appearing before a coronial inquest will open the floodgates of litigation for ever and a day and destroy the whole structure of the coronial inquiry. There may be a problem, but the discretion and wise nature of good magistrates - and Greg Glass is a good magistrate - would be to dissuade people from appearing if they had no good reason. That is a problem that has to be dealt with. The old argument about opening the floodgates of litigation does not hold water in this day and age.

It should be much easier for a person who is to appear at, and who can be directly or indirectly affected by, a coronial inquiry to gain access to documents more readily and easily than is now the case. In the case I have instanced it took an inordinate time to obtain all the hospital notes, operation records, nursing and clinical notes. However, we received assistance from a person who referred us to documents that were not within our knowledge and we were able to ask for additional documents that enlightened us about exactly what had happened to the lad. An omission can be as bad as a lie. Documents called for that are not specifically and correctly named are withheld. If one receives assistance from someone who knows the documents to call for, it is much easier. It should be an obligation on the court, the court officers and those assisting the coroner to assist those directly or indirectly involved. That is what the amendment attempts to achieve.

Juries at coronial inquests have been referred to. The jury system is the system of the people. Jurors bring to a jury common sense and knowledge of life's affairs. Why should we not bring the community closer so people can participate in a coronial inquiry and in the court system? I had grave reservations
Page 4987
when this House introduced trials by judge without a jury. I still have those reservations, though the system appears to be working to some extent. However, only a short period has elapsed since the legislation was introduced and it will take some years to find out its effectiveness. Irrespective of that, we can be certain about the jury system. The Act contains a provision that enables one to call upon the jury. It was put there for good reason: so that the community can express its displeasure at some act or omission the consequence of which is injury to or death of a person. The amendment of the honourable member for Ashfield providing for the widening of jury participation is not unreasonable in the circumstances. In fact, it is commendable. I am sad that the Government will not support it.

The position of the accused under section 19 was raised. Section 19 provides that where a coroner or a coronial jury finds that a prima facie case or an indictable offence has been established against a person either during or at the conclusion of the proceedings, the inquest or inquiry may be conducted and steps will then be taken to charge the person and deal with him or her under the Justices Act. If a person is being charged with an indictable offence relating to a death or fire, it is proposed that the hearing or charge be delayed pending completion of the inquest or inquiry. That is the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Ashfield. It was pointed out that it may create problems when there is an abundance of hearsay evidence that would not be admissible. [Extension of time agreed to.]

If during the course of a coronial inquiry the magistrate or a jury decided that there was a prima facie case or that an indictable offence had been established and the person should then be put on trial, the magistrate would exercise his discretion by warning the accused that he may be subject to a charge in relation to an indictable offence and committed for trial at the conclusion of the inquest. That would be the proper and only course for the magistrate hearing a coronial inquiry. As a consequence the person could elect to give evidence or refrain from giving evidence in accordance with his or her rights under the Justices Act. That would be the proper course to take. It would be dangerous for a magistrate to remain silent and allow a person in jeopardy to give evidence without warning that person that the evidence may result in a committal for trial. It is a problem we must come to terms with.

The use of juries in coronial inquiries is a more difficult point. I submit that the learned magistrate would have to instruct the jury that if during the trial they decided on the evidence that there was a prima facie case of an indictable offence, they should advise him forthwith, and prior to the person concerned giving evidence. If at the completion of the inquiry the person has given evidence, then that evidence can be used at the trial of the accused. It is a matter that should be considered. The civil part of the amendments foreshadowed by the honourable member for Ashfield is a good way to go. It is a sounding board for criminal matters, a method whereby one can consider whether the evidence obtained during a coronial inquiry is sufficient to place a person on trial for an act of negligence. If the evidence is not sufficient, the person can proceed, directly or indirectly if he has a cause of action, in the civil courts of New South Wales.

Whether a decision of a magistrate or a jury on the civil culpability of a person because of a negligent act or omission by that person would create the concept of res judicata is another matter. However, the amendment of the honourable member for Ashfield specifically excludes the use of any finding of civil negligence in the Supreme Court or District Court in a suit seeking damages. The onus would move to the plaintiff, after the coronial inquiry, to proceed in the normal way to prove the breach of liability or act of omission that was owed to the injured or the deceased as a consequence of the injury or death sustained.

An important area for the coronial inquiry system is the investigation of malpractice. If the Chelmsford victims had had an earlier right of appearance before the coroner and the coroner had had the ability to determine a prima facie case of misconduct or an act of malpractice, in all the circumstances those people would not have had to experience the trauma and terror of a royal commission. Honourable members know how much the Chelmsford royal commission cost New South Wales taxpayers. It would have been far better to establish a mediation program to compensate those people instead of putting them through a royal commission, even though it ensured that Chelmsford will not occur a second time. The people so badly injured at Chelmsford and the families so badly dealt with, particularly those who lost loved ones, should have been properly compensated. The $40 million that it cost for the royal commission could have been used to pay compensation to those people. But that is a matter for another time.

In the case that I mentioned to the House of the two doctors who acted in such a way that their reprehensible and negligent conduct amounts prima facie to malpractice and misconduct, it is important that a coroner has the power to refer the doctors to the appropriate professional bodies or the Medical Complaints Tribunal to be dealt with. The learned magistrate hearing that case told me that there was almost sufficient evidence to place them on trial for what they did to the young fellow and their lack of treatment. Finally I raise the issue of the right of appeal. The honourable member for Ashfield has foreshadowed an amendment that will seek to include new section 46A to provide that any person or organisation that has appeared at a coronial proceeding could appeal to the District Court against a finding made at the inquest or inquiry. New section 46B would provide a similar right of appeal to the Supreme Court from the findings of a special inquest or inquiry.

Page 4988

No doubt the Government will oppose that proposed amendment, but it is a right of appeal, and people should have a right to appeal when they are directly or indirectly affected by a decision of a coroner or anyone else, be it an arbitrator, a magistrate, a District Court judge or a Supreme Court judge. The right of appeal is a fundamental mechanism to protect the citizen from legal and judicial abuse. The amendment should be supported. It will not create a res judicata situation; it will be an appeal mechanism whereby evidence, to the extent that it can be accepted, will be accepted with the right of cross-examination. [Time expired.]

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to sessional orders the debate is interrupted.



Mr ANDERSON (Liverpool) [5.15]: I raise a matter of great urgency and considerable importance to my constituents with regard to the Green Valley ambulance station. I have informed the Minister for Health that I would be raising this matter. On Monday, 1st November, I became aware that as of Saturday, 6th November, approximately half the staff at Green Valley ambulance station will be transferred to Liverpool, leaving the Green Valley area in considerable difficulty. At 3.5 p.m. I sent a fax to the office of the Minister for Health indicating my extreme concern and asking him to delay the transfer until I had the opportunity to discuss the matter and make a submission. I asked him also to advise me in writing as a matter of urgency if the rumours were not true. Regrettably I have not received a response to that fax. In the following couple of days the Liverpool Champion published an article in which I expressed concern about the transfer. I said that if one life was lost because of this move the blood would be on this Government's hands. I have asked all residents who have difficulties with the Ambulance Service at Green Valley to keep me informed so that I can record the difficulties and bring them to the attention of the House.

Mr Bob Morris, the Assistant Divisional Superintendent of the Ambulance Service, told the local newspaper that the transfer was temporary and that 10 officers would return to Green Valley after Christmas. He claimed that the transfers were necessary because of a shortage of staff at other stations. He said, "I can guarantee there will be no delays to emergency calls or change in service as a result of this transfer". That is simply untrue. Approximately one-third of the Liverpool local government area is covered by the Green Valley ambulance station, which also provides back-up services to Fairfield, Liverpool, Campbelltown, Macquarie Fields, Warragamba and Penrith ambulance stations. The normal staffing complement was 10 paramedical officers providing a 24-hour service - that is one paramedic with a car on day shift, and one paramedic with a car on night shift.

The general duties component of 12 officers at Green Valley provided a 24-hour service as well, with a general duties car working from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., another general duties car from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and a general duties car on night shift. Since last Saturday, two vehicles have been on day shift, as opposed to three, and one vehicle has been on night shift, as opposed to two. I am unable to ascertain whether any of the remaining vehicles will be manned by paramedics.

As a former Minister for Health I know, as all honourable members know, that it is the treatment received during the first few minutes of the response by trained ambulance officers that determines whether a person survives or suffers more serious consequences. This is not the first time I have had a concern about the ambulance stations in my electorate. On 20th March, 1992, I asked question No. 374 on the Questions and Answers paper, which was answered on Friday, 8th May. In that question I sought information about what may be happening at Liverpool and Green Valley ambulance stations. The answer indicated that officers had been transferred from Liverpool ambulance station to augment Camden ambulance station. That was a matter of concern, but now approximately half the staff at Green Valley ambulance station are to be transferred to Liverpool because of staff shortages.

The Government's own staffing report indicates that the Ambulance Service has been short of officers for a considerable period. I understand the problem: the Government has to find the money. Funding for the Ambulance Service has been reduced for the past two financial years, according to the Minister's answers in the Questions and Answers paper and the Budget Papers for this year and last year. It is no good the Minister nodding his head. The budget for this year is $146,351,000. It was $142,300,000 last year; the year before that it was $146.3 million, and the year before that it was $149.57 million. That is a reduction in simple arithmetic terms. Whilst I acknowledge that there is a problem across the whole system, the problem in Green Valley -

Mr Phillips: Does that include capital?

Mr ANDERSON: Of course it does not include capital; that is the recurrent budget. I acknowledge that there are problems elsewhere. However, it is one thing to have a problem in the inner city and on the North Shore where ambulance services and hospitals are not that far apart and it is another thing to have problems in southwest Sydney - the growth area. In western Sydney we do not have choices as to which teaching hospital we will go to. Liverpool Hospital is being redeveloped, and I praise the Government for that. It is a major trauma centre for southwestern Sydney. One of the major feeder ambulance services will be cut back. The people in Green Valley do not have alternative sources of transport; they rely upon the ambulance services in times of emergency. It is
Page 4989
unconscionable and indefensible to cut this service by 33 per cent during daylight hours and by 50 per cent during the night. I put the Minister on notice over a week ago and I think I am entitled to a response. [Time expired.]

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Minister for Health) [5.20]: I thank the honourable member for Liverpool for his courtesy in advising me of this issue earlier today. He is one of the longer serving members in this place. Perhaps if he encouraged some of his colleagues to do the same they would get a better response. I am advised by the Ambulance Service that the normal establishment at Green Valley station comprises a module of 11 paramedics and 11 other ambulance officers. The 11 officers relocated are to assist in maintaining full rosters on all stations in the southern district of Sydney. This action is necessary to cater for 44 officers who are currently undertaking an upgrade of their critical skills for the Sydney division. One complete roster module of 11 officers will now be available for every station in the southern district. The 24-hour per day availability over seven days will be far more equitable and falls in line with workload patterns.

This is a temporary measure which will be in place until January 1994 and will provide an improved service and availability to the southern district of Sydney. The paramedic module of 11 officers will be maintained at Green Valley station. Once the training program is completed, in the new year, the 11 officers will be returned to Green Valley. One of the key parts of this issue is the constant challenge for the Ambulance Service to upgrade its skills. Gone are the days where ambulance officers were drivers and stretcher bearers; they are now highly skilled people. It is important that they keep upgrading their skills. They are the lifeline to the health system. We will continue to upgrade in the most effective way possible. [Time expired.]


Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [5.22]: I praise the Minister for Transport and Minister for Roads on behalf of the people of Albury - in fact, I will take it upon myself to speak on behalf of all the people of the Riverina and southern New South Wales - for returning the Riverina XPT service. Some time ago the Victorian government of the day agreed with the New South Wales Government to run XPT services between Sydney and Melbourne. This was seen as a great step forward for rail transport in Australia and a good thing for the people of New South Wales and Victoria. Everyone was very happy about it. New South Wales spent an enormous amount of money building a number of XPT trains with sleeper accommodation to provide these services.

The present Victorian Minister announced with great fanfare a few months ago that the services were soon to begin. Everyone was happy about that. Just a few days ago the Minister announced that Victoria could not afford to finance the running of the daylight XPT service between Sydney and Melbourne and that the service would not go ahead. The Victorian Government was happy for the night service to continue, but not the daylight service. The problem was that 3,000 people had booked ahead to have seats on the daylight service. New South Wales was left with the bookings and no trains. There was a great problem for the people and for CountryLink, particularly as CountryLink is putting a great emphasis on service and is determined to give the customer the best possible service that can be provided. This emphasis has been strengthened by the Minister. CountryLink has worked hard to provide a good service to the customer.

Though all these people were booked on the train the Victorian Government decided that it would not run. It is a shame that that Government did not tell us about that a couple of months ago. If it had, we would not have to cancel the Riverina XPT and cause so many people concern and upset over their travelling arrangements. It was out of our hands. There was a great deal of doubt about how the service would be maintained. Yesterday the XPT, with its sleeper carriages, went through the Riverina - it went through Cootamundra, Wagga Wagga and Albury. There is so much interest in the XPT that 200 or 300 people met the train at Albury station to look at the new carriages and sleeping accommodation. The west Albury public school had its recorder band there to entertain the people and the Lions Club of Lavington provided sausages and coffee for the people waiting for the train. There was a great deal of excitement.

There was doubt about how we would meet the needs of the people who wanted to travel on the trains. I appealed to the Minister, as did the honourable member for Burrinjuck and the honourable member for Wagga Wagga, to give the Riverina its XPT service again so that the needs of the people could be met. I am pleased to say that the Minister made the decision this afternoon. I am delighted to know that the Riverina XPT will run once again, in conjunction with the overnight service between Sydney and Melbourne. The people in my district will have the service that they require. The service is most important for southern New South Wales. I appreciate the efforts of the Minister in restoring the Riverina service, which is so vital to that area. I assure the Minister that everyone in Albury is delighted to have it back.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [5.27]: The honourable member for Albury ought to be congratulated by all honourable members on leading for some years now a very strong and determined campaign to make sure that the XPT returned to Albury. Together with the honourable member for Burrinjuck and the honourable member for Wagga Wagga, he has continued that campaign to make sure that we have an improved CountryLink service. All honourable members would welcome his personal intervention and his determined representations made not just to the New South Wales Government but to the Victorian Government to make sure that the XPT returned to Albury in daylight hours.

Page 4990

In that regard I join with the honourable member in extending the appreciation of the Government to its Victorian colleagues who saw fit to respond to the urgency of this matter. The importance of this need was brought home by the honourable member for Albury and by the community event in Albury in appreciation of the introduction of the XPT service and its reintroduction. With respect to the Victorian cancellation, New South Wales was in no way, shape or form, at any time, interested in cancelling the service. We are particularly pleased that the Victorians were infected by the enthusiasm of our State, in a tough and at times tiring campaign led by the honourable member for Albury, and joined this State in returning the service.


Mr MARKHAM (Keira) [5.29]: I raise an issue concerning the St Elias Antiochian Orthodox Parish Association, Wollongong. The matter has been raised with me and my four parliamentary colleagues from the Illawarra, the honourable member for Bulli, the honourable member for Kiama, the honourable member for Wollongong and the honourable member for Illawarra. I have written on behalf of the St Elias Antiochian church to every member of Parliament in New South Wales. The parish association has been resolute in pursuing the issue.

A few months ago the Parliament unanimously passed the Antiochian Orthodox Church Property Trust Bill, the purpose of which supposedly was to assist the church in the administration of its affairs in New South Wales. However, the bill turned out to be a nightmare for some parishes. The Parliament has been inadvertently misled by the Attorney General, who advised us that the bill had the full support of all parishioners of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in New South Wales. I can assure honourable members that that is not the case. The parishes in Wollongong have pointed that out vividly to me and my colleagues. No parishioners from St Elias were consulted or even advised that the Parliament was debating a bill which could have far-reaching effects on their social and religious structure.

Upon inquiring into the matter we were advised by the Attorney General that the hierarchy of the church had resolved all the differences with parishioners and that the bill had received the full support of the Antiochian Orthodox community in New South Wales. I remind the Parliament that the bill was deferred in 1992 after we learned of strong opposition from parishioners. It is with deep regret that I have to report to the Parliament that the legislation has not one single supporter from the St Elias Antiochian Orthodox Church, Wollongong. The Attorney General was made aware of this fact and was urged not to proclaim the Act. However, despite strong representations from the St Elias parish and other parishes - individual parishes in Sydney - the Attorney General acceded to the wishes of the Patriarch and proclaimed the Act on 3rd September. It has been stated that this is not a fact.

Mr Photios: It is now law. It has been gazetted.

Mr MARKHAM: This is clearly against the wishes of many citizens who were given false hope by the Attorney General. It is my understanding that shortly after the Act was proclaimed Bishop Gibran, the head of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in Australia, retaliated viciously against the parish of St Elias by ordering the two priests who normally celebrate the Holy Liturgy at St Elias not to do so any longer, and the parish has not been able to celebrate any Holy Mass since. The parishioners of St Elias, Wollongong, have been left shattered. They have a sense of having been betrayed by the Government and their church.

We should be aware that the St Elias parish has operated as a legally registered company since 1979 in accordance with the Companies Act 1961. Members of the parish are law abiding citizens who have worked very hard for the church of St Elias for the past 13 years and have made outstanding achievements without any help from their bishop or the Government, only to see their rights violated in the worst possible way - that is, with the full approval of the Parliament, whose main charter is to protect the rights of our citizens and uphold democracy.

In accordance with section 4 of the memorandum of association, St Elias Antiochian Orthodox Parish Association Wollongong Limited holds and administers all property of the parish as a sole body. The Antiochian Orthodox Church Property Trust Act, schedule 1, lists St Elias Antiochian Orthodox Parish Association Wollongong Limited as one of the companies which hold properties in trust for the church. Section 14(1) of the Act states:

Any property that was, immediately before the appointed day, vested in a Company or in any other person in trust for the Church is, on that day, divested from that company or that person and is, to the extent that it was so vested, vested (without conveyance) in the Trust.

Taking these facts into consideration, it would appear that the Act has no effect on St Elias parish. I ask the Attorney General to clarify the legal position of the St Elias parish as a matter of urgency. I am sure honourable members agree with me that the Parliament is in the business of protecting the rights of our citizens and certainly not in the business of ripping off people. [Time expired.]

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [5.34]: I well appreciate the concerns of the honourable member for Keira in relation to this matter. The Attorney General and I took a keen interest in it. We recently met with Archbishop Gibran, who is the leader of the Antiochian Church in New South Wales and indeed in Australia. It was our firm understanding, as it was the understanding of the Patriarch himself, who has written to us on two occasions, that it is the wish of the church, both universally and nationally - not to mention locally - to proceed with the legislation. It is appropriate to note that the legislation was passed
Page 4991
unanimously by both Houses. So it was supported by the Government, the Opposition, the Independents and the minor parties.

When Archbishop Gibran met with the Attorney General and me he gave us verbal and written assurances that there was appropriate consultation with communities. We believe that advice to be correct. We stand by the archbishop and we view with considerable concern the attempt now by the honourable member for Keira to cast aspersions on the credibility of the archbishop and the patriarch of the church. The property involved is the property of the church, not of any individual parish. That is what the Parliament confirmed unanimously in both Houses. That point ought to be made very clear. For the benefit of the honourable member for Keira I confirm once again that the archbishop and the patriarch assured the Government by correspondence that there had been appropriate consultation and that the matter was supported by the church. This was confirmed by the patriarch in correspondence.


Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [5.36]: I rise on behalf of the residents of Queanbeyan to allay the fears, anxieties and concerns raised by a scare campaign being undertaken by local branches of the Australian Labor Party, the Mayor of Queanbeyan, Frank Pangallo, and others associated with an effort to discredit the State Rail Authority and its employees in Queanbeyan and the surrounding area. The campaign of misinformation is not in the best interests of the people of Queanbeyan and the tourist potential of the area. Local business houses have expressed grave concern to me in regard to the future of Queanbeyan railway station.

Mayor Pangallo and Labor members of the local council continually misstate the truth in the local media. They have led people to believe that Queanbeyan railway station will remain unmanned following the introduction of Xplorer train services and that the station will not receive major upgrading. They have claimed that the Xplorer service will not start before Christmas. All sorts of rumours and innuendo have been expressed in the local media. What has been peddled in the community is blatant lies purely for political gain. The people involved have no concern whatsoever for Queanbeyan. It is dreadful, to say the least, that people should engage in such tactics simply to score cheap political points.

For example, recently the mayor of Queanbeyan distributed a press release in which he said that it was quite apparent that the needs of Queanbeyan rail commuters had been completely ignored by the New South Wales Government. I do not know how a responsible mayor of a city the size of Queanbeyan - 27,000-odd people - could make such a statement when he knows full well that the new Xplorer train is about to be introduced to service in Queanbeyan. A major upgrading program is being undertaken at the railway station. An article in the Queanbeyan Age, not attributed to me but to Mr Bob Hall, Chairman of the Heritage Committee of the Australia Capital Territory, division of the Australian Railway Historical Society, stated:

The State Rail Authority has already agreed to fund a professional paint analysis of the building. They have further agreed to paint the exterior of the station building once a colour scheme has been agreed to.

Mr Hall was responding to comments made about the station on Monday by the Mayor of Queanbeyan, Councillor Frank Pangallo. A litany of other allegations have been made about this issue. It is a disgraceful set of circumstances and people have become confused about them. The mayor and those members of the Labor Party who have conducted this campaign should hang their heads in shame. They should try to promote a more positive approach to what is after all a major investment by the New South Wales Government in public transport in the southeast region of this State.

Negotiations have been taking place for some time with the rail historical society on provision of a ticketing office - no doubt manned by members of that society - at Queanbeyan railway station. The rail historical society, the lessee of that building, will use the station building and its facilities for the benefit of the tourist industry in the surrounding area. The society will run an historic train from Queanbeyan to Michelago and provide a ticketing service. The station will be upgraded. The new Xplorer train is on track. The people of Queanbeyan will live happily ever after, but the Australian Labor Party will not because all its fantasies will fall in a heap.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [5.41]: The honourable member for Monaro is well known for his championing of public transport in Queanbeyan. This issue really begs the question about the motives of the Mayor of Queanbeyan. It is a grave matter indeed that a mayor should jeopardise the success of a new and enhanced program in his own city. That behaviour suggests that the mayor is working against the interests of Queanbeyan people and almost begs the question as to the real motives of the Australian Labor Party. Is that party flying a kite for its own policy?

Is the Australian Labor Party suggesting that the new Xplorer service will not continue if one day an Australian Labor Party government gains office? Is that party really asking the New South Wales Government to discontinue its current expansion and updating of programs, both of a capital nature in station upgrading and of a service nature in the new Xplorer service, which will come soon to Queanbeyan despite the best efforts of the Mayor of Queanbeyan to stop it? I join with the honourable member for Monaro in expressing concern about the real motives of the ALP mayor of Queanbeyan. Is the mayor suggesting that ALP policy is to cut back rail service in the face of enhanced delivery of services for which the honourable member for Monaro has fought hard?

Page 4992

Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [5.43]: I defend and support services provided by the Home and Community Care program in the Illawarra area and Sutherland shire. Those providing local HACC services have been voicing concerns about increased demands being placed upon them. Reasons for increased demand include an increasing aged population, early discharge from hospital, lack of placement in hostels and nursing homes due to unavailability of sufficient beds, services provided for younger people with disabilities, clients requiring a variety of services for their needs, and a lack of adequate growth money to meet those needs.

The last Budget disclosed a greater anomaly in the ability of the Government to accept full responsibility for Home and Community Care services. For the first time in that program's nine-year history, growth funds have been axed. This monumental bungle by the Government occurred because over the past two years the New South Wales Home Care Service failed to pay almost $6 million compulsory superannuation. As a result, services have not been expanded to cope with the increase in numbers of people needing those services, especially in the Illawarra and Sutherland shires.

However, in another bungle that adds insult to injury, the State Government failed to match the Federal Government's funding growth of 6.8 per cent in an agreed ratio of 60 per cent to 40 per cent between the Commonwealth and this State. The extra funds offered by the Commonwealth Government were lost to the people of New South Wales and in particular to the Cronulla and Sutherland electorates. That growth money was to be used to assist in servicing the increased aged population, people leaving hospital and those unable to get beds in nursing homes. I, a number of Government members in the Sutherland shire and indeed my colleagues in the Illawarra have been inundated by complaints from people involved in all of these services. Those people are adamant that the Government should reverse this decision and provide funds sufficient to cope with existing demands on services.

The funding requirement for adequate service is estimated at $1 million, yet this year the Government gave nothing. Notwithstanding that, service providers are expected to cope with the needs of an ever increasing aged population, of older people keen to stay at home. The Government suggests such people should stop at home but is not willing to give adequate funding. Such funding would assist older people with lawn mowing, delivery of meals on wheels, repairs to gutters, home cleaning or even showering. Services that assist aged people to assist themselves are being cut. I appeal to the Government - I do not condemn it, as I usually do - to perceive the insanity of its action. I am seeking from the Minister an assurance that the round nine forum will be continued and that required funding will be provided.

The Engadine region has specific needs. The Sutherland shire has been seriously hit. The Engadine area has what is called a neighbourhood aged service, which for many years has provided outreach programs, home visits and personal care to residents in those areas. Yet severe cuts have been made, and that service - which for many years has done the job the Government should have done - might fold. If it folds, it will be to the detriment of the aged in that region. A similar problem exists in Helensburgh. I should add, to be fair to my colleagues opposite, that the needs of people in Caringbah, which is not in the Bulli electorate, should also be seriously considered. The Government cannot continue to deny funding when the Federal Government is willing to provide it. The Government has absolute and total responsibility to take care of our aged in this State.


Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [5.47]: I raise the concerns of a number of my constituents in the Forestville area about pedestrian safety at what is commonly known as the Crown of the Hill intersection of Warringah Road and Arthur Street at Forestville. The problem at that intersection is that traffic coming from Roseville Bridge up Warringah Road approaches the Arthur Street intersection at such an angle that drivers have difficulty seeing traffic turning right into Arthur Street and also pedestrians crossing the road at that location. Over the past couple of years a number of accidents have occurred at the intersection as a result of those conditions.

Several years ago a bad accident involving two young schoolchildren occurred at the intersection and a community campaign was mounted for the erection of a pedestrian bridge there. A number of other accidents have occurred there at regular intervals over the past couple of years. I support the request for a pedestrian bridge at the intersection. A proposal has been put forward - and supported by the Government - that a pedestrian bridge be erected and funded by the private sector through advertising placed on the structure. The location of the proposed bridge would be just below and to the south or southeast of the Crown of the Hill intersection. The only concern of local residents is that such advertising would be illuminated to be visible 24 hours a day. While I was a member of Warringah Council in the latter part of 1991 and early 1992 I encouraged the council to take a position opposing the illumination between the hours of 10.00 p.m. and 5.00 a.m. The council chose not to accept that argument but to support a 24-hour illumination. On behalf of the pedestrians of the area and the many elderly residents of Forestville, I earnestly encourage the Minister for Transport and Minister for Roads to approve the erection of the bridge at the earliest possible opportunity.

The second matter I wish to refer to is the problem with traffic at that intersection. This particular intersection has the worst accident black-spot record in the Manly-Warringah peninsula. The
Page 4993
intersection in 1991 was ranked 774 in the worst 1,000 sites in New South Wales, but that ranking increased to 270 in 1992. In those two years 14 individual accidents were recorded by the police; and that is by no means a record of all accidents that have occurred at the intersection. The residents of that area have made very strong representations for the installation of a right-turn arrow at the traffic lights at River Road to improve safety for cars wishing to turn into Arthur Street and across traffic travelling from Roseville Bridge.

Since May 1992, when I became a member of this Parliament, I have made numerous requests to the Roads and Traffic Authority to encourage it to install a green arrow traffic light at this intersection as early as possible. On a number of occasions the RTA indicated to me that it would do so as soon as the pedestrian bridge was erected. However, because of a variety of unfortunate circumstances that has not come to pass. I appeal to the Minister to intervene. I know he takes a keen interest in traffic matters and in his portfolio as Minister responsible for rail and roads focuses strongly on safety aspects. I ask the Minister to have this green arrow traffic light installed before Christmas so as to alleviate traffic and safety problems at this intersection. In regard to installing another right-turn phase arrow, if there is concern about delays being caused by traffic travelling from Roseville Bridge through this intersection, the green arrow traffic light could be turned off in the evening peak period. If that is the only reason for resisting the installation of a green arrow, I suggest to the RTA that it is not a sufficient reason, the arrow should be installed as soon as possible. I ask the Minister to intervene and take action in the interests of the many elderly residents in Forestville to install a green arrow traffic light. [Time expired.]

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [5.52]: The honourable member for Davidson is well known for pursuing the many road issues that affect his electorate. His diligence and considerable determination in the campaign with regard to the Crown of the Hill problem at Warringah Road and Arthur Street, Forestville, continues unabated. I am confident that the Minister for Transport and Minister for Roads will consider the suggestion by the honourable member for Davidson, who makes a very persuasive case. The honourable member has come forward with a compromise proposal that would facilitate a right-hand turn arrow being installed but being turned off during peak traffic periods. I congratulate the honourable member for Davidson for his diligence in pursuing his constituents' concern and taking the most unusual step of raising this matter personally in the House today.


Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [5.54]: It is a great pleasure for me to bring a good news story to the House. I will speak about the exciting and innovative work of the Newcastle Aboriginal Support Group during this International Year for the World's Indigenous People. The group was formed in 1981 with the objectives of bringing together Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians in the Hunter to argue the case for land rights among the non-Aboriginal people in the Hunter, and to argue other needs of Aboriginal people. The founder of the group was Jack Doherty, a former TAFE teacher, a most gentle and peaceful man. The group that he founded has survived, and receives increasing involvement and support from the Aboriginal people. For example, Mick Davison of the Wollotuka Aboriginal enclave at Newcastle university has been president for the last two years. Jack Doherty passed away over two years ago. The first initiative of the group for this year was to establish and raise funds for Aboriginal scholarships to the University of Newcastle. Sufficient funds were raised to award at the beginning of this year the first six Doherty scholarships to Aboriginal students at that university.

The second initiative was to establish a Hunter groundwork treaty, which was kicked off at the beginning of the year, as a long-term goal. Subgroups were formed, which were assisted by a number of Aboriginal people including Mike Anderson, Mick Davison, Bill Smith and Ray Kelly, among others. One of the groups produced a draft treaty of reconciliation, which will provide an ongoing discussion basis for years ahead. Another group produced the concept of a Hunter statement of commitment to indigenous Australians. Members of the group have been collecting signatures of support for this commitment. About 2,000 signatures have been collected so far. I thank the Aboriginal support group organisers Rodney Knock, Bob McDonald, Moya Farrell and Bob Berghout for the work they have done to date.

The third initiative is a coming together day at 2 p.m. on Sunday, 28th November, on the Newcastle foreshores. Non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal people will be coming together in friendship and mutual respect with a spirit of reconciliation to mark the close of the International Year for the World's Indigenous People. We will be committing ourselves to remaining together in the future. Signatures will be exchanged at the coming together day. Efforts of this type have been noticed elsewhere. A letter from the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation addressed to the Newcastle Aboriginal Support Group states:

Dear Friends,

I have heard of the work you are doing in building closer and stronger relationships between indigenous and other Australians in the Hunter Region through Mr Ray Kelly of the Yarnteen Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation. Let me commend you for both the Coming Together Day and A Hunter Commitment to Indigenous Australians.

It is through the work of community organisations such as yours that the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation comes closer to achieving its vision of "A united Australia which respects this land of ours; values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage; and provides justice and equity for all."

I wish you continued success with your efforts and assure you of the support of the Council in your endeavours.

Yours sincerely,

Patrick Dodson
Chairperson

Page 4994

The Hunter Commitment to Indigenous Australians, which has achieved about 2,000 signatures so far, states:

I acknowledge that Indigenous Australians are the first people of this land and have survived over two centuries of persecution.

I grieve for the losses of Australian Indigenous people, their land, their children, their health, their lives.

I grieve over the high rate of imprisonment and the many Black deaths in custody.

I acknowledge the right of Indigenous Australians to live according to their own values and customs.

I undertake to make myself better informed of the facts of non-Indigenous settlement of Australia.

I promise to listen to what Indigenous Australians are telling me and to think about what it must be like to live with racism every day.

I will interrupt racist remarks and jokes whenever I'm in a position to.

I promise to respect Aboriginal sacred sites and special places in the Hunter Region.

I recognise the vital contribution of Indigenous people to the Hunter Region and I look forward to a future of mutual respect and harmony.

I support Indigenous and non-Indigenous people working together for a treaty or other instrument of reconciliation.

I have signed that commitment myself and I commend that commitment and the work of the Newcastle Aboriginal Support Group during this International Year for the World's Indigenous People.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [5.58]: The honourable member for Wallsend is well known for pursuing issues relating to the Aboriginal community. Recently he and I shared the opportunity to travel to western New South Wales and to other States to meet with members of the Aboriginal community. I was impressed by his diligence and the conscientious way he pursued those issues. As Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, I join with him in this, the International Year for the World's Indigenous People, in paying tribute to the Newcastle group to which he has referred, which will come together, obviously in a spirit of harmony and reconciliation, on 28th November. I hope that event, which will involve both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups, will be an occasion for mutual respect and reconciliation. I congratulate the honourable member on his personal commitment to the cause.


Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [5.59]: I raise a matter that I have raised previously in this House. However, I believe it is so important that I should raise it again. I refer to what I can only describe as the parochial attitude of city-based investors, particularly institutional investors, to investment opportunities that exist outside the major capital cities in Australia, and in New South Wales in particular. These parochial attitudes in sections of the business community are hindering economic growth in New South Wales. It is disappointing to realise that parochialism exists in the city, as it so often does in the country. In my view, institutional investors are turning their backs on investment opportunities in the State's fastest growing area, namely, the North Coast of New South Wales.

I should like to give one brief example that is symptomatic of a larger problem. Recently an investment seminar was organised in Ballina and 60 institutional investors were invited. Only six of those institutional investors responded positively. Those invited read like the Who's Who of the Australian investment community. The seminar was professionally organised; they were given plenty of notice. They were provided with an offer of free accommodation. Unfortunately, the $10,000 that was raised by the local community to organise this seminar had to be returned to the organisers because only six out of 60 investors were interested. What is probably more revealing than anything is that the balance of those investors said that they were not really interested in anything to do with rural New South Wales, whether it related to a growth area or not; they were only interested in investing in Sydney or Brisbane. Frankly, that is an extraordinary admission. It signifies a blinkered parochialism that can be only detrimental to the economic growth of New South Wales.

What is the objective evidence in relation to investment opportunities across New South Wales? It is that the North Coast is growing at more than three times the statewide average and its growth rate is twice that of Sydney. To be specific, in the period from the last census to the most recent census the population of the North Coast increased by 23 per cent, compared with a statewide growth rate of 6.1 per cent. This means that many investment opportunities are available in the area, especially as it borders the fastest growth area in Australia, namely, southeast Queensland. Tourism, horticulture, agriculture, forestry, the nursery industry, the building industry and the retirement industry are all growth industries on the North Coast, offering opportunities for investment.

However, most of the metropolitan fund managers are not even interested in looking at the area's potential. They can fund the Skases and the Bonds but apparently regional New South Wales is not sexy enough for them. No one expects these institutions to make irrational financial decisions, but they should at least consider the opportunities available outside Sydney and Brisbane. The North Coast has its own draft urban strategy along the lines of the metropolitan strategy recently released for Sydney. It is the fastest growing area in the State. Its growth has to be managed with careful planning. It needs investment in clean industries to provide jobs for the people who are moving into the area. Planning without private investment will not lead us out of the recession and it will certainly not create any new jobs. If we are serious about value adding and about developing export industries to pull Australia
Page 4995
out of its economic woes, we need investment beyond the major metropolitan cities. Downstream processing activities of major rural industries represent good investments for the Australian economy. Improved technology and transport mean that today, perhaps for the first time, successful multinational companies can be based in rural New South Wales. I know for a fact that one that is based in Ballina, Thursday Plantations, has set up a worldwide network to sell ti-tree oils and by-products.

Any high school economics student knows that there are four factors of production: land, labour, capital and enterprise. Land is a fixed resource. Labour is not overly mobile but capital is very mobile, as is enterprise. These fund managers seem to be able to move their funds around to take advantage of investment opportunities overseas. I implore them to re-appraise their attitudes and to consider more appropriately investment in regional New South Wales. Unfortunately, in the absence of any initiative from the managers of capital in the cities, perhaps it is time for the Government to step into the vacuum and to take some action to heighten awareness among city fund managers of the opportunities available in regional New South Wales, and on the far North Coast in particular. Furthermore, I am sure that the thousands of country people who invest their life savings with institutional investors and retire to coastal growth areas will be shocked and disappointed to learn that country areas are not even considered an investment target by most people who invest money. Finally, I appeal to the city institutional investors to broaden their horizons, to recognise population growth trends and to look beyond the capital cities when they make their investment decisions.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [6.4]: The honourable member has raised an issue that is critical to investment across New South Wales. He appropriately raises in this Chamber the need for institutions and key investors to cast a wider net when seeking investment opportunities. Clearly, it must be recognised that New South Wales is more than merely Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong and that regional New South Wales does not merely demand a fair share of investment but, equally, offers wonderful opportunities for investors. In that regard I am sure honourable members will join with the honourable member for Ballina in championing this cause, which he has been pursuing for some time, and will wish him and regional New South Wales every success in those important endeavours.


Mr IRWIN (Fairfield) [6.5]: I bring to the attention of the House a most worthwhile project that is under consideration in the Fairfield electorate. The project involves the restoration of wetlands along Prospect Creek, adjacent to Fairfield Park, and the development of a botanic gardens complex. The project owes much to the vision of two local residents who are aware of the area's potential and of the original condition of this part of Fairfield. Mr Fred Cullis, a lifelong resident, has maintained an interest in the natural environment of the area, particularly the numerous bird species. He has brought to public attention the potential for a wetland area nominated as De Fraitas wetland, a backwater of Prospect Creek adjacent to Vine Street, Fairfield. The area was continuously owned by the De Fraitas family since the 1920s until it was recently purchased by Fairfield Council. Although the area is infested with many introduced plant species, there remains a substantial presence of native plant species representative of those prevalent in the Fairfield district prior to closer development.

Although part of the area has suffered because of intrusions from the nearby sporting complex and has been altered by the creation of levee banks along Prospect Creek, the area of De Fraitas wetland is now a unique sanctuary from surrounding development. Remarkably, the wetland is less than 200 metres from Fairfield railway station, yet this remnant of wetland, which is the type of area that once dominated much of the local landscape, offers a haven, which to the visitor could be miles from urban development. I can recall from my younger days the presence of many such areas in the district. Of course they were not called wetlands in those days; they were called swamps. Councils of those times regarded such places as ideal landfill sites and often took advantage of them to dispose of garbage. They were then levelled and made into playing fields. That has meant that few wetland sites remain today, a fact which makes the preservation and restoration of the De Fraitas wetland all the more important.

Another site close to that which I have just mentioned is Heiden Park. That site was owned by the Heiden family since the 1920s and later became a retirement village. However, as the land was flood prone, it was recently resumed using Commonwealth, State and local government funding. As part of the flood mitigation works along Prospect Creek, a large floodway is being developed adjacent to the Heiden Park site. On the initiative of Mrs Leila Lewis, a botanic garden is planned for part of the Heiden Park site. Together with projects undertaken under the land care and environment action program, which has been effective in restoring areas along Prospect Creek, these projects form the basis of a major lineal parkland in the heart of Fairfield.

The vision of Fred Cullis and Leila Lewis has fired the imagination of many Fairfield residents and community groups. The East Fairfield Progress Association and the Rotary Club of Fairfield have enthusiastically endorsed the projects and offered their continuing support. State Government authorities have a role to play in this exciting project. Authorities such as the Public Works Department, which has been responsible for flood mitigation work, and the Roads and Traffic Authority, which has responsibility for road projects in the area, are
Page 4996
involved. They should be sympathetic to the overall design of the projects and should design their works to ensure they are compatible with the projects. The vision of Fred Cullis and Leila Lewis has my full backing. It is a vision that can maintain an element of our natural environment in a developed urban plan. It is worthy of the support of government at all levels.


Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [6.9]: Tonight I announce good news for 29 students in the Hornsby-Ryde area, many of whom live in my electorate, and, indeed, for 300 students across New South Wales. Although they are small in number, those students are a significant part of the community. They are students with moderate and severe intellectual and physical disabilities. Earlier today the Minister for Community Services, Jim Longley, announced a $3.6 million package of services for school-leavers with moderate to severe disabilities. That package addresses one of the most intractable problems for this significant group. That is, what happens when they reach the age when they must leave school? What are their options post-school?

It is a problem that I have been concerned about since I was elected as member for Ku-ring-gai a little over a year ago. I have worked with the Minister for Community Services, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in another place and with local members - particularly in the Hornsby-Ryde area - including the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, Tony Packard - the former member for The Hills - the honourable member for Eastwood and the honourable member for Gordon. For some time we have been discussing with the community and parents who have children in this most difficult situation just what is best for their welfare, and have been taking that message to the Ministers and to the Government generally.

I am delighted to say that today's announcement comes at the end of a very long process of trying to find what is the best thing to do for these people. For the benefit of honourable members, let me attempt to sketch the difficulties. For example, together with the honourable members nominated, last year I visited Karonga Special School and the Sir Eric Woodward Special School - which is in my electorate - and at those places we saw the dedication of the staff and parents to providing a meaningful life for some of the most disadvantaged people in the entire Australian community - in fact, I would argue, the most disadvantaged. These are people with severe intellectual and physical disabilities and people with moderate physical and intellectual disabilities, who rely on the good will of others in order to have a quality of life which we recognise they all should have as members of the Australian community.

In order to have any kind of meaningful existence they need the physical assistance and moral support of other people. Yet, for so many years, we wrote off people with disabilities. We locked them away. We hid them from ourselves, perhaps because we were uncomfortable at seeing them. Thankfully, we do not do that any more and we have a much more compassionate, caring and correct attitude towards people with disabilities; an attitude that says they are as much meaningful members of the community as are able-bodied and able-minded people. The Government recognised that in the very important statement of disability principles - which was affirmed as recently as today by the Premier, Mr Fahey - the most important principle is that people with a disability should have the same basic human rights as other members of Australian society. They also have the right to ensure that their specific needs are met. Their rights, which apply irrespective of the nature, origin, type or degree of disability, include a number of things. People with a disability are individuals who have the inherent right to be respected for their human worth and dignity. Persons with a disability have the right to live in and be part of the community; and so the principles go on. There are eight such principles and they were reaffirmed today by the Premier.

I endorse each and every one of those principles, as I do the $3.6 million special enhancement package to provide post-school options for those people who reached the school leaving age but then faced a very bleak future with no specific program aimed at providing them with a meaningful existence. The package will enable independent living, training and community access programs; it will enable respite care to give some break to the carers who are doing such a marvellous job and who face such tremendous difficulties in their own lives; and it will provide individual and family support, for example, the provision of support on a regular basis and, as and when required, the provision of crisis support so vital in maintaining family and community placement. It has been a long debate. Those parents who first brought this issue to my notice and to the notice of other honourable members know that it has been a difficult one. It has involved trying to work out the best way to care for these people but it is the most important thing we have been able to do. [Time expired.]

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [6.14]: I join with my colleague the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai and other members in northwest Sydney who have been pursuing this matter for probably two years. The issue of moderately and severely intellectually disabled school-leavers in particular has been a vexing one, not just for the Government and various government departments, but one that honourable members could come close to understanding only at a superficial level, in the context of the anguish, strain, frustration and enormous hurt inflicted on a great many of the parents of those students who for some years have been searching for a solution to the problem. For those students to be left - as government policy has left them - in these halfway houses, Karonga Special School and other schools, for
Page 4997
many, many years, has been completely unacceptable. As a consequence, together with my colleagues the honourable members mentioned earlier, I have pursued this case as being very deserving of a compassionate solution.

I am pleased to join with the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai in welcoming the initiative of the Premier and the Minister for Community Services in making available the $3.6 million package for school-leavers. It is long overdue and there could be no more just cause than this one. The concept of leaving these young Australians, who fast become adults and fast become very mature adults, in school because they have nowhere else to go is an unacceptable option. The outcome is a very fine achievement - largely at the behest of the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai. He has led the group of members who have pursued this case and he has done so extraordinarily well. Now, of course, together with the families in question, they have seen the fruits of their endeavours and have seen this very compassionate package of $3.6 million for school-leavers of moderate to severe intellectual disability come to fruition. [Time expired.]

[The Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.16 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [7.30], in reply: In his contribution to this debate the honourable member for Ashfield detailed a number of amendments that he proposes to move in Committee. Before addressing the amendments individually I shall make some general comments in response to matters raised by honourable members. The honourable member for Auburn raised a case involving various parties who sought to appear before a coronial inquiry in relation to a particular matter. In the case he detailed, without naming those involved, he said that there had been a long and drawn out process of delays which he thought, probably quite rightly, were inexcusable in the context of settling the matter before the coroner.

However, that incident demonstrated not so much the need to widen the ambit for the coroner to bring before the coronial proceedings more witnesses and parties - and the right of the coroner to bring proceedings or hear any party at his or her determination is already a reality in a legal context - but demonstrated how convoluted, complex and delaying the possibility of widening the ambit of various parties before coronial proceedings could be. The very concern the honourable member had, which was primarily with the delay, would have been enhanced by the fact that even though in the case in question everyone who wanted to appear before the coroner was able to do so, if even more witnesses had presented before the proceeding the delays would have been longer. It is fair to say that the current system works equitably, and did work equitably in that case.

The example cited by the honourable member works in favour of the Government's case. Though widening the ambit for coronial inquiries to take into consideration a number of matters touched on in the bill, it is not widened it to the point where it almost enters the judicial system as a court of law and, in that context, becomes just one more arm of the court. The honourable member for Ashfield cited a number of cases as reasons why the Government's bill is inadequate and needs further amendment. Those cases included the various Chelmsford inquests, inquests examined in the course of the Royal Commission into Aboriginals Deaths in Custody, and the Hilton bombing inquest, as well as the three Azzopardi inquiries. Some of these cases date from the late 1960s and the early 1970s. All were held more than four years ago. The honourable member does not appear to recognise some of the great changes made to the coronial system since the hearing of these cases occurred, changes not just in the legislation but in the attitude and approaches of participants in the proceedings.

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the royal commission into deaths at Chelmsford Hospital, and the third Azzopardi inquiry conducted by former District Court Judge Thorley and the Office of State Coroner, have brought about these changes. There have been changes not just in how coroners see their role and approach the performance of their duties, but also changes to the expectations of the public as to what coronial proceedings can and should achieve. I suspect that 20 years ago if 10 people had been asked what a coroner did, nine of them would not have been able to say with any real confidence. Today, almost all of them would know. This greater public awareness has led coroners, guided by the State Coroner, to approach their tasks with increased professionalism and resolve. Everyone now has a better understanding of the important role that a coroner can and should play in investigating deaths and fires.

However, it is equally important to understand the limitations of the coronial system. Not all cases involve gross medical negligence, like the Chelmsford cases, or issues of national security and terrorism, like the Hilton bombing case. Some involve persons dying of natural causes but the doctor being unable to sign a death certificate because those persons had not visited a doctor in the three months before death; a person slipping on a wet bathroom floor and fatally hitting his or her head on the bath; a child dying of sudden infant death syndrome, or someone fatally crashing his or her car into a tree. These matters are reported to coroners. They investigate them, order post mortems and consider evidence collected by the police. In the majority of cases an inquest will not be necessary. The case and circumstance of the deaths will be established beyond any doubt. The families will be notified and will be able to get on with their lives, knowing what happened and how the person died. Because most matters reported to coroners do
Page 4998
not require a court hearing, it is possible to appoint clerks of the courts as coroners. Because it is possible to appoint clerks of the courts as coroners, coroners are found in most country centres throughout the State.

This is of advantage to all concerned. Matters can be dealt with urgently when required. Families get access to the coroner to ask questions or raise matters as they wish. The coroner is accessible to the police and can guide the investigation. The amendments proposed by the honourable member for Ashfield would change all of this. The qualifications a person would need for appointment as a coroner under the Opposition's proposed amendments would exclude most, if not all, clerks of the Local Court. This would mean that the local magistrate would have to act as coroner. In country areas magistrates travel on circuit to various towns in the region. During that time the magistrate would be unavailable to perform the important administrative functions of coroner, such as ordering post mortems or signing orders for burial. This would cause delays in dealing with matters, and would cause distress and inconvenience to the families of the deceased. That would be a concern to country members, particularly the honourable member for Lismore and the honourable member for Albury, who are well aware that local magistrates, able to act as coroner and in many cases knowing the locals concerned, can facilitate expeditiously and with sensitivity the matters before them.

That vital and important issue would be threatened by the very nature of the Opposition's amendments. The majority of cases in the coronial system would be handled less efficiently and effectively, so that a tiny minority of controversial matters can receive the attention that the honourable member believes they do not presently enjoy. As a consequence, the quality of proceedings in the main for most cases and most issues before the coroner would be sacrificed, all in the name of a mere handful of controversial issues which might excite the attention of the local or the national media. Another shortcoming in the honourable member's amendments is an apparent misunderstanding of the basic role of coronial proceedings and how they interact with the rest of the court system.

Coroners' courts are something of an anomaly within the judicial system. While all other proceedings may be loosely categorised as adversarial, coronial inquiries are inquisitorial. They are concerned with finding things out, discovering things, and not with determining people's rights and obligations within a statutory or common law framework. Coroners make findings about what has happened in a particular case; they try to discover who has died, how they died and whether anything can be done to prevent the misfortune of someone else dying in the same way. In order to fulfil this task, they endeavour to identify and to hear all the evidence which appears to be relevant to finding out what actually has happened. They make a determination of fact on the basis of the information before them.

There are, of course, other people involved in this process: the family of the deceased has an interest in finding out what has happened. It is generally agreed that in many cases it helps the grieving process if family and friends have a complete understanding of how a death occurred. There may be people who are worried about whether they will be held responsible for what has happened; there may be people who can provide information to the coroner that will help to explain what has happened or which may prevent a similar death occurring in the future. All these people may have an interest in the proceedings. None of them, however, are parties to the proceedings in the way the accused is a party in a criminal trial or a plaintiff is a party in a civil action. Their rights and obligations under the law are not altered by what happens in the coronial proceedings.

A coroner does not make determinations about people's rights and obligations because it is more important that people be as forthcoming as possible during coronial hearings. In that way the coroner will hear all the available evidence and thus be able to make a finding. In other words, during this process, which in some measure is less formal than a normal court proceeding, there is an opportunity for all the evidence, all the hearsay, all the relevant information to come forward from all the parties before the coroner in order that a determination can be made on the basis of the information.

If the coroner were to take responsibility for determining people's rights, as opposed to determining facts, as opposed to receiving all the information and on the strength of that information making a determination, then for the sake of fairness and natural justice restrictions and limitations would have to be placed on the way in which the proceedings were conducted. This is germane to the Government's case and to the issue of whether the major reforms that go much further than the bill ever intended - that are the subject of the amendments put forward by the honourable member for Ashfield - are appropriate.

It is a question of whether we open up a pandora's box only then to have a series of qualifications, limitations and restrictions on the way fairness and natural justice currently flow in proceedings that take place under the framework of the existing legislation. The rules of evidence would have to apply, for instance; people at risk would have to be given the opportunity to object to certain material being presented to the court. It would become much harder for coroners to discover the facts in many cases. In essence, it would be harder for the coroner to get to the heart, the root, the real cause of the fire or the death. And that, after all, is what the coroner is all about. When it comes to criminal proceedings, when it comes to civil proceedings, they are the purview of other jurisdictions. The changes that the Opposition is seeking to make with these amendments almost revolutionise the whole concept of the proceedings as they currently exist and threaten the very existence of proceedings at the moment - all-
Page 4999
embracing and gathering all the facts, all the hearsay, all the conjecture in order that we can get a much more informed determination.

I refer now to the amendments. The first amendments I will consider are to clauses 2 and 33 of the bill - amendments A and I, which I note for the benefit of honourable members opposite. As the honourable member for Ashfield explained in his speech, the Opposition has identified its amendments by alphabetical notation. The amendment to clause 2 seeks to include a definition of organisation in section 4 of the Coroners Act. This is innocuous enough until it is read with the proposed amendment to clause 33. They both must be dealt with in context. The amendment proposes to give a right of appearance to any person or organisation at any inquest or inquiry.

The presiding coroner presently may grant leave to appear to anyone considered to have a sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the inquest or the inquiry. In other words the current legislation provides the opportunity for the coroner to allow any person who is considered to have a sufficient interest in the subject-matter to appear. The Government's amendment at clause 33 seeks to provide for a presumption in favour of being granted leave to appear to a relative of the deceased. This is coupled with an amendment to the definition of relative to include people in loco parentis to the deceased who were the deceased's guardians.

The honourable member for Ashfield acknowledged in his speech that there is no record of any person ever being refused the right of appearance at any inquest or inquiry. That is worth repeating: the honourable member who proposes this amendment, in order to overcome difficulties presumably - imaginary or real, because certainly the amendments pose their own problems - acknowledged to the House that there is no record of any person ever being refused the right of appearance at an inquest or inquiry. He also admitted that the effect of these amendments would be to give a right of appearance to every person in the State. In order to solve an imaginary, conceptual problem, if you will, one that currently does not exist in reality, in theory, in practice or in mind, we are going to take a sledge-hammer to burst the bubble that does not exist. We are going to say that every person in the State who may feel that he has an interest in a case, however controversial, exciting the interest of everyone in the State, will have the right of appearance before that inquiry.

The honourable member persists with amendments which could make it virtually impossible for some inquests or inquiries to be completed. He will open it for everyone. Some of the amendments will close down the capacity of the current coronial system to cope with some inquests or inquiries. Take the example of an inquest where a person believes that he or she is at risk of being found to have committed a criminal offence. That person could seek to prevent vital evidence coming out by arranging for other people, perhaps with no connection to the matter in question, to appear at the hearing and delay the proceedings by each cross-examining witnesses.

The law is often abused. Every loophole, sooner rather than later, is used to advantage. The honourable member suggests that this suggestion is fatuous. Anyone who has appeared before courts would know that it is really very much the responsibility of counsel to look for these loopholes - the sorts of loopholes the honourable member for Ashfield seeks to create in this legislation. Those loopholes will make the system far more complex.

I suggest, with great respect, that what he seeks to do, given that he has acknowledged that no one has been refused the right to appear, is to open up a pandora's box - anyone can appear, cross-examine, present their case, present their information second-hand or third-hand or what they have read in a newspaper. They claim to be vitally concerned and therefore have a right to appear. They may be next door neighbours who were not around at the time of the event but just want to drop in to offer their personal opinions. Everyone will be able to appear. That will provide for abuses, as sure as night follows day. If the family of the deceased was not legally able, their money for legal representation would soon be exhausted in these circumstances. If legal aid were involved it would be unlikely that the Legal Aid Commission or any other body would be able to fund representatives at inquests for very long and under such circumstances. This now starts to have a detrimental effect on the very people who are at the heart of the issue seeking to solve the question before the proceedings. It has a great capacity to limit their personal and deeply felt capacity to appear before the inquiry.

The coroner's resources also would be targeted. Giving a right of appearance to anyone who wanted it would invariably and inevitably result in some cases taking much longer to be completed. Coroners would have less time to spend on less controversial cases. The efficiency of the coronial system would suffer. Delays, courtesy of the honourable member for Ashfield, would set in. Once again we would be back to the long queues and the long delays that were a key feature of the Labor Party's maladministration of the judicial system. It is a matter of great regret that although this Government seeks to provide for efficient change with its bill, the Labor Party once more wants to visit on the people of New South Wales more delays, relentlessly longer queues. The honourable member described the power to grant or refuse a right of appearance as a coercive power which coroners ought not to have. Every other court has the power to regulate its proceedings by controlling who appears before it. There is no reason why coroners should be stripped of this power; there is no reason why of all the courts that operate in our judicial system one process should be opened to all and sundry by the stripping of power from him or her who conducts the inquiry. No longer will there be any control on the part of the coroner as to who should appear.

Page 5000

Amendment B proposed by the Opposition would insert clause 21(a) to amend section 17 of the Coroner's Act. The amendment falls into two parts. First, there is a proposal that a person or organisation intending to appear at an inquest or inquiry may request the State Coroner to commence the inquest or inquiry. This amendment is opposed for the following reasons. The coroner, as the person directing the investigation, is best placed to determine when a matter is ready to be listed. Listing a matter prematurely would offer no real advantage. For example, a witness may give his or her evidence only to find that the inquest has to be adjourned to complete the inquiries. As a result of these inquiries it could well be necessary to recall that witness to be examined further. Generally, nothing would be gained by the early listing of a matter. The only exception would be where it is necessary to take the evidence of a witness who will be available for a short time, perhaps because the witness will be travelling overseas. In such cases it is current practice that the coroner will list the matter as soon as possible to take the witness's evidence and then adjourn the matter to a later date for the full hearing. In other words, within the current framework the facility exists to provide for the exception, again without the necessity to open up a pandora's box.

Giving one person the right to demand that an inquest or inquiry be commenced may work to the disadvantage of other people intending to be represented at the inquest. Forcing a matter on when everyone who will be appearing may not be available may mean that some parties will find legal representatives are not available or they may not be fully prepared for the cross-examination. In trying to correct what the honourable member quite plausibly sees as a problem he would be providing an even more difficult environment in which to get to the bottom of matters, making it harder for people to prepare their cases with any degree of certainty, be prepared for cross-examination, and have lawyers available and fully briefed. Where a coroner is being dilatory in listing a matter the interested party can approach the State Coroner about the matter. If the State Coroner takes the view that the matter is ready to proceed he can direct the particular coroner to list it. However, that should be left to the discretion of the State Coroner.

The second half of the amendment provides a means by which people who will be appearing at inquests or inquiries can apply for access to statements and other documents which will be used as evidence. The honourable member proposes this amendment on the basis that access to documents is not given until the hearing actually commences. However, later in his speech he noted that informal access to material is given now. It is recognised by coroners that allowing interested parties access to material as early as possible aids the investigative process because the people concerned may be able to identify other areas to be investigated. There are situations in which access will be denied, just as there have been situations in which access has been granted. It should be remembered that sometimes coronial investigations may be linked to criminal investigations. Therefore, the need to preserve the integrity of the criminal investigation so as not to jeopardise any future trial may take precedence over allowing access to documents or statements. Once again a very superficial view is put forward by the honourable member for Ashfield. Even to someone like myself who is not a lawyer it is clear that the proposal is inappropriate and riddled with faults.

Amendment C proposes to amend section 18 of the Coroners Act to change the provisions dealing with coronial juries. The amendment would allow people who have been granted leave to appear at an inquest or inquiry as well as the person assisting the presiding coroner to make both opening and closing addresses. These proposals mirror current procedures in respect of opening and closing addresses for counsel assisting the coroner and closing addresses for people appearing. It is not current procedure for other people appearing to make opening addresses because counsel assisting the coroner will have discovered the concerns which these people wish to raise and will address them in his or her opening remarks to the jury. To allow every party to make an opening address to the jury would simply prolong the proceedings and enhance the delays, particularly if the honourable member's other amendments relating to the right of appearance are passed. This would be injecting a whole series of delays in the way in which proceedings are resolved. One after the other, by amendment after amendment, the honourable member seeks to dismantle the efficiency of the current system, to inhibit the very sensible amendments which the Government proposes in its legislation, designed to provide a more effective and efficient system. Opening addresses could take several days to complete, before evidence on controversial aspects could begin.

Amendment D also involves coronial juries. This amendment proposes changes to section 19 of the Coroners Act, which deals with the procedures to be adopted where a person has been charged or a prima facie case is established against any person before or during an inquest or fire inquiry. Under the present section 19 if the coroner knows that a person has been charged with an indictable offence or, during proceedings, forms an opinion that a prima facie case has been established against a known person for an indictable offence arising out of circumstances being investigated by the coroner, the inquest or the inquiry is continued only for the purpose of establishing identity of the deceased and the date and place of death or, in the case of a fire, the date and place of the fire. The proceedings are then terminated. Under section 20 a further inquest or fire inquiry may be held into the same circumstances once the charge or charges have been finally dealt with or if the Attorney General or Director of Public Prosecutions directs that no proceedings be taken against a person subject to an indictable offence. In other words, after the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions has reviewed the case, either can issue the appropriate directive.

Page 5001

The reason for these provisions is obvious. Evidence would emerge at an inquest which could not be admissible at a criminal trial because a coroner is not bound by the rules of evidence. This harks back to the original amendments offered by the honourable member seeking to overturn the way in which coronial inquiries are currently conducted. Prospective jurors would hear this evidence and be prejudiced against the accused, thus making it harder for the accused to get a fair trial. So, with this amendment we would be doing away with the time honoured practice of a fair trial, a fair and just system. The Parliament decided that in these cases the coronial system must be subordinate to the criminal justice system, and that is the view of the Government. It is important to ensure that a person accused of an offence is made to answer for that offence. This would be a lot harder to achieve if the person could argue that because of certain evidence which emerged during the inquest it would be impossible to find 12 jurors who had not been prejudiced following the proceedings of the coronial inquest.

The honourable member for Ashfield seeks to turn this arrangement on its head. Rather than have the coroner terminate proceedings at a certain point, once a person has been charged or a prima facie case has been established the coroner would be required to take all the evidence and complete the inquest, then have the person charged with an offence and dealt with under section 41 of the Justices Act so that he or she is committed to stand trial for the offence. And where proceedings are being heard before a jury the inquest or inquiry will be conducted to finality and the jury may make a finding that the evidence is capable of satisfying a jury beyond reasonable doubt. The presiding coroner would then deal with the accused under the Justices Act. These proposals are deeply objectionable for several reasons. The first is the role given to juries. As one of the reasons for the amendments the honourable member spoke of ensuring that a coronial jury would return a verdict at each empanelment. Coronial juries are very rarely used. Under present procedures they would never be called for when a person already has been charged before the inquest or inquiry has commenced, because there would be only a very brief hearing before the proceedings were terminated under section 19.

Cases where a coronial jury is used and a prima facie case is established against any persons would be very rare indeed. In those cases, the jury is discharged because to have it make any finding other than findings required by section 19 would imperil the prospect of the accused receiving a fair trial. It could not help but influence the minds of any jurors during the trial to know that an earlier jury had already made a finding suggestive of the accused's guilt. The honourable member also mentioned the possibility of a reintroduction of the grand jury system. Presumably he sees the coronial jury performing the function of a grand jury. This extraordinary suggestion is a retrospective and backward step by the honourable member seeking to revisit the past.

Grand juries have not been used in New South Wales since at least the 1820s. They were abolished for most matters in England in 1933 and have been abolished in most States of Australia. In Victoria, where the procedure is still formally in place, it has been used perhaps once or twice since the second world war - and my own inquiries confirm that advice. What possible function the honourable member thinks grand juries will perform, except to give a greater and more meaningful role to coronial juries, which is scarcely a priority, I cannot imagine. The present system, where magistrates determine whether a person should stand trial and the Director of Public Prosecutions decides whether or not to proceed with the charge, works well. The honourable member has given no credible reason why it should be changed to go back to the 1820s.

In his speech, the honourable member spoke of the "entitlement to trial by jury" and that it should not be a "mere matter for procedure but . . . a fundamental right". That right is not in dispute here. What the honourable member is proposing is not trial by jury but committal by jury, and it is in that context that the honourable member's amendment should be read. The proposals relating to the role of a coroner sitting alone are also opposed. The first reason is purely practical. As mentioned before, the vast majority of coroners are clerks of the Local Court and therefore are not empowered to commit people to trial under the Justices Act. The honourable member's amendment does not specify what will happen in those cases. Even where the presiding coroner is also a magistrate, the task given to him or her by this amendment is impossible to perform.

The magistrate-coroner will firstly hear all the evidence presented during the inquest or fire inquiry and make an appropriate finding as a coroner. He or she must then try to forget all the inadmissible evidence that has been presented during the coronial proceedings and concentrate only on admissible evidence in order to decide if any person should be committed to stand trial. Any magistrate will tell the honourable member that the tests that currently must be applied in deciding whether a person should be committed for trial are very complex in themselves. How much more complex will the procedure be if magistrates will also be called upon to put out of their minds inadmissible evidence that has come out during the inquest or fire inquiry? This amendment will require magistrates to perform an impossible mental exercise - impossible even for the honourable member for Ashfield. It will result in injustice for people who have been charged with offences that relate to coronial proceedings and will not achieve any improvement in the justice system. For these reasons, this amendment is strongly opposed.

The next amendments, amendments E and F, propose to insert a new section 20 into the Coroners Act. This new provision will extend the ambit of an inquest or fire inquiry far beyond its current scope. Currently, section 22 of the Coroners Act requires that a coroner or jury make a finding as to the identity of the deceased, date and place of death and manner
Page 5002
and cause of death, except where criminal charges are laid. Section 22(3) specifically provides that "no finding shall indicate or suggest that an offence has been committed by any person". In respect of fires - explosions are to be included by the Government's bill - section 22 requires that a coroner or jury should make a finding as to the date, place and circumstances of any fire under inquiry, except where criminal charges are laid or may be laid. These provisions will not be amended by the Government's bill. The Opposition wishes to change this to include the circumstances surrounding a death or suspected death and any question of negligence, malpractice, misconduct or criminal conduct or means of preventing a similar death. In relation to fires and explosions, the amendment will require the coroner to investigate whether there is any negligence, malpractice or misconduct surrounding the fire and consider any question relating to the detection, extinguishing, control or prevention of the fire and the means to detect, extinguish, control or prevent similar fires.

The proposal, so far as it relates to the circumstances of a death, fire or explosion, is unobjectionable as this is, in effect, the practice already. This is also the case in respect to reporting on "means of preventing similar deaths" or "means . . . to detect, extinguish, control or prevent any similar fire or explosion in the future". Coroners make recommendations on such matters on a regular basis, and the proposed inclusion of a new section 22A to give statutory recognition to coronial recommendations shows that the Government realises the importance of this practice. However, requiring that a coroner investigate and report on issues of "negligence, malpractice, misconduct or criminal conduct" would be an unacceptable extension of the coroner's function. The primary task of a coroner in relation to deaths is to investigate who died and how they died. The primary task of a coroner in relation to fires - and, in the future, explosions - is to investigate what happened, not to apportion blame.

Because of the investigative nature of the inquiries, the proceedings are non-adversarial and not bound by the rules of evidence. Thus, material coming before a coroner is not always tested by cross-examination and may not be admissible in any other court proceedings. This means that, though under these amendments a coroner would be able to make a report on a person's criminal or civil liability, that report may not be borne out in any subsequent legal proceedings. It would be most improper for a coroner to make what would appear to be a finding of guilt or liability against a person who may not have had the chance to know the nature of the allegations against him or her and may not even have appeared at the coronial proceedings. In his speech in support of these amendments, the honourable member mentioned "the ultimate advantage to the court system and the parties" if evidence of matters such as negligence or malpractice was led at the coronial hearing. The reasoning appears to be that airing of this evidence will lead to earlier and cheaper resolution of matters while taking up very little extra time in the Coroners Court.

However, that reasoning is spurious. There will be several consequences of these amendments, if introduced. First, any inquest or fire inquiry where there is a risk that issues of negligence, malpractice, et cetera, will be raised will take much longer because people at risk of having adverse reports made against them will want to challenge and test all the evidence presented. Any person who believes he has an interest in the matter can appear and be cross-examined, and any evidence or hearsay can be presented, unless court rules are established. However, that will restrict and contract the ability of a coronial inquiry to get to the heart of a matter without treating matters before it in the full legal sense of the judicial system. Second, witnesses will be much less willing to give their evidence as freely as they do now if the consequences of giving that evidence in a coronial hearing will be more serious than at present, resulting in reports being made about negligence or malpractice. The amendments proposed by the honourable member will frighten off those wanting to give evidence. His amendments will create a system with potential disincentives to appear before a coronial inquiry and provide information.

Lastly, it is unlikely that the evidence obtained in this way will be admissible in any court deciding substantive issues of negligence or any other liability. The adversarial court system has developed a number of procedures that ensure that both sides receive justice and are not disadvantaged. Among those procedures is the defendant's right to know details of the allegation or claim made against him or her. That knowledge allows a proper defence to be prepared because the defendant knows the nature of the accusation and can respond to that with particularity. Such a procedure is not in place in coronial hearings. No person is designated as the defendant and so is not able to require disclosure of information so that he or she can prepare a defence. The situation could arise, under these circumstances, that a coronial inquiry would take place, a number of witnesses could be called, and allegations of negligence or malpractice might not surface until very late in the proceedings. The person against whom the allegations were made may not have taken the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and test their evidence because he or she was not aware of the need to do so.

The coroner would have to recall those witnesses and allow the person to cross-examine or allow the admission of any report that contained references to the allegations, which would be grossly unjust and unlikely to be admissible in any other proceedings - another leg in this patchwork quilt designed to stifle the effectiveness and efficiency of the current proceedings. This will result in a prolonging of the coronial proceedings though it will not guarantee that any subsequent proceedings will be shortened. The amendments to section 22 of the Coroners Act, amendment G, appear to be consequential to the Opposition's amendments to sections 19 and 20. As those amendments are opposed, the changes to section 22 are also opposed.

Page 5003

The next amendments, amendments H and J, propose deleting clauses 32 and 35 of the bill and inserting an alternative amendment to section 35 of the Coroners Act. That amendment will allow any person to approach a coroner or justice of the peace to seek the issue of a summons or warrant for the appearance of a person and or the production of documents at an inquest or inquiry. The present section 35 provides that the presiding coroner may issue a summons or warrant in respect of any person whom that coroner thinks will give material evidence or can produce documents required in evidence. The bill proposes to amend section 35 to allow any coroner or assistant coroner to issue summonses or warrants in coronial matters, but only in consultation with the coroner with jurisdiction. This proposal is intended to make it easier to have process issued in coronial matters while still allowing the presiding coroner to retain control over who is called as a witness in the proceedings.

The bill also proposes to insert a new section 31A into the Coroners Act. The new section would provide a procedure whereby people intending to appear at an inquest or inquiry could ask the presiding coroner to call certain witnesses. If the coroner declines, the person could then require the coroner to give reasons and those reasons could be used in an approach to the State Coroner or in an application to the Supreme Court. The effect of the Opposition's proposal would be to take control of the proceedings away from the presiding coroner, to snatch the power from the presiding coroner. That person, being in charge of the investigation, is in the best position to decide whose evidence it is necessary or desirable to take at the inquest or inquiry. That is the Government's position. In support of this amendment, the honourable member claims that coroners will often decline to issue a summons unless the person seeking the summons has obtained a written statement from the witness.

That is certainly not the case in the State Coroner's office. In that office if a person seeks that a witness be summonsed, all that is required is a written application from that person setting out in brief the details of the witness required and a description of the evidence that he or she will be able to give. The State Coroner can then examine the application and, using his or her knowledge of the case, decide if the witness's evidence will be helpful. A justice of the peace, with little or no knowledge of coronial proceedings in general or of the specific matters in particular, would not be able to make an informed decision on whether a person is a material witness or not. The Opposition has suggested that instead of the coronial inquiry, we will now have just any justice of the peace. Of course there are probably tens of thousands of justices of the peace throughout New South Wales, all with the power to issue summonses to call people from all over the State, interstate or around the world. What an extraordinary system we will develop.

The system of coronial inquiries the honourable member for Ashfield would set up would allow anyone in the State to appear, any evidence to be offered, anyone to be cross-examined, re-cross-examined or recalled after giving evidence, giving a report or giving information. That does not occur anywhere else in the judicial system. I notice that one or two justices of the peace from my electorate have wandered into the gallery. I greatly appreciate their ability but I would not trust them to make an informed decision. Any justice of the peace would be able to issue a summons to anyone in this State. What an extraordinary situation the Opposition seeks to establish with this amendment.

Using this amendment coupled with the amendments relating to the right of appearance, a person could cause summonses to issue against a great number of people, many of whom may not be able to give relevant evidence at the coronial hearing, causing delay and disruption without assisting the resolution of the proceedings. Requiring that such applications must be made on oath will not avoid the problem, as the applicant may have a genuine, if mistaken, belief that the witness's evidence is relevant. The Government's new section 31A will allow persons wishing to appear in coronial proceedings to call certain witnesses while still allowing the coroner to control who appears to give evidence. It is not necessary to go to the lengths proposed by the Opposition.

The next amendment, amendment K, seeks to include a new section 46A to provide that any person or organisation that appeared at coronial proceedings may appeal to the District Court against a finding made at the inquest or inquiry, and a new section 46B to provide a similar right of appeal to the Supreme Court from the findings of a special inquest or inquiry. The special inquests and inquiries are the subject of another amendment to the bill that I will discuss in a moment. There are currently no provisions in the Coroners Act that allow an appeal against a coroner's finding to the District Court. However, section 47 does allow the Supreme Court to order that an inquest or inquiry be held in certain cases, even if an inquest or inquiry had previously been held or dispensed with. The Government's bill does not provide a right of appeal but will allow the State Coroner to order that a fresh inquest or inquiry be held where new facts or evidence are discovered. That new section is section 23A.

This may address some of the concerns that this proposal is supposed to solve. I hope the honourable member will see it in that context. The proposed amendment did not detail the role the Supreme Court or District Court would have in hearing the appeal. It is difficult to know how the District Court would approach such an appeal. The honourable member for Ashfield never gave honourable members any information that amplified the role of the District Court and how it is meant to deal with the problem. Certainly the Government knows that the District Court is already stacked up with cases. The honourable member's amendment, however, will allow coronial inquiries to be revisited through this new arm of the judicial process. Court delays have been reduced by this Government, but they will be increased by the amendments of the Opposition with procedures such as these.

Page 5004

One begins to wonder about the motive of the Opposition with such amendments. One wonders whether the Opposition wants an effective, fair, equitable and speedy judicial system or whether it wants to leave so many caveats that they open up a pandora's box. The result would be that we would deal in coronial inquiries only with controversial issues as opposed to quality approaches to all the issues that are important to the hearts and minds of the many people affected by the fire or death that the coronial inquest seeks to solve. The proposed amendment did not detail the role of the Supreme Court or the District Court in the hearing.

The provision does not indicate how the role of the Supreme Court under this section would differ from its role under the present section 47. Coronial proceedings are inquisitorial rather than adjudicative. They result in findings of fact, not determinations of rights or liabilities. Findings of fact in other proceedings, such as royal commissions, are not subject to a right of appeal to a court of law. The District Court does not currently exercise any jurisdiction in this area and the change would add a third tier to the system for no real benefit. It is a policy of no real benefit from the Opposition.

The effect of this change would be to simply prolong coronial proceedings. People or organisations that are dissatisfied with the findings of a coroner will be able to drag out the proceedings far beyond the financial capabilities of others involved in the matter, such as the family of the deceased. The Opposition seeks to strike with a knife at the hearts of the family of the deceased - those who want a speedy, effective, fair and just resolution - by prolonging cases and taking them to a new third tier of the judicial system. Earlier amendments, of course, will provide that the whole of the State of New South Wales will have a right to appear. This amendment will further prolong the whole system. The heartache and anguish it will visit on the community will be intolerable and the amendment is therefore strenuously opposed by the Government. The current supervisory role of the Supreme Court - and that is what is needed, a supervisory role, not an arbitrary role such as that offered by the Opposition - under section 47 and the proposed role of the State Coroner under proposed section 23A, to which I referred earlier, will give sufficient protection. A third avenue is simply not necessary.

The next amendment, amendment L, seeks to insert a new section 47A into the Coroners Act to allow the Supreme Court to order that a special inquest or inquiry be held before a coroner or a judge of the District Court, sitting either alone or with a jury. A special inquest or inquiry would be able to inquire into other matters outside the usual ambit of coronial proceedings, that ambit having already been extended by the amendments to section 20 discussed earlier. There are no such provisions in the existing Coroners Act. The Supreme Court can order that a further inquest or inquiry be held, but such proceedings would still be within the limits set by the legislation. The proposal appears to envisage a role for coronial proceedings as minor royal commissions. It assigns a role and responsibilities to coroners and District Court judges that they currently do not exercise and are currently not qualified to perform in many cases. Coronial hearings will be turned into royal commissions. Justices of the peace will be calling witnesses and issuing summonses. The entire State of New South Wales, if it wishes, will be able to appear before these hearings. That is an extraordinary situation.

If a royal commission or similar inquiry is necessary in a particular case, then it is for the government of the day to make that decision and act accordingly, by appointing a suitably qualified person - and that is the appropriate word, and it is germane to the Government's case - to conduct the inquiry and providing the necessary resources. One very curious feature of the proposal is the inclusion of a jury. No other such proceeding, such as a royal commission or commission of inquiry, is conducted with a jury. As I mentioned earlier, the honourable member for Ashfield will take us back to the 1820s and bring back the grand jury. That system does not exist anywhere in the country.

Mr Whelan: Go to Victoria.

Mr PHOTIOS: In Victoria it is merely on the statute books, but it is never used, as the honourable member for Ashfield well knows. He should go back to his law books. He has read his law books and has his degree. I have not, yet I seem to know more about the subject than he does. It is a real worry. It is frightening. No doubt he will make himself a Queen's Counsel if he ever becomes Attorney General. It would be an almost unworkable arrangement to involve a jury in an inquiry that could range far and wide and involve a diversity of issues, some of which may be linked only remotely to the original death or fire. A special inquest could take some months to complete, and the jury may ultimately be unable to agree on any findings.

The next amendments, amendments M and N, simply provide for the renumbering of certain sections and are not opposed. Amendments O and P propose amendments to sections of the Jury Act. They seek to amend section 50 of that Act to clarify the method of jury selection for a fire or explosion inquiry and also provide for potential jurors to be challenged during the selection process. Juries are very rarely used in coronial proceedings. The honourable member seeks to increase the use of juries by giving them a much larger role in coronial matters. That enhancement of their role has necessitated these amendments. At present the Jury Act contains no specific provisions that allow for challenges to potential jurors in coronial proceedings. It is debatable whether there is a need for such challenges to be made. It is also debatable whether allowing such challenges to be made will not mean a further prolonging of proceedings for little benefit. However, given the rarity of the use of coronial juries, the changes are unlikely to have a great impact and, therefore, they are not opposed.

Page 5005

Before finishing, I should like to take this opportunity to foreshadow two amendments that I will be moving in Committee. The first is an amendment to clause 17 to include additional subsections in section 12A of the Coroners Act. These will insert provisions requiring the State Coroner to make a written report to the Attorney General on deaths or suspected deaths in custody of which the State Coroner has been notified. The reports are to be made annually and will be tabled in Parliament. The second amendment is to clause 34 and will make additional amendments to section 34 of the Coroners Act. The changes will remedy an omission in the Act as it stands, that a coroner has no authority to grant or refuse access to part or all of a coroner's file where the inquest or inquiry has been dispensed with.

I should like to address my final remarks to certain comments that the honourable member for Ashfield made in the closing stages of his speech. He attempted to justify his proposals for a change in the role of coronial juries as a means of combating potential judicial prejudice. Potential is the operative word. The honourable member does not give any examples of this judicial prejudice either in the coronial system or elsewhere. It is mere speculation without fact. But he plainly believes that it exists or he would not be advancing proposals to combat it. I regard these comments as a baseless slur on coroners and on the coronial system. They also highlight the unbalanced nature of the honourable member's amendments. On the one hand, he is proposing an increase in the role of juries because coroners cannot be relied upon to do their job in an unprejudiced fashion. That is his view. On the other hand, he is proposing to extend the powers of coroners far beyond the powers they currently exercise. That does not make sense. The honourable member's amendments do not make sense. I ask the House to recognise that and to vote accordingly.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Consideration called on, progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.


Consideration of Legislative Council's amendments.

Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 28th October.

No. 1 Page 3, Schedule 1, line 35. After "section 13", insert ", subject to section 13 (7)".

No. 2 Page 4, Schedule 1. After line 19, insert:

(2) Joinder of the Nominal Defendant is required to be effected in accordance with this section.

(3) A person seeking to join the Nominal Defendant in respect of a claim or proceedings must give the Nominal Defendant notice of the person's intention to do so. The notice must include a copy of the notice of claim under section 43 given to the person.

(4) The notice must be given within 3 months after the claim is made against the person under section 43, or within 3 months after the person becomes a party to proceedings in respect of the claim, whichever occurs first.

(5) The court may extend the period for giving notice to the Nominal Defendant if the person seeking to join the Nominal Defendant gives a full and satisfactory explanation for not having given notice within the 3-month period.

(6) Within 2 months after notice is given, the person giving notice must provide the Nominal Defendant with full details of the allegations made against the Nominal Defendant (or against the person to whom the Nominal Defendant is taken to have issued a third-party policy).

(7) An application may not be made to join the Nominal Defendant as a party to proceedings before the court after 3 years from the date on which the claim under section 43 in respect of which contribution or indemnity is sought must be made, except with the leave of the court.

(8) If the Nominal Defendant is sought to be joined because the identity of another motor vehicle is not known, joinder may not be effected unless due inquiry or search to identify the vehicle has been made. The inquiry or search may be proved orally or by affidavit of the person who made the inquiry or search.

(9) Except as provided by this section, nothing in this section affects any rules of court relating to the joinder of parties.

No. 3 Page 4, Schedule 1, lines 24 and 25. Omit "which was lawfully used or operated on a public street", insert instead "which, at the relevant time, was not required to be registered or was exempt from registration or, if required to be registered, was not required to be insured under this Act".

No. 4 Page 5, Schedule 1, line 27. Omit "served", insert instead "received by the insurer".

No. 5 Page 6, Schedule 1, lines 9-14. Omit all matter on those lines, insert instead:

Other approved forms

44A. (1) The Authority may approve forms (other than the form for a notice of claim) for use by insurers for the purposes of this Part.

(2) Approved forms may include, but are not limited to, a certificate of earnings and a rehabilitation plan.

No. 6 Page 6, Schedule 1, lines 21-25. Omit all matter on those lines.

No. 7 Page 6, Schedule 1, line 28. Omit "or section 44A".

No. 8 Page 6, Schedule 1, line 31. Omit "served", insert instead "received by the insurer".

No. 9 Page 6, Schedule 1, lines 32 and 33. Omit all matter on those lines, insert instead:

(4) A court may not strike out proceedings if the relevant non-compliance is technical and of no significance.

No. 10 Page 7, Schedule 1, line 10. After "claim", insert "and, in particular, to assess whether the claim or any part of the claim may be fraudulent".

No. 11 Page 7, Schedule 1, lines 27 and 28. Omit all matter on those lines.

No. 12 Page 9, Schedule 1. Before line 2, insert:

(2) No compensation is to be awarded if the services are provided, or are to be provided:

(a) for less than 6 hours per week; and

(b) for less than 6 months.

Page 5006

No. 13 Page 9, Schedule 1, line 20. Omit "award", insert instead "amount".

No. 14 Page 9, Schedule 1, line 31. Omit "subsection (2)", insert instead "subsection (3)".

No. 15 Page 9, Schedule 1, line 35. Omit "subsection (2) or (3)", insert instead "subsection (3) or (4)".

No. 16 Page 12, Schedule 1. After line 18, insert:

Maximum amount of damages for provision of certain home care services

13. Section 72, as substituted by the Motor Accidents (Amendment) Act 1993, does not apply to a motor accident occurring before the commencement of Schedule 1(13) to that Act.

Respite care

14. Section 72A does not apply to a motor accident occurring before the commencement of that section.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [8.28]: I move:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council's amendments.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt) [8.29]: The Opposition will support the amendments moved in the Legislative Council, which are now before the Committee. I understand that the amendments are being dealt with in globo. The production of so many amendments, 16 in all, to the Government's own legislation must call into question the haste with which the original bill was drafted. The bill was first flagged some months ago and was debated in this House on 16th September. No mention was made of any amendments when the Minister replied to that debate. All the amendments are supported by the insurance industry, and the Opposition thanks the various insurance companies and the Insurance Council of Australia for the many briefings on these matters. This raises the issue of how much consultation was conducted with the insurance industry prior to the bill being drafted and presented to Parliament. Obviously, the number of unintended consequences shows that the Government has been remiss in that consultative process with the insurance companies.

Though honourable members may have concerns about the wording of the amendments, the Opposition will accept them in an effort to ensure that green slip premiums are kept as low as possible. The first amendment refers to third party coverage during the period of cancellation of a motor vehicle registration. It relates to covering a person for third party insurance if a vehicle's registration is cancelled and the cancellation period expires prior to the expiry of the registration of the motor vehicle. The amendment will provide a safety net. This amendment will ensure that when a motor vehicle registration is cancelled the owner is covered for compulsory third party personal injury insurance during that period.

The second amendment is basically a notification provision relating to the nominal defendant. In claims involving the nominal defendant the proposed notification provisions are consistent with the intent of the compulsory third party insurance legislation. The other amendments are virtually consequential but amendment 12 relating to home care benefits would probably be considered the most contentious. The existing legislation prevents any home care benefit being paid to a member of a family when the home care is required for less than six hours per week and for a period of less than six months.

The bill that passed through the House on 16th September overcame the hurdle that motorists of New South Wales could have incurred an extra $13 per vehicle per year. All honourable members will watch carefully the effects of the various reforms of the Motor Accidents Authority and the compulsory third party personal injury system to ensure that any amendments to legislation result in minimal expense to the motoring public. The last amendment upon which I wish to comment - and I suppose this is another reason I believe that there should have been a lot more consultation, at least in the drafting of the original bill - will ensure that none of the benefits of the legislation are retrospective.

It is interesting to note that when compulsory third party personal injury insurance was deregulated in New South Wales an industry deed was signed between the Government and the insurance industry that ensured that any changes to legislation would be made only after 12 months' notice was given to the insurance industry to allow it to adjust premiums. Amendment 15 will ensure that any amendments to the bill are not retrospective and will not have an adverse effect on future insurance premiums by catching up with past benefits. The Opposition will not oppose the amendments. Although there was some suggestion that the Opposition would move amendments to the bill, it has been decided not to do so in an effort to contain the cost of green slip insurance to the motorists of the State.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [8.34]: I thank the honourable member for Mount Druitt for his support for the amendments which were moved in the Legislative Council. Let me assure the House, the honourable member and the insurance industry generally that the Government is committed to a policy of co-operation and consultation on insurance, in an attempt to achieve the best result for those who have to insure against motor vehicle accidents and for those unfortunate victims who suffer personal injury from motor accidents. I commend the amendments as contained in the message from the Legislative Council.

Motion agreed to.

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it that the Legislative Assembly agrees to the Legislative Council's amendments.

Page 5007

Debate resumed from 27th October.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [8.37]: The purpose of the amending bill is to ensure that the institutional framework in chapter 6 of the Act provides a level playing field for principal contractors and contract carriers. Currently the provisions of section 663(1) allow some players in the road transport industry to operate without the protection of the Industrial Relations Act 1991, and force contract carrier drivers to work up to 60 hours a week without equivalent remuneration for those hours. That has created substantial confusion and conflict between the parties involved in contract deregulation. This bill, although a minor amendment, will eliminate the confusion and allow the parties to move forward.

Specifically, the bill relates to what has become known as the motor lorry loophole and in particular impacts on the courier and taxi industries. Other sectors of the road transport industry, in which smaller vehicles are utilised for the transport of loads, are also affected. When the Industrial Relations Bill 1991 was introduced section 663(1) was the subject of debate arising from concerns within the courier industry that the meaning of contract of carriage was limited to transportation of a load by means of a motor lorry, and an amendment was put forward by the member for Parramatta. That proposed amendment was debated at length and the then Minister for Industrial Relations, now the Premier of this State, undertook to review the provision if it was ascertained that it was causing a problem in the industry.

I advise the House that the legislation caused enormous problems within the industry. It did away with the level playing field that had been known for many years and it took away the concept of fair and honest competition between various courier companies. Some courier companies, unfortunately, were so unscrupulous as to persuade some of their drivers to sign an agreement whereby even though they were driving a motor vehicle that complied with the provisions of the Act, it was expressly stated in a contract that they were driving a vehicle other than those defined in the Act. Because of the current motor lorry loophole, the commission was prevented from making a contract of determination that extended to all carriers of given classes. This has discriminated against the carrier transporting a load by vehicle other than a motor lorry. Bicycle couriers have been left out of the legislation, and this must be rectified by an amendment.

Last week the Government introduced the bill with the inclusion of a provision for voluntary unionism. It is not the policy of the Opposition to support voluntary unionism in either this bill or any other bill. However, after discussions with the Transport Workers Union and the industry as a whole, though the union opposes voluntary unionism, to ensure that the legislation is passed it will accept it temporarily so that the motor lorry loophole can be rectified. After the second reading speech the Labor Council said that it was concerned about the issue and asked the parliamentary party to flag that, upon gaining office, it will review the voluntary unionism provisions in the Act.

Representatives of the Courier and Taxi Truck Association, the New South Wales Road Transport Association and the New South Wales branch of the Transport Workers Union approached the Government and urged it to take this legislative action. To the Minister's credit and eternal tenacity, the legislation is now before the Chamber. The Opposition thanks the Minister for her action. The Government is satisfied that the major transport industry organisations strongly support the introduction of this bill. In regard to the bicycle aspect of the amendment, the situation is that in the Sydney area couriers travel by bicycle to deliver their items. An article by Alicia Larriera in the Sydney Morning Herald exemplified this by reference to Mr Metcalf, a young man of 20 who lives at Chatswood and has been a subcontract courier with a courier company for two years. He had this to say:

"I am the longest lasting pushie at the company," he said. "I take home between $450 and $600 a week in the hand".

The article continued:

As a subcontractor he does not receive benefits such as sick pay, holiday pay or superannuation.

If this legislation is to ensure a level playing field, the Government should ensure that Mr Metcalf retains his net salary of between $450 and $600 and take cognisance of the fact that the article's heading dealt with the word suicide. It implies that those who ride a bicycle around the Sydney metropolitan business district take their lives in their hands. If that is going to be the case, these young cyclists must be protected from exploitation. Another loophole should not be left, necessitating the legislation being dealt with by the House at a future date. That is our only opposition. With that reservation, the Opposition supports the bill. I flag our intention to review voluntary unionism upon Labor coming to office.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women) [8.44], in reply: I thank members of the Opposition for supporting this bill and recognising, as I stated in my second reading speech, that it is the first step in the Government's program of reform for the provisions of chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act 1993. The closure of the motor lorry loophole through the legislative amendment is of primary importance to the courier industry and one which will have negligible effect on the remainder of the transport industry. The Government's bill provides for references to motor lorry to be replaced with references to motor vehicle, as defined in the Motor Traffic Act 1909. The definition will cover motor cars, motor cycles and other vehicles propelled by volatile spirit, steam, gas, oil or electricity, and trailers. By referring to the Motor Traffic Act the
Page 5008
definition will exclude vehicles such as water taxis, trains and vehicles which are used on private land or premises.

As mentioned by the honourable member for Auburn, bicycles have not been included. I note that he intends to move an amendment in Committee, but there are good reasons for not including bicycles or other forms of non-motorised transport, which I will address in Committee. It is a clear commitment by this Government to promote and continue the extension of voluntary unionism. The honourable member for Auburn mentioned voluntary unionism. It is part of the Government's commitment to ensure that voluntary unionism is not retreated from but rather extended to all areas of industrial relations. This bill is a first step to ensuring that membership of associations in relation to the contract industry is genuinely available. The Government is concerned to ensure that membership of associations is a genuine voluntary right, protecting those not involved in those associations whilst at the same time recognising that people will choose to belong to associations, as is their right. The Government believes in ensuring real choice. Real choice is part of industrial reform in this State which is in the best interests of the State.

This bill is only part one of the process, but it is believed that the closure of the motor lorry loophole and the extension of the principle of voluntary unionism to chapter 6 are issues that need to be processed as a matter of urgency. The Government will continue with its comprehensive package of reform. I recognise that the reforms need to be considered and consulted on widely by the industry. I have already given a commitment that I will do that before the rest of the package is committed to the House. The contract carrying industry is important to the New South Wales economy. The Government, through the current bill and its full reform package, intends to assist the industry in introducing an enterprise focus and becoming more efficient in its operations. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [8.50]: I move:

Page 2, Schedule 1 (2)(a), line 19. Omit "motor vehicle", insert instead "motor vehicle or bicycle".

As I said in my second reading speech, bicycle couriers have to be protected in the same way as those who are in motor lorries and motor vehicles.

Mr J. H. MURRAY (Drummoyne) [8.51]: I have been approached by a number of my constituents in relation to this bill. In the main, those people have been employees of organisations that have taken over contracts. They have been honest toilers. In many respects they have extended themselves because they had a contract which indicated that they would have a certain income over a period of time. Often they have put up their houses to go into business. If this bill does not go through, many of those people will become bankrupt. In many cases the ground rules have changed, through no other reason than a takeover, in many cases a foreign takeover. I am talking about people who, in many cases, have spent up to $500,000 on a large vehicle and ancillary equipment.

This amendment does not deal with those people; it deals with the lower end of the range. There is a difference between a person on a bike and a person who has a cement mixer, but the principle is the same. In Sydney, especially around Martin Place, a growth industry is the bicycle courier. Those couriers are dressed in the best garb I have ever seen. Those small entrepreneurs, establishing a different mode of communication and transport, need the same protection under this bill as some of the larger organisations. I support the amendment.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women) [8.53]: The Government opposes this amendment.

Mr Nagle: Be fair - I said some nice things about you.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I acknowledge the nice things that the honourable member for Auburn said about me. This amendment is somewhat misguided. Bicycle couriers already have coverage under the transport industry interim State award. That is a more than adequate mechanism to ensure that such persons receive fair remuneration, about which the honourable member for Auburn was obviously concerned when he made his remarks earlier. The system of contract determinations under chapter 6 has been designed to ensure that contract carriers get a fair return for their asset. The level of remuneration assumes that such assets involve a major purchase and significant ongoing maintenance costs; that is, a truck, a car or a utility which they have to maintain. I am at a loss to understand what sort of ongoing, substantial maintenance costs we are talking about in relation to a bicycle. It would be clearly inappropriate for us to include bicycles in this bill. We would end up with a situation where we might have to extend this provision further. For example, should we be talking about people on rollerblades?

Mr J. H. Murray: But they are not in business.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: Couriers could be delivering on rollerblades. We need to be honest in what we are doing here. We are talking about people who have to bear some cost in maintaining their vehicles. I am also concerned that the contract determination requires that a courier must be a holder of a current licence and must comply with all Acts, ordinances, regulations and bylaws relating to the registration, third party insurance and general operations of the vehicle in New South Wales. Clearly bicycle couriers are unable to comply with this requirement and it is inappropriate for them to do so. The whole thrust of this amendment is entirely inappropriate. We are talking about motorised vehicles and we should restrict this bill to ensure that coverage is provided. As the Government has already
Page 5009
indicated, it is sponsoring this bill to cover those who we are concerned about. At this stage it is not appropriate to cover bicycle riders under this bill.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [8.56]: I refer to what the Minister said with respect to awards. We are dealing with subcontract carriers, with a contract for services as opposed to a contract of service. As a consequence of that, the awards will not cover a lot of these bicycle subcontractors and they will be made subcontractors. We are dealing with competition and a level playing field, a policy and philosophy advocated by the Government to give everyone a fair go in the market-place. The Minister will create another loophole. We will have to come back at another time and amend it as it relates to bicycles. There has to be a level playing field for all people in the courier business, including subcontractors who use bicycles. Under the provisions of the Act one only has to have a current licence if one is driving a motor vehicle. If one is driving a bicycle one does not need a licence. I oppose what the Minister said.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women) [8.57]: I reiterate: the whole thrust of this bill is to change the context from motor lorries to motor vehicles. It is entirely appropriate that we deal with vehicles which are powered by gas or -

Mr Beckroge: Internal combustion.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: Yes, internal combustion. That is the thrust of the bill. I entirely reject this amendment. The amendment is totally outside the scope of the bill. I assure the honourable member for Auburn that I acknowledge his concerns, but they are entirely misplaced.

Mr J. H. MURRAY (Drummoyne) [8.58]: In this particular industry there is an organisation which looks after people - the union. They believe that there is a need for additional protection under this legislation. I put it to the Minister that this is not a hare-brained scheme which has been brought down from the sky -

Mr O'Doherty: That makes a change.

Mr J. H. MURRAY: What did the Leader of the Opposition say last time the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai interjected? He gave the honourable member a label. Does he want me to repeat it? I am saying to the Minister that these are people who are on the ground and who say that there will be a problem in the future. Why not fix it now under this legislation? Why wait and come back into this House at another time and bring in another bill? I ask the Minister to confer with some of her advisers and seek some guidance. I know that the honourable member for Auburn is a compassionate and intelligent member. Whenever he puts up an amendment there is always great veracity in it. There has been a lot of forethought. I suggest that the Minister take it on board.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women) [8.59]: Although I am persuaded by the argument that the honourable member for Auburn is entirely authentic in his belief about the importance of this amendment and I have absolutely no reason to question his commitment to his cause, I can only reiterate that in this instance his amendment is misguided. I reject any suggestion that this Government is doing anything that is untoward. We sponsored the bill; we brought in the bill to close the motor lorry loophole. I do not think anyone could question our good intentions in relation to the bill. Bicycle couriers are covered by an award. They can move to enterprise agreements if that is an appropriate approach for them. I suggest that they are adequately protected.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Ms Allan Mr McManus
Mr Amery Mr Markham
Mr Anderson Mr Martin
Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Mills
Mr J. J. Aquilina Ms Moore
Mr Bowman Mr Moss
Mr Clough Mr J. H. Murray
Mr Crittenden Mr Nagle
Mr Doyle Mr Neilly
Mr Face Ms Nori
Mr Gaudry Mr E. T. Page
Mrs Grusovin Mr Price
Mr Harrison Dr Refshauge
Mr Hatton Mr Rogan
Mr Hunter Mr Rumble
Mr Iemma Mr Scully
Mr Irwin Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Thompson
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po' Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Dr Macdonald Mr Davoren

Mr Armstrong Mr Morris
Mr Baird Mr W. T. J. Murray
Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Photios
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mrs Cohen Mr Rozzoli
Mr Collins Mr Schipp
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schultz
Mr Downy Mr Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Souris
Mr Glachan Mr Tink
Mr Griffiths Mr Turner
Mr Hartcher Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Yabsley
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Page 5010

Mr Carr Mr Fahey
Mr Gibson Mr Hazzard
Mr Newman Mr Petch
Mr Shedden Mr Small
Mr Ziolkowski Mr Smiles

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [9.8]: I move:

Page 8, Schedule 1 (4), line 3. Omit "motor vehicle", insert instead "motor vehicle or bicycle".

This amendment goes hand-in-hand with the previous amendment which has been accepted by the Committee. It is for the protection of bicycle riders and to provide a level playing field.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women) [9.8]: For the reasons I have already outlined in relation to the previous amendment the Government is opposed to this amendment.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [9.9]: I ask the Government to reconsider its opposition.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women) [9.9]: The Government will continue to oppose this amendment.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Ms Allan Mr McManus
Mr Amery Mr Markham
Mr Anderson Mr Martin
Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Mills
Mr J. J. Aquilina Ms Moore
Mr Bowman Mr Moss
Mr Clough Mr J. H. Murray
Mr Crittenden Mr Nagle
Mr Doyle Mr Neilly
Mr Face Ms Nori
Mr Gaudry Mr E. T. Page
Mrs Grusovin Mr Price
Mr Harrison Dr Refshauge
Mr Hatton Mr Rogan
Mr Hunter Mr Rumble
Mr Iemma Mr Scully
Mr Irwin Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Thompson
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po' Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Dr Macdonald Mr Davoren

Mr Armstrong Mr Morris
Mr Baird Mr W. T. J. Murray
Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Photios
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mrs Cohen Mr Rozzoli
Mr Collins Mr Schipp
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schultz
Mr Downy Mr Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Souris
Mr Glachan Mr Tink
Mr Griffiths Mr Turner
Mr Hartcher Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Yabsley
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Fahey
Mr Gibson Mr Hazzard
Mr Newman Mr Petch
Mr Shedden Mr Small
Mr Ziolkowski Mr Smiles

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.


Debate resumed from 28th October.

Mr J. H. MURRAY (Drummoyne) [9.18]: At the outset I say that the Opposition is supporting the bill. The bill has its genesis in the thought processes of the Federal Government, and in fact it piggybacks on legislation brought down in the Federal arena. All members are aware of the difficulties facing our economy, especially lack of employment for the young and mature aged. As a consequence, governments of all complexions have agreed that the best solution to those difficulties is not so much to redevelop old regional employment and development job schemes but to look to the future by developing training systems so that when the economy returns to normal an adequately trained work force will be available to pick up the slack and assist any take-off.

To do that, of necessity adequate training schemes and systems must be put into place that are superior to those currently available. Large numbers of people who have difficulty obtaining employment
Page 5011
are involved in training, whether it be in the TAFE system, the university or quasi-university systems. More importantly, private providers are coming into the workplace and providing an alternative, which in many instances are superior to existing training schemes. Some private providers are individuals, companies, or associations involved with a particular industry, such as the plastics industry, which has its own training scheme at Revesby in association with TAFE. It could be the engineering fraternity or a multiplicity of other industries where training is being undertaken in the workplace.

This bill will extend the provisions of the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board which currently is limited in regard to accreditation of courses, and rightly so. Standards in that regard must be maintained. However, the bill does not provide for what is happening in the workplace. The current shadow minister for education, the honourable member for Riverstone, and I spent some time in New Zealand. Even though New Zealanders lacked perception last Saturday by not understanding the virtues of a Labor government, they do lead Australia in terms of accreditation. New Zealand provides a framework for the private providers to come to the fore by being competitive. Initially, all trainers are funded from the taxpayer's dollar. There is nothing wrong with competition to ensure that the taxpayer's dollar is being used effectively.

The honourable member for Riverstone, other Opposition members, and I spent two weeks in New Zealand looking at a large number of training facilities from the North Island to the South Island. These facilities covered the whole gamut of training. This bill picks up what is being put into effect in New Zealand. That is why the Opposition supports it. It is a bill for the future. This bill seeks to amend the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Act to provide for the Vocational, Education and Training Accreditation Board to register providers of vocational courses and courses for international students. The authority, or another person or body, may register as a provider of such courses. The bill also provides that the board be given power to issue guidelines defining requirements for the registration of providers of such courses, including financial requirements.

Membership of the board is to be increased by one part-time member, being a person with experience in the provision of education to international students. Currently, the Vocational, Education and Training Accreditation Board provides for the accreditation of vocational courses. The board will also have power to issue guidelines defining requirements for course accreditation. Unfortunately, the board does not provide for the separate registration of providers. The Act links the provider to an accredited course in that guidelines may be issued by the board, for example, in respect of the financial and ethical standards to be satisfied by providers. The Act currently does not have the capacity to address the gamut of providers' needs that the board has encountered since it was first established in July 1991. For example, there are providers who may already have a course accredited by the board and are now wanting to offer courses accredited to other providers and deliverers. Essentially, these providers wish to buy accredited courses off the shelf and to be registered as providers to deliver such courses. Currently, the provider must apply to the board again to establish that it has the capacity to deliver the course purchased off the shelf.

Separate registration would enable providers initially to be registered to deliver a class of courses, purchase a course that has already been accredited and is of a class for which the provider is registered, and then to deliver the course. The registration of providers constitutes one of the principles of agreement for the national framework for the recognition of training to which New South Wales became a party on 1st August, 1992. This agreement enables national recognition of courses accredited by State and Territory authorities and streamlines course accreditation. The education services for overseas students - the registration of providers - establishes a co-operative Commonwealth-State framework for the registration and approval of providers and courses. The secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training is required to keep the Commonwealth register of institutions and courses for overseas students. This register must include the names of providers approved under the law of a State.

Honourable members will realise that, of late, many universities have suffered funding difficulties. As a consequence, to overcome their budget problems they have instituted courses to bring in students from overseas to offset some of their course losses. Of course, that provides a difficulty in that someone other than the university itself should be accredited to determine whether those courses are of value, whether the university is using those courses basically as an income earner, and whether they do have validity. Many of those courses are now of a degree standard. There are lecturers and facilities that will provide for those quasi-university courses. Under this Act the executive director of the Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs will be asked to provide registration for courses for international students. It is hoped this will allow a thrust into Asia, where there is a market for many students who, in the past, would have gone to Hong Kong and undertaken courses there because they had an English pedigree associated with them. Those students now understand that Australian universities have a qualification standard equal to any in the world.

Honourable members will also realise that during the past two or three years difficulties have arisen in the provision of courses for overseas students. Obviously many Chinese students who came to Australia were involved. Colleges were established, particularly in the Sydney area, to provide English courses. I well remember about 18 months ago drawing to the attention of the House difficulties that some of my constituents in the Drummoyne area encountered in relation to the payment of fees for
Page 5012
courses. Those fees ranged from $3,000 to $7,000 or $8,000. After a period had elapsed, the charlatans running the institutions took the money and fled. As a consequence, the students were left without means of support and, in many cases, had to return to China or other countries and suffered greatly.

The legislation provides for effective financial safeguards for pre-paid international student fees in the event of the financial collapse of an institutional provider. The bill also provides for domestic students to be protected from college closures. The proposed amendments will address these issues by requiring providers to comply with guidelines issued by the board covering these matters. It is envisaged that such guidelines will require a provider to be a member of an industry scheme, which is to be called a tuition assurance scheme, and to establish trust accounts in line with the Commonwealth Act. The issuing of such guidelines will give the board the necessary flexibility to amend its guidelines in line with changing Commonwealth provisions as considered necessary by the board.

The Opposition supports the legislation, which will provide uniformity in both courses and providers throughout Australia. It will provide a little international income for Australia in that it will safeguard overseas students undertaking tuition in Australia and give them a safety network so that they will know they will receive tuition if their fees have been prepaid. More importantly, the legislation will lead to competition, accreditation and quality in training. Undoubtedly the young people of Australia, who will be the primary beneficiaries of the legislation, will be at the Olympic Games in the year 2000 as well-trained individuals. Australia will be able to provide for the remainder of the world a work force trained to the standards of the work forces in the Scandinavian countries and Germany that, unfortunately, do not exist in Australia. I support the bill.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [9.33]: I listened with great interest to the contribution of the honourable member for Drummoyne. I could have echoed much of what he said, had he not put it so eloquently. It is good to hear ecumenical cross-party support for the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation (Amendment) Bill. The honourable member for Drummoyne reminds me how important vocational training has become in today's climate. Honourable members will be aware that one of the most important contributions that we as legislators can make to the future of our children and of our nation is to ensure that the training they receive prepares them for a work force that is changing so rapidly that it is difficult for many of us to keep up with the changes.

The real secret in being able to maintain a stable and meaningful working life is to have skills that are easily transferable from workplace to workplace, from industry to industry or, perhaps, within an individual enterprise. The ability to reskill oneself needs to be taught and learned. People need to be taught how to learn in a vocational environment. That is part of the reason why vocational training has become such an important part of the education landscape, not only in New South Wales but, as the honourable member for Drummoyne reminded the House, in other far-flung places like New Zealand, although that country needs a little retraining about its democratic system.

Mr Jeffery: The land of the long white cloud.

Mr O'DOHERTY: That is right. New Zealand's financial markets are undergoing a little vocational retraining as well, as all honourable members will have noted. The bill is the next step in the development of the important area of vocational education, particularly the accreditation not only of courses but also of providers. The accreditation of vocational education courses is important because it will enable students who are now seeking to gain particular work skills - the vocational training that I mentioned will help them to survive in the changing workplace - to understand exactly what they are able to receive for their money and exactly what they should expect of the providers of the service and from the course itself. The accreditation of these courses will give the people who purchase the services a type of certainty or surety. It will also give them time to do the courses.

For that reason it is important to have that level of accountability. How best to provide that accountability is an important question. The existing legislation established VETAB, the Vocational, Education and Training Accreditation Board. That was the first step. The board accredits vocational courses and issues guidelines defining the requirements for course accreditation. At present there is no separate registration for providers of the service. The Act links a provider to an accredited course. Guidelines may be issued by the board, for example, in relation to the financial or ethical standards of the operation linking a provider to the course itself. However, that is a somewhat inflexible approach and one that is fairly out of step with the range and expansion of the available courses and services and the range of people who wish to undertake the courses.

The honourable member for Drummoyne mentioned overseas students. It is worth touching on that subject again. For a range of reasons education is becoming one of this nation's most important export industries. First, it brings export dollars to Australia. Second, it enables us to provide more direct benefits to our own community. The money that universities and colleges are able to earn in export schemes benefits the Australian students in those colleges and universities. Third, and this is a much broader and more philosophical point, it enables us to take part in spreading some of the Australian culture to the rest of the world. All honourable members will realise that aspects of the Australian culture and way of life, our ethos as a society and, indeed, our values should be spread throughout the world. Australia has a unique society.

Mr J. H. Murray: The Colombo Plan.

Page 5013

Mr O'DOHERTY: I do not know a great deal about the Colombo Plan. The honourable member might make me aware of that a little later. Australia exports not only its education but its way of life. Australia's way of life is unique. It is a mixture of cultures, races, and ethnic and religious groupings, who live side by side in a harmonious way. That does not happen elsewhere. Only last weekend I had the honour of representing the Premier at a function at Strathfield.

Mr J. H. Murray: Where was the honourable member for Strathfield?

Mr O'DOHERTY: He was involved in other important matters at that time. Several members of the Labor Party attended as well.

Mr J. H. Murray: That was the Lebanese function.

Mr O'DOHERTY: That is right. We took part in a reception for the patriarch of the Maronite Catholic Church. As honourable members probably know, that is one of the most important Christian organisations in the Middle East. In Lebanon the patriarch is second in importance only to the President. He has played a major part in trying to maintain peace in Lebanon, a country that has been subjected to tremendous internal and external pressures. I was able to say to the patriarch - his Beatitude - that Australia has something to offer the world and that people such as the Lebanese Christians who have come here, and people from other nations, have been able to contribute to the peaceful nature of Australian society.

When we train overseas students we are training them also in our culture and our way of life, and that is an important point to touch on briefly. I mentioned that the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation (Amendment) Bill will provide for the registration of the courses, that there is an expansion of courses and pressure on the system that is coming about through natural, healthy competition. I was slightly surprised but delighted to hear the honourable member for Drummoyne mention his belief that private competition is a healthy thing and his strong endorsement of private providers in education - and I would presume also in other fields - in the provision of public services. I presume it extends to all sorts of areas, to corporatisation and even to the provision of private hospitals and so on.

Mr J. H. Murray: Corporatisation is Labor Party policy.

Mr O'DOHERTY: Corporatisation is Labor Party policy! It is good to hear that. We will see what happens on the next occasion that the honourable member's leader talks about such matters to the Labor Council. With the pressure of the private provider, the necessity to compete with the private sector and the healthy competition and improvements in services that that provides, it has now become necessary to amend the Act to provide for the registration of the providers. The Act does not currently address the range of needs of the providers that the board has encountered since its inception in 1991. The bill recognises the importance of high quality, structured training and its close connection to improving Australia's economic performance. If we do not have a work force that is trained and able to be retrained, Australia will continue in the economic mire it has been in for some decades. I hope it is starting to come out of that economic mire, but it will only do so through recognition of the importance of areas such as training. The Government not only recognises the importance of training, but it is also providing the framework whereby it can be recognised by accreditation.

The bill will continue the process that began with the 1991 Act. The process established a framework to enhance the capacity of people undertaking education or training - either through industry or private or public providers - to have that training recognised. That will be continued by the requirement to register providers of vocational courses and the providers of courses to overseas students. Two important principles are contained in the bill. They are the voluntary nature of the proposed legislation and the equality of treatment between industry and private and public providers. That is an important point as we begin to think about competition and realise that governments alone and semi-government organisations should not have a monopoly on this area of education and training.

If the standards and procedures of the registration or approval process of the board do not meet the needs of the market, the Government is firmly of the view that the providers will not use the system. The accreditation has to be recognised and it has to be a valuable asset to the people who work in the system as well as those who use it. If the providers do not consider the accreditation worth having, they will not seek it; and if the purchasers of the training do not think that the accreditation is meaningful, they will be less confident about buying the service. If we provide a meaningful accreditation process, if we accredit providers in a way that has authority, and the full backing of VETAB and the department, everyone will be confident that the product is good, as we in Australia know that it is.

The Government's aim is to provide a service of consistent standards and quality control, not to force providers to use the system and not to force people to buy from certain providers. Its aim is to allow the market-place to determine its needs, to set important standards, and to recognise those in a benchmark way. That is what the accreditation process will provide. The extension of its accreditation providers is an important step forward. It means that we are not being overly legalistic, not being silly about absolutely controlling providers who are professionals in their own field and who depend on that for their livelihood. It is that aspect of competition that means that they will continue to provide high quality services. The Government is equally committed to equality of treatment. That principle was enshrined in the Act when it commenced operation and it will be continued by the proposed amendment.

Page 5014

Another important aspect is that the legislation is in line with national agreements on the direction of policy in the vocational education and training area and national policy directions in respect of the provision of courses for overseas students. Although it has to be said that New South Wales has led the way and will always lead the way in education and also in vocational education and training, it is not only the New South Wales Government on this occasion but also the Federal Government that has given recognition to an agreement for a national framework for the recognition of training between the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth. That agreement requires all parties to register vocational course providers, and this bill is part of the Government's commitment to be part of that process.

There is also the Commonwealth Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulations) Act 1991. That Act provides for a scheme based on a system of State approvals of providers of courses to overseas students. This bill is in line with that Act and amends the Higher Education Act 1988 to provide for the approval of universities to provide courses to overseas students. As I mentioned, that is an important export industry for a range of reasons. The approval is to be granted by the executive director of the Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs. It will form the basis for registration under the Commonwealth Act.

The amending bill wraps in a parcel a range of measures that will improve the accreditation process, ensure that the process is accountable and ensure that both course providers and consumers - those requiring the training - have a degree of certainty about what it is that each of them is doing and about their rights and responsibilities and roles. It contains important safeguards for those who pay money for the courses and will provide a national framework within which all those areas and accreditation can be fully portable so that as a nation we can move forward, as indeed we must if we are to survive. I support the bill.

Mr J. J. AQUILINA (Riverstone) [9.48]: I support the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation (Amendment) Bill. As previous speakers have pointed out, the aim of the bill is primarily to enable the accreditation of providers of various courses, in much the same way as occurred in 1990 when this Parliament passed legislation to enable the Vocational, Education and Training Accreditation Board to provide for the accreditation of vocational courses. This is the natural extension of what was perceived to have been the case three years ago. Honourable members were pleased to participate in that because they could see that the establishment of an accreditation board of courses and subjects that would obviously go a long way towards establishing the types of courses being provided by private providers as well as TAFE colleges in New South Wales would receive statewide, nationwide and international recognition.

Where it fell down, however, was that the course providers were not able to be accredited under that legislation. Since then there have been a number of very sorry cases where a lot of people have been quite severely hurt. I will refer to some of those people and situations at a later stage. I am pleased to note that in New South Wales a number of private business colleges of A1 standard have been set up. I believe this legislation will ensure that the people who study at those particular colleges are not let down in any way.

I am somewhat proud to say that I have been asked, by none other than the Hon. Nick Greiner, a director of the Careers Business College, to officially open one of these colleges on 1st February. Perhaps members of the Government may wonder what I am up to, and I can understand National Party members being worried about that. I have always suspected that some members of the National Party have major concerns about some of the things that the Hon. Nick Greiner does, but I have no reservations about doing that. I accept that, under this legislation, any business college established in New South Wales will be able to receive the required accreditation to ensure that students undertaking the various courses within those colleges, whether they be from New South Wales or overseas, will be given nothing but the best of care. However, I have a few reservations.

It concerns me that nowhere in this legislation, and indeed in the 1990 legislation that established the Vocational, Education and Training Accreditation Board, is there a statement of what the accreditation criteria shall be. I made this point in 1990 and I make it again. It is important to spell out in legislation exactly what is meant by the accreditation criteria. It is fine to say that a body will be established to accredit the course providers, but what does it mean if no specific guidelines on the basis of the accreditation criteria are defined in the legislation? The legislation needs to spell out - and perhaps the Minister in her reply will do that - the accreditation criteria. Perhaps a general definition of such criteria may be the establishment of more explicit common accreditation criteria to gain public confidence and hence achieve a consistently high level of credibility for the overall certificates provided. The way in which these various colleges will be able to articulate with post-school options that have been negotiated with employers, providers of further studies, universities and even schools, needs to be spelt out also.

Honourable members should not forget that New South Wales is moving into the phase announced by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, which I welcome although so far it has been a gross failure - the 1,200 places provided for 1994 have not been filled at this stage - in providing for post-school articulation, post-school options and also post-compulsory school options. Therefore the criteria should be established so that everyone knows precisely where they stand and what these colleges will be able to offer. On 29th November, 1990, in debate on the previous legislation I said:

It is important that if we are to talk about establishing accreditation criteria - which is relevant across the State, and it is hoped at some future time will link in with similar accreditation criteria interstate - it is appropriate in legislation such as this to outline the basic rudiments and objectives of such criteria within the ambit of the legislation.

Page 5015

That stage has now been reached. Almost three years later we are actually looking at linking not only interstate but also internationally. Again, if New South Wales is going to advertise itself worldwide it should do so in such a way that people overseas, who after all are going to contract to study courses in New South Wales, will have the best guarantee possible that the providers of the various courses being offered will be able to meet their needs and not leave them at some stage high and dry. I firmly believe that this cannot be done other than by making that criteria explicit in legislation. However, this is a lost opportunity. It will not happen. As usual, the Government has gone half-heartedly halfway towards meeting the needs required. Be that as it may, begrudgingly the Opposition supports the legislation but gives notice that it is not specific enough. It will not be the major attraction that it should be to attract overseas people to study at our institutions, be they private providers, the TAFE system or universities. Again in 1990 I said:

Today, Australia is at the threshold of an important era. New South Wales and the other States can lead the way in providing leadership in technological advancement and technological production for South-east Asia, the Pacific region and this geographical part of the world.

What a great pity that three years later we have advanced no further towards meeting the needs of this great region and stepping off the threshold than the stage we had reached in November 1990. I have some serious concerns about whether this legislation will take that further. According to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in another place, New South Wales has captured less than 1 per cent of the one billion dollar export market that has so often been spoken about. The Minister stated in a Daily Telegraph Mirror article of 6th May that New South Wales last year earned $7 million selling its expertise overseas. Experts in the field tell us of this billion dollar market on our doorstep, yet three years later, after the accreditation system of the various courses that both private institutions and the TAFE system are able to provide, only $7 million has been captured, and at what cost? The other side of the coin that needs to be considered is how much money has been spent in capturing that $7 million worth of overseas expertise. I would say that $7 million is a disappointingly small reward in a billion dollar market.

According to a Roy Morgan survey of international students conducted for the Department of Employment, Education and Training, students enrolled in post-secondary institutions other than a university were most likely to have found their course to be worse than expected. Almost one-third of students expressed that opinion. TAFE and the other vocational providers have a lot of work to do to turn that image around. I believe this Government has made a number of mistakes in the past few years in the way it has sold the courses and the TAFE system to try to attract overseas students. Other reservations have been expressed. It is not all that long ago that thousands of students were being turned away from the TAFE system. John Laws in his Sunday Telegraph article of 5th April, 1992 - admittedly some time ago but nonetheless as relevant today as it was then - under the headline "New South Wales TAFE policy discriminates against Aussies" stated:

I might be dumb but I do not understand. NSW TAFE colleges can't find room for our own - this year a record 55,000 would-be students were turned away - but apparently TAFE can accommodate foreign paying students.

He went on to state that the TAFE system had embarked on a five-year program to import 2,000 students, mostly from Indonesia, China, Malaysia and Hong Kong, who would be paying somewhere between $7,000 and $9,000 for their courses. I do not agree 100 per cent with the claims John Laws made, but the point that is valid is that if New South Wales is to advertise overseas for students - and, after all, not only does this legislation provide for the private providers to be accredited but also for the TAFE system to be accredited for overseas students - it should make sure that it is not selling a dud. First, we need to make sure that there is a place for them when they arrive. Second, we need to make sure that we do not in any way mislead them in what they can expect. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Many people involved in this matter have expressed a number of concerns to me. I refer again to a situation which occurred in 1992 - at a time when the New South Wales TAFE system was being advertised extensively in the China Star. That matter has already been alluded to by the honourable member for Drummoyne. That was a clear-cut case of false advertising. TAFE was advertising various courses overseas, but it did not mention the fact that there were no vacancies for evening classes at that time. A number of students, after arriving here, discovered that only day courses were available and that the evening courses were unavailable. Many of the overseas students were not able to meet the timetables required; they were left high and dry. They were upset by the overall experience.

As has been alluded to already, a number of private providers left a number of those people high and dry. They took the students' money and skipped off with it. Hopefully, this legislation will ensure that that does not happen again. If we are going to overcome the bad blood resulting from false advertising in the past which led to people being left high and dry, we need to ensure that the criteria are spelt out in such a way that there can be no two ways about exactly what is happening. I refer again briefly to the China Star debacle which occurred in 1992. At that time the Premier was the Minister responsible for TAFE. In 1992 he went to China, with great fanfare, to announce a program to recruit overseas fee paying students to TAFE. By August 1992 it had become a diplomatic mess, a disaster for New South Wales TAFE and a disaster for anybody trying to provide overseas tuition.

While the Premier was the Minister responsible for TAFE, TAFE recruited an illegal immigrant, Mr Da Zhan Luo, to recruit overseas students. He opened a Commonwealth Bank trust account as a joint
Page 5016
trustee with New South Wales TAFE. Mr Luo collected over $1 million - possibly several million dollars - and disappeared, leaving these students without their cash. Where in this legislation is there provision to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen again? The China Star alone was supposed to generate $18 million a year and New South Wales TAFE was supposed to generate $30 million a year.

In April 1992 the then Minister, now the Premier, announced that TAFE was seeking to earn $30 million from overseas fee paying students. But a year later, while the educational market has been expanding - as has been verified by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism and Minister Assisting the Premier - we find that we are able to generate only $7 million for New South Wales TAFE. These facts illustrate the difficult job VETAB will have ahead of it in ensuring providers of courses to overseas students are financially and ethically sound.

It is a vital role to protect the good name of Australian education overseas and to protect the good name not only of our private providers of education overseas but of our public institutions, our TAFE system which is second to none and our universities which will now come within the ambit of this bill. The damage that can be done to the goodwill we have begun to generate is potentially large. China Star and the earlier collapse of ELICOS colleges have been very damaging. The Opposition wishes VETAB every success in ensuring these sorts of episodes are not repeated. Again, I stress that that can come about only if we have strict criteria, and that criteria is well and truly spelt out for all to see.

This may appear to be a trivial point, but it is well intentioned: I believe that to effectively promote New South Wales vocational training overseas we must in future avoid the spate of acronyms which have crowded into the vocational education debate. I once went through a TAFE booklet and counted 37 different acronyms - not neglecting the major acronym TAFE. I am used to the education jargon, but when I go into schools and start talking about TAFE the kids look at me and ask, "Sir, what do you mean by TAFE?" I spell it out: technical and further education. They are then not much the wiser. In addition to TAFE, acronyms include ANTA, NFROT, NBEET and now VETAB. We are going to advertise overseas and tell people that their education in Australia will be 100 per cent guaranteed because VETAB will look after them. VETAB may or may not look after them, but they will ask us precisely what we mean.

There are many other things that I would like to say. Honourable members can see that I have many more notes. I have spoken at reasonable length already. I have made the major points that I wanted to make. I congratulate the Government on providing this legislation which will accredit the course providers as well as the courses which were accredited in 1990. However, I stress these two points: first, the criteria for accreditation must be upfront, must be plain and must be established in such a way so that it cannot be challenged in any way whatsoever; and, second, if we are going to advertise ourselves overseas, let us do it with a bit of aplomb, let us do it with a degree of expertise and in such a way that they understand what we are saying.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [10.8]: I support the bill. I note that it is an extension of the original Act of 1990. In that Act we were looking to provide some sort of quality assurance to the courses that we were providing and to make sure that the people who consumed the product knew that the product they were going to obtain would be of value to them and their employers. Accreditation of providers is a natural extension of that Act. Over the last few years there have been a number of cases where the providers of these courses, particularly aimed at overseas students, have left New South Wales and Australia with a bad reputation in the provision of an educational product to Asia and the world. There has been an explosion in the provision of vocational courses. There was a revolution in the acceptance and the accreditation of courses both within the public education system and the vocational education system. Traditional courses that had been around for a long time were no longer relevant. Employers were looking for courses that were relevant to their specific industrial needs.

Mr Jeffery: Come on, Grant.

Mr McBRIDE: The honourable member for Oxley may joke about the matter but I am sure the Minister is concerned about it. The revolution exposed the inadequacy of the accreditation of courses. TAFE courses in different States led to different awards. But the core material in the courses was pretty much the same. A student doing a course in New South Wales might qualify for a certificate. A student doing the same core course in Queensland might obtain an associate diploma. A student doing the same core course in Western Australia might obtain a diploma. Most of the syllabuses had originated in the New South Wales TAFE college system and were transferred through the system throughout Australia. Courses were modified to suit local regions and conditions but in essence the core of the courses was the same. So accreditation became differential. It was recognised within the education system that something had to be done to ensure that students throughout Australia were treated fairly and equitably.

A number of boards within different educational systems were established to equate the courses in different States. In New South Wales the courses, which had originated in New South Wales, were given a lower accreditation than they were given in other States. Another aspect of the courses was the articulation into other levels or avenues of education. A course in New South Wales might receive no university accreditation yet the same course in another State could qualify for university accreditation. Until the last few years a diploma course at TAFE gained no university accreditation. There was a great reluctance in the university system to accept training
Page 5017
and vocational courses for university accreditation. It was important that the 1990 legislation cleaned up this area by providing uniformity of courses throughout Australia. These issues are still at the cutting edge and need to be resolved.

Last year TAFE representatives I met at the Newcastle institute said they were still grappling with this problem in relation to the courses provided at Newcastle - how to articulate those courses properly into the university system and break down the opposition in universities to the admission of vocational courses into university courses. Education is like any product to be sold: it requires quality assurance. There must be some way of providing a benchmark or datum for the product. That is what courses throughout Australia need. The Opposition supports this. Some members opposite have obviously not been involved in the education industry. I will not tell the joke about how National Party members gain preselection, but it is obvious that they need to be further educated within the education system. There needs to be a method of comparing the product. Consumers must be assured of the quality of the product. I commend people in the education area who are still struggling to resolve this issue.

Regional centres such as Newcastle and Wollongong have vocational areas specific to them - steel, transport, heavy fabrication, structural and civil works, and heavy engineering. There is a great opportunity for properly accredited vocational courses to be exported to the rest of the world. Private providers could be involved. Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited is a major training entity providing in-service training to its employees. In Newcastle BHP has liaised with TAFE. TAFE will provide classroom training and BHP will provide the hands-on training in regard to steel production and heavy industry in the different divisions of BHP. Members from regional and country New South Wales will look to the institutions to provide courses directly related to their areas. For example, I am sure that in northern New South Wales TAFE could provide properly accredited vocational courses in relation to agriculture and the cattle industry which would be of economic benefit to the region.

Mr Jeffery: Do not look at your speech notes; you are better off without them.

Mr McBRIDE: I am sure many National Party members would be keen to take the opportunity - though they seem pretty light on for education themselves - to help the people within their area.

Mr Rixon: Lismore.

Mr McBRIDE: It is good to see the honourable member for Lismore is paying attention, not like the honourable member for Oxley.

Mr Sullivan: He has the school certificate. He is well educated.

Mr McBRIDE: He can probably write his name as well. These opportunities should be taken. On the Central Coast there is an emphasis on tourism. The Central Coast is a recreation region between the metropolises of Sydney and Newcastle. TAFE and private education providers could offer tourism related courses which would provide local employment. The courses could also be marketed overseas. The honourable member for Lismore would remember that only a few years ago TAFE courses were limited in scope and narrow in vocational range. There was a flattening out of what TAFE produced and a linkage with industry.

The Central Coast has a number of light industries. Master Foods has recently moved to the area. It is looking to linking with the University of Ourimbah, which is an extension of the University of Newcastle. Master Foods is very active. It is to be complimented for providing accredited courses linked with TAFE colleges and the university relevant to the industry. This will provide a tremendous boost to people seeking employment on the Central Coast. It is another example of the way in which industry can work hand in hand with existing public education service providers.

As a result of the move by Master Foods of Australia, other food industry companies are contemplating shifting to the Central Coast and have issued expressions of interest. TAFE and university systems on the Central Coast will provide specific vocational training for those working in the food processing industry. That training will be of tremendous benefit to the people of New South Wales and Australia. I am pleased that the accreditation process will be extended to course providers. A syllabus can be written, a course can be provided, but the person who provides the course must be properly accredited. If course providers are not properly accredited, problems may arise in product quality assurance. Once a product gets a bad name, that name is hard to overcome. Our colleagues opposite in the National Party discovered that fact when they tried to change their name from the Country Party to improve their image in this State.

The shadow minister for education said that course provider accreditation must be accompanied by a system that constantly reviews their performance in the courses provided. I know from personal experience that at times qualifications may be misrepresented. On occasions, due to a lack of experienced teachers, instructors may be sought. Often the result is a decrease in the quality of the product. An overseas student, educated under those circumstances, on returning to his or her country might not satisfy expectations there about attainment of educational standard and level of vocational training. Thus the education system in this State can be discredited. Australia has had a long period of contact with South-east Asian countries in providing university courses and is now establishing further contact through vocational courses. It is most important in this initial phase of contact that there be no cloud over the accreditation or quality of providers and courses, that is, the educational product offered to those countries. I commend the bill.

Page 5018

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women) [10.23], in reply: I thank all members who have taken part in the debate. I thank in particular the Opposition for supporting the bill. The proposed legislation is an acknowledgment of the need to continue the process started by the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Act, that is, to promote and improve the training market within New South Wales. I wish to address a number of concerns raised by honourable members, particularly those of the honourable member for Riverstone. I point out to the honourable member that in terms of the training market in New South Wales and accreditation of providers the Government is talking about all sorts of providers. His emphasis in his contribution seemed to be on technical and further education alone.

The purpose of the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board is to improve and expand the training market by recognising and accrediting private providers. The object of the bill is to enable course providers to be accredited. I am sure the honourable member for Drummoyne understands that point. In his clearly articulated and lucid contribution he mentioned on a number of occasions the need to include and expand the privately provided market. The honourable member for Drummoyne knows that the Government is concerned about the private provider market, but I suggest that he have a word with the honourable member for Riverstone and point out to him that the Government is not talking only about TAFE. As much as TAFE is an outstanding institution, the Government of this State is intent - as is the Federal Government - on improving and expanding the private training market.

The honourable member for Riverstone raised a number of specific concerns. The first was about criteria for accreditation. Care should be taken about such criteria to ensure that guidelines in this State are flexible. If guidelines were included in the bill, accreditation might not occur as widely and as flexibly as at present. That would be a ludicrous situation. A multiplicity of courses should be accreditable. At the moment all sorts of industries are seeking accreditation. How could specific guidelines - for instance, for a four-hour course that the National Roads and Motorists Association is keen to undertake, or for a course on dragline operations in the Hunter Valley - be provided in the bill?

The Government must ensure that guidelines remain flexible and are available and adjustable for courses and the way in which those courses are accredited. That approach carries over to the way providers are accredited. The guidelines under which VETAB operates are extremely comprehensive and deal in extreme detail with what is required to ensure that a course is accredited. VETAB can stand on its record in relation to accreditation and ensuring that those guidelines are both followed and implemented. The honourable member for Riverstone was also concerned about accreditation and articulation. I assure the honourable member that part of the reason for wanting accreditation is that it will facilitate articulation to other courses and tertiary providers. One of the reasons for such a rigorous procedure in ensuring accreditation of courses at the moment is to facilitate the articulation approach - an approach that the Government supports.

The Government is keen to promote articulation across the range of courses in schools, TAFE institutions and universities, and to include course providers within that framework. The honourable member also mentioned the need for accreditation to be nationally recognised. That is one of the reasons for establishing VETAB. Provision of accredited courses under the bill will establish a framework that will be part of the national framework and ensure that a course delivered in New South Wales will be recognised elsewhere in Australia. The bill is part of a national agenda to ensure that in a country the size of Australia people can travel from one State to another and have their credentials properly recognised.

The honourable member also spoke about overseas students. One of the tenets of the bill and one of the reasons for its introduction is to facilitate promotion of courses for overseas students. The Government is concerned to ensure that New South Wales wins part of the training market for overseas students. The honourable member quoted some figures. I refer him to my second reading speech, in which I stated that in 1993-94 the value of export of education is expected to exceed $1.1 billion nationally. When the Government is talking about education, it is not talking just about TAFE. I am advised that the New South Wales share of that national total is about one third. It is misleading to suggest that New South Wales is not doing its fair share and is not gaining a fair share of the money available from export of education.

The honourable member also expressed concern about ensuring that courses are not misleading to overseas students. I again refer to my second reading speech, in which I made clear it will be an offence to include advertising which suggests that people are accredited when they are not, and also to hold out that in some manner courses are accredited or that people are accredited to deliver them when they are not. The Government is well aware of that issue and will continue to monitor it, as will VETAB. The Government has introduced the bill exactly because it is concerned to ensure that the Chinese experience, to which the honourable member referred at some length, is not repeated. There will be strict guidelines in relation to funds and the way in which people will be able to hold funds. The Government is absolutely intent on ensuring that New South Wales can attract overseas students who will be confident that accredited courses are given by accredited providers who will do the right thing by their students and not rip them off.

I am grateful to the honourable member for The Entrance for his recognition of the fact that we do need to have nationally recognised courses. The Government agrees that it is important that the courses
Page 5019
delivered in this State are nationally recognised. That is one of the reasons we are party to one of those acronyms which the honourable member for Riverstone was complaining about earlier; we are parties to the national framework for the recognition of training. It is part of that agenda to ensure that we do have nationally accredited courses. I acknowledge the concerns of the honourable member. The Government is already moving that way and will continue to move that way. It is only sensible in a country of this size that we have nationally recognised courses. I also thank the honourable member for drawing the attention of the House to the fact that we need to link industry and training. The Government is supportive of that and has made a number of moves within the schools by encouraging the schools links program, and in TAFE by ensuring that TAFE is responsive to industry. This bill will give the private provider market the access and ability to link with the industry to ensure that they are delivering relevant and appropriate courses within that industry link as well.

Another point raised by the honourable member for Riverstone was the concern about displacement of local students by full fee paying international students. I assure the honourable member that the Australian council of education Ministers insists that full fee paying international students do not displace local students. That matter is policed by the Commonwealth through its funding to universities. I reiterate that the whole point of introducing this bill is that the Government, supported by the Opposition, is totally concerned to provide high quality, structured training in New South Wales. To do so is essential for Australia's economic performance and that is recognised by the Government. The bill before the House will assure that quality providers will be available within the local market and will encourage the export market to attract overseas students to New South Wales. By providing separate registration to providers as opposed to just courses, we will be ensuring and facilitating that process. There will be an ongoing development of the training market in New South Wales, which in the long term will promote opportunities for local students and provide money, funds and courses for overseas students. By doing so, more export dollars will be attracted to this State. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Suspension of certain standing and sessional orders agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Suspension of certain standing and sessional orders agreed to.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie - Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting the Minister for Roads, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport) [10.34]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

On 28th April when the previous Minister for Consumer Affairs introduced the HomeFund Commissioner Bill she said it had one overriding objective: to help HomeFund borrowers, past and present. The scheme focused attention on borrowers and the resolution of complaints in a manner that is acceptable, quick, efficient, relatively inexpensive, fair and determinative. The bill is designed to ensure achievement of this objective having regard to experience to date. The HomeFund Commissioner Act provides for the appointment of an independent commissioner to investigate and deal with complaints by HomeFund borrowers under existing laws. A total of 9,633 complaints have been received by the commissioner as at 5th November.

The office of the HomeFund Commissioner was originally conceived as an Ombudsman-type scheme. The main difference is that unlike the statutory Ombudsman, who can only make recommendations, the commissioner has determinative powers. Nevertheless, in the spirit of the private sector Ombudsman schemes, such as the banking Ombudsman, parties other than public authorities are only bound by the commissioner's determinations if they consent. The commissioner recently advised that certain parties have indicated an unwillingness or inability to consent to be bound. If this situation continues, it will have a significant and adverse impact on the commissioner's capacity to carry out his statutory function. The proposed amendments will remedy this situation.

The purpose of this bill is to enable the HomeFund Commissioner to make binding determinations, subject to appeal, and to enhance the commissioner's powers with respect to obtaining information. Schedule 1 to the bill amends the HomeFund Commissioner Act as follows: schedule 1(3)(a) amends section 16, which allows the commissioner to require information to be given for the purposes of an investigation. Mr Speaker, I thought the Opposition might be a little interested in this, if it is fair dinkum about HomeFund borrowers. One has to doubt whether the Opposition really wanted to help.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Heffron can speak on the bill at a later stage if she wishes to.

Page 5020

Ms MACHIN: Exactly. After some months' operation it has become clear that the commissioner needs access to information about borrowers' loans and the circumstances pertaining to their complaints at the preliminary assessment stage in order to make an informed decision whether to proceed to an investigation. The proposed amendment will enable the commissioner to require information for the purposes of a preliminary assessment - undertaken under section 12 of the Act - as well as for the purposes of an investigation. Schedule 1(3)(b) further amends section 16, so as to enable the commissioner to make such requirement of any person. At present the Act spells out the authorities who can be required to give information and provides for other persons to be prescribed by regulation. In view of the fact that the proposed amendments will extend the class of persons with respect to whom the HomeFund Commissioner may make determinations, it may be necessary for him to seek information from persons not currently named. Removing the current restrictions will assist the commissioner to act fairly but expeditiously.

Schedule 1(5)(a) amends section 25 so as to make it clear that FANMAC Limited may be subject to a determination of the commissioner. Schedule 1(5)(a) further amends the section so that any other person or body can be bound if it appears that they are materially involved in the subject-matter of the complaint or if they consent to be named as parties. The parties to the HomeFund mortgage or to an ancillary contract or arrangement, a co-operative housing society and the Department of Housing are already subject to determinations. Schedule 1(5)(a) also inserts a new section 25(2A), which ensures that no one can be made a party to a determination without being given notice of an investigation and the opportunity to make a submission to the commissioner.

Section 25(3) of the principal Act lists the determinations which may be made. Schedule 1(5)(c) lists amendments which will enable a determination to grant consequential or ancillary relief and to order the doing of those things which are necessary to give effect to a determination. The commissioner cannot make a determination unless he is satisfied that the complainant has an entitlement to a legal remedy. However, the kind of relief authorised by the Act and given in a determination need not be identical to that which would be available to be given by a court or tribunal in similar circumstances. The consequence of these existing provisions of the Act is that the commissioner may make a determination against one party despite finding that it was actions of another party which gave rise to the legal wrong which entitled the borrower to a legal remedy.

It is clear that if determinations are to be binding, strict legal liability must apply. Schedule 1(5)(d) amends section 25(4) to provide that the commissioner is not to make a determination affecting the rights of any person or body, other than a HomeFund borrower, unless satisfied that the borrower has an entitlement to a legal remedy against that person or body. Furthermore, the bill requires the commissioner to satisfy himself that the borrower is not eligible for relief under a government loan restructuring program, or that such a program is inappropriate for the borrower's particular circumstances. If loan restructuring is both available and an appropriate remedy for the legal wrong suffered, the commissioner will not need to make a determination. However, if the borrower suffered financial loss as a result of, for example, negligence by a solicitor, the commissioner could still make a monetary determination against the solicitor to compensate the borrower.

Schedule 1(5)(d) also inserts a new section 25(4A), which deals with the situation in which the commissioner, having found the borrower has a legal entitlement and decided that Government relief or loan restructuring options are not appropriate, considers the best remedy for the borrower would be to vary the terms of the loan even though neither the mortgagee, the Permanent Trustee, nor its agent, the co-operative housing society, was responsible for the legal wrong. Such a situation might arise, if the commissioner found the borrower was misled and, for example, took out a low start loan thinking it was an affordable loan. The commissioner could make a monetary determination as damages against the party responsible for misleading the borrower, but the best remedy for the borrower might be to convert the low start loan to an affordable loan. Proposed section 25(4)(a) would prevent such a determination, but proposed section 25(4A) makes an exception to the strict liability rule by allowing the commissioner to make such a determination against the Permanent Trustee as long as he also orders the responsible party or parties to pay to the Permanent Trustee an amount sufficient to compensate the trustee for the cost of complying with the determination.

As a matter of public policy it is inappropriate for a person or body to be liable for a determination when the complainant has no remedy against that entity. The bill therefore provides that the Permanent Trustee will not have to comply with a determination made under section 25(4A) unless the compensatory costs have been paid. This provision may be contrasted with the situation in which the commissioner finds that a co-operative housing society has erred in the origination of a HomeFund mortgage. Because the co-operative is acting as the agent of the mortgagee, the borrower has a legal remedy against the Permanent Trustee under contract law, and the commissioner would have no need to resort to section 25(4A) to make a determination which binds the Permanent Trustee. Schedule 1(5)(e) inserts a new section 25(5A), which provides that any determination made by the commissioner must not prejudice a borrower's eligibility for any relief under a Government relief program. Schedule 1(5)(f) further amends section 25 of the principal Act with respect to the orders which the commissioner may make, particularly those which order the disposition of an interest in land. Proposed section 25(9) provides that the regulations may make provision for or with
Page 5021
respect to the things that must be done before an order for the disposition of land takes effect, and any person - including the Registrar General - who is required by the regulations to do anything is authorised to do it.

Schedule 1(7) inserts a new section 28, which provides that a determination binds the complainant and all the parties named as covered by it. Binding determinations may need to be enforced. Schedule 1(9) inserts a new section 29A, which provides that a determination has effect as if it were a decision of a court and allows the determination to be registered in a court and enforced as a judgment or order of the court against a person bound by the determination. During the debate on the HomeFund Commissioner Bill the then Minister gave an undertaking that the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs would assist borrowers faced with the need to take enforcement action to recover a debt owed to them. The commitment still stands. Schedule 1(10) inserts a new section 30, which requires the commissioner's determinations to be in writing, stating his findings and the reasons for the determination. At present, a written determination is provided only on request. A consequence of the proposed section 30 will be to ensure that the doctrine of issue estoppel applies. The purpose of requiring the commissioner's determination to be in writing and contain a statement of his findings and reasons is to have the commissioner identify the issues determined in the context of the complaint so that these same issues cannot be further litigated in other proceedings.

Schedule 1(11) inserts sections 31A and 31B into the Act. Proposed section 31A deals with limitation periods. The limitation period for claims in tort and contract is six years. The Fair Trading Act 1987 provides for a three-year limitation period and the Contracts Review Act 1980 gives a two-year limitation period for actions brought by a borrower. Proposed section 31A(1) makes it clear that a non-monetary determination may be made and enforced in accordance with the Act, as amended, regardless of whether a particular limitation period has expired. Proposed section 31A(2) provides that monetary determinations can only be made if the complaint was made before the expiration of the relevant limitation period. Under proposed section 31B the Minister may notify the commissioner of the existence of any relief program, such as a program for restructuring HomeFund mortgages, that is available to HomeFund borrowers. Such programs will not be confined to borrowers with a legal entitlement.

At present, the Act specifically excludes appeals against a determination or decision of the commissioner. The lack of an appeal mechanism did not disadvantage parties because they were not bound by determinations they did not consent to. However, with the proposed departure from the original scheme, and in the interests of natural justice, it is intended to provide for appeals. In order to preserve as far as possible the aim of providing an accessible, speedy and final procedure for resolving HomeFund complaints it is proposed that appeals be only on questions of law and prospective appellants be required to establish the merits of their case by seeking leave to appeal. Furthermore, parties have only 28 days in which to lodge an appeal unless the court grants extra time. The Supreme Court will not be able to award costs to or against any party to an appeal. This means that if a party other than the borrower wins an appeal the borrower will not be further penalised by having costs awarded against him or her. Schedule 1(12) amends section 40 to provide for such appeals. The Government is aware that borrowers may not have the same financial resources as other parties who may seek to appeal the commissioner's determinations. Members may be assured that the Government will monitor the situation to ensure that borrowers are not disadvantaged by any appeal action.

Schedule 1(12) further amends section 40 to empower the Minister for Consumer Affairs to intervene in an appeal at any stage. The Fair Trading Act provides a precedent for such intervention in the public interest. Schedule 1(13) inserts a new section 40A, which enables proceedings by or against the Department of Housing to be taken in the name of the Director of Housing. Schedule 3 contains transitional provisions. The proposals will apply to complaints received by the commissioner both before and after the commencement date. The commissioner will be able to exercise his new powers with respect to existing complaints which are still being assessed or are subject to investigation. However, determinations made before the commencement of the proposed amendments will not be affected. The Government's concern is with the successful resolution of HomeFund complaints, hence these amendments. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Grusovin.


Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Clause 1

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [10.50]: My comments are made following consultation and discussion with the honourable member for South Coast, the Minister in charge of the bill, the Attorney General and the Leader of the House. Though I was desirous of moving amendment No. 2, page 16, schedule 1, lines 19 to 26, "Omit all words on those lines" and insert section 32 and the amendment I have tabled, I am now of the view, after discussion, that these matters are contained in the Government's amendments to the bill. I accept the Government's assurance in that respect.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I do not wish to interrupt but the Committee is dealing with clause 1 and not schedule 1.

Page 5022

Schedule 1

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [10.51]: I move the first amendment as circulated:

Page 3, schedule 1, before line 3 after the definition of "justice" in section 4(1) insert:

"organisation" includes any voluntary association, public interest group, society, trade union, corporation, Government Department, Statutory Corporation, or Commission.

Mr Photios: On a point of order. The bill contains an amendment to section 4, which expands the definition of "relative". The honourable member for Ashfield is seeking to include references to people who are in loco parentis to the deceased or were the guardian of the deceased. The Government has an amendment to that section. The Government's amendment does not significantly widen the definition but simply seeks to ensure that people will not be excluded from appearing at inquests because the definition of "relative" is interpreted too strictly. On the other hand, the amendment put forward by the Opposition goes further. Rather than just ensuring a right of appearance to people who would probably have been granted leave to appear, the Opposition amendment, coupled with the proposed change to section 32, gives a right to appear at inquests or inquiries to any group of people who could be bothered to attend regardless of their connection, if any, with the inquest or inquiry. The Government believes the amendment put forward by the honourable member for Ashfield goes beyond what is envisaged in the bill and as such is outside the leave of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I uphold the point of order. The guidebook "Procedure for Committees of the Whole" states that an amendment which might be related to the subject-matter under consideration may not necessarily be relevant to the particular phrase of the subject contained in the bill under consideration and therefore is inadmissible. I also note that at page 339 Erskine May states that no matter ought to be raised in debate on a question which would be irrelevant if moved as an amendment, and that no amendment should be used for importing arguments which would be irrelevant to the main question.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [10.55]: I move amendment No. 1 as circulated:

Page 7, Schedule 1(17) after line 7, insert:

(f) After section 12A(3), insert:

(4) The State Coroner is to make a written report to the Attorney General containing a summary of the details of the deaths or suspected deaths of which the State Coroner has been informed under this section and which appear to the State Coroner to involve the death or suspected death of a person in circumstances referred to in section 13A (Deaths in Custody etc. examinable only by State Coroner or Deputy State Coroner).

(5) A report under subsection (4) is to be made for the period of 12 months commencing on 1 January 1994 and for each subsequent period of 12 months. Each report is to be made within 2 months after the end of the period to which it relates.

(6) The Attorney General is to cause a copy of each report made to the Attorney General under subsection (4) to be tabled in each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after the report is made.

On behalf of the Minister for Justice I assure the House that in another place the Government will endeavour to facilitate amendments that will provide, in the context of proposed subsections (4), (5) and (6) of section 12A, a facility whereby reports of coronial inquiries and inquests can be tabled in Parliament out of session. The current report provides for an annual reporting process within 21 days as agreed between the Minister, myself, the honourable member for South Coast and the honourable member for Ashfield.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [10.57]: I thank the Minister for that assurance. To remove any ambiguity and ensure that we understand the assurance, the report by the State Coroner - which is very important because it details the death or suspected death of a person in custody - will be publicly available. Either of two things will happen: it will be publicly released through the Clerks of the Parliament within 21 days because that report may contain defamatory material and, therefore, needs the privilege of the Parliament; or, the Government will consider amending the State Coroners Act so that the Coroner may refer other reports of like statutory bodies direct to the Clerks of the Parliament without the necessity of their going direct to the Attorney General. That will ensure that that report also attracts the privilege of the Parliament and all associated benefits.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [10.58]: That is the Government's intention. Quite clearly the report and its many inclusions should enjoy parliamentary privilege. Accordingly, the Government is committed to the recommendations of the deaths in custody Royal commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment by Mr Photios agreed to:

Page 8, schedule 1(18), lines 19 and 20. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

Deaths in custody etc. examinable only by State Coroner or Deputy State Coroner

Amendment by Mr Photios agreed to:

Page 16, Schedule 1(34), lines 29-34. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(b) Omit section 34(4)(a), insert instead:

(a) shows cause sufficient in the opinion of the appropriate official why that person should be supplied with a copy of the coroner's file (or a part of that file) in respect of any matter; and

(c) From section 34(4), omit "shall be supplied by the clerk of the Local Court with a copy of the depositions", insert instead "is to be supplied with a copy of the coroner's file (or a part of that file) by the clerk of the Local Court where, or nearest to the place where, the inquest or inquiry was held or would have been held had it not been dispensed with".

Page 5023

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [11.1]: I move:

Page 17, Schedule 1(34), lines 4-8. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(5) In this section:

"appropriate official" means, in relation to a particular matter, the coroner who held, or dispensed with the holding of, the inquest or inquiry to which the matter relates or (in the absence of that coroner) the clerk of the Local Court where, or nearest to the place where, that inquest or inquiry was held or would have been held had it not been dispensed with;

"coroner's file" means the documents (including the depositions of witnesses) that form part of the file kept by a coroner in respect of a death, suspected death, fire or explosion.

(6) The coroner who holds or dispenses with the holding of an inquest or inquiry may, by notation on the coroner's file on the matter, direct that a copy of the whole or a particular part of the file is not to be supplied under this section. A copy of a coroner's file or of any part of the file is not to be supplied in contravention of such a direction.

(7) When a coroner decides under section 19 not to commence, or to terminate, an inquest or inquiry, a copy of the coroner's file or of any part of the file is not to be supplied under this section.

Following further discussions between the Minister for Justice, myself, the honourable member for Ashfield and the honourable member for South Coast, the Government has agreed to amend this schedule in another place after its successful passage in this Chamber to facilitate changes that will provide for reasons to be given in writing should information be withheld that is otherwise covered in this schedule. So there will be some justification required, a degree of accountability, on the basis of the amendment. That will be done through the work of the Minister for Justice in another place in due course.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [11.3]: I welcome the Government's undertaking. I ask that, when moving an amendment in another place, particularly in respect of item (6), which refers to the coroner who holds or dispenses with holding an inquest or inquiry, et cetera, particular attention be given to ensure that the coroner acts in the public interest because, except under special circumstances, it is the duty of the coroner to release that material. I agree that reasons must be given. It has been explained to me by the Government that a file may contain sensitive material in relation to, say, HIV or other confidential medical information, or a suicide note that may not be appropriate for release.

In giving reasons in writing, the coroner may simply say, "I am withholding this material from the applicant" - who could be a journalist, for example - "because it is sensitive and confidential medical evidence, or a suicide note, which I do not consider appropriate for release". But he must give very specific reasons, because given my experience with the Coroners Act over a number of years in public cases such as the Juanita Nielsen case, the Donald Mackay case and the Hilton bombing case, I am fearful that a coroner so disposed under this provision may, against the public interest, withhold material from the press, an interested party or the general public. I ask that particular attention be given to the drafting of the amendment in another place to ensure that the public interest is served.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [11.6]: The Government is cognisant of the important matters the honourable member for South Coast has raised. Clearly, to be accountable there must be some degree of detail. Following discussions with the coroner that I hope will be held in the near future, it is the Government's view that an acceptable framework can be arrived at to facilitate an amendment in keeping with the intentions of the honourable member for South Coast.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [11.6]: I share the concern of the honourable member for South Coast that this important amendment will give an unfettered discretion to a coroner to direct that a copy of the whole of a particular file is not to be supplied under a section of the Act. "Coroners file" is defined to include everything, even depositions of witnesses. The coroner will be granted substantial power. Admittedly, section 19 of the Act deals with the procedure at inquest or inquiry involving an indictable offence. Consideration must be given to whether future criminal trials could be jeopardised. By the same token, considerable power will be granted to a coroner to close a file that is not available to any applicant in any circumstances. For those reasons I support the honourable member for South Coast and await with interest the meeting between the Attorney General and the coroner.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [11.8]: The Government intends to accommodate the spirit of the concern of the honourable member for Ashfield. The critical issues on which there is general agreement are that the coroner may feel it appropriate to withhold certain information, obviously in relation to criminal cases, and where indictable offences may be pursued through the judicial system. It is not necessary for me to repeat the matters referred to by the honourable member for South Coast in relation to personal circumstances often being sufficient justification for withholding information. Without going into detail to explain what is otherwise contained and thereby revealing information that is brought out in the coronial inquest, it would be appropriate for that level of accountability to be required. That will be resolved in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [11.9]: I move:

Page 18, schedule 1, after line 20, insert "part 4, Division 3". After section 46 insert "Division 3 - Appeals".

The heading is "Appeal from an Inquest or Inquiry held before a Coroner". This will enable an appeal from a special inquest or inquiry to be held before a judge of the District Court. The other heading of the
Page 5024
proposed amendment is "Leave to Appeal". The last amendment is to insert after section 47, a new section 47A under the heading, "Power of the Supreme Court to order a special inquest or inquiry".

Mr Photios: On a point of order. The Government believes that each of these amendments is outside the original scope and intention of the bill. On the same basis as outlined in relation to amendments to clause 2 relating to definitions, I seek a ruling that each of the amendments be struck out.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I uphold the point of order and in doing so I rely on the reasons I gave in my earlier decision.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.


The following bills were returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:

Credit (Amendment) Bill
Sentencing (Life Sentences) Amendment Bill

Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Rixon) reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:

Mr Speaker

The Legislative Council desires to acquaint the Legislative Assembly that on Tuesday 9 November 1993, p.m., it agreed to the following resolution -

That from 1 January 1994 the enclosed areas of the precincts of the Parliament shall be a smoke-free environment, other than areas designated by the Presiding Officers, having regard to the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 and any relevant regulations and codes of practice made under that Act.

Legislative Council Beryl A. Evans
9 November 1993 Acting-President

Bill received and read a first time.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [11.13]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to remedy a problem that has recently been identified by the Crown Solicitor in the form of courtesy letters being used by the infringement processing bureau of the Police Service when enforcing unpaid penalty notices. The issue of courtesy letters under section 100J of the Justices Act forms one step in the penalty notice enforcement scheme. Penalty notices are issued for a number of minor offences created under various Acts, including the Traffic Act, the National Parks and Wildlife Act, and the Local Government Act. The person to whom the penalty notice is directed, whom I will call the defendant, has the option of paying the amount shown on the notice, electing to have the matter dealt with by a court or, in some cases, nominating the person who is actually liable for the alleged offence.

If the defendant fails to take any of the options, a courtesy letter is then issued. This acts as a reminder to the defendant that the penalty is still outstanding. The defendant again has the opportunity to pay the amount, elect to go to court, or nominate the actual offender. If the defendant does not take any action upon receiving the courtesy letter, the prosecuting authority can then enforce the penalty notice. Depending on the particular offence alleged, enforcement action may be by referral of the matter to the Roads and Traffic Authority for licence or registration cancellation, or by referral to an authorised justice for issue of an enforcement order. The issuing of the courtesy letter is a prerequisite to such enforcement action being taken.

Under section 18C(1)(c) of the Traffic Act, it must appear to the Commissioner of Motor Transport that, among other things, the defendant has not elected to have the matter dealt with by a court in accordance with section 100J of the Justices Act, that is to say, that a courtesy letter issued under section 100J has been served on the defendant and the defendant has not completed the court election notice which appears on that courtesy letter. Under section 100L(1)(b) of the Justices Act an authorised justice must be satisfied that a courtesy letter has been served on the defendant before an enforcement order can be issued.

The form of the courtesy letter was prescribed under the Justices (Penalty Notice) Regulation 1984, which has now been included in the Justices (General) Regulation 1993. However, the form being used by the infringement processing bureau was not identical with the prescribed form. It is not clear where the bureau's form came from or why the decision was taken not to use the prescribed form. It appears that the courtesy letter being used was drafted within the bureau itself and brought into use some time before 1987. After questions were raised about the validity of the courtesy letter then being used, an advising on the form was sought from the Crown Solicitor. The advising identified three shortcomings in the form of the courtesy letter then in use.

First, the letter did not contain a warning that, if the person failed to pay the outstanding amount or elect to take the matter to court, further action may be taken to enforce the penalty notice. Second, the form did not contain the name and address of the person to whom the court election notice should be sent, as required by section 100J(4) of the Justices Act. Third, the letter did not state that the person receiving the letter had 21 days from the date of service of the
Page 5025
letter in which to pay the amount or lodge a court election notice. The Crown Solicitor advised that these defects meant that the courtesy letter then being used by the IPB was not a valid courtesy letter within the meaning of section 100J of the Justices Act. The view was taken that the invalidity could give rise to actions for negligence or breach of statutory duty and that the Crown could be liable for damages as a result.

A new courtesy letter that complies with the legislative requirements has been drafted and will be brought into use as soon as a fresh supply of copies can be printed. The existing prescribed form has been repealed to avoid potential conflict between the new form and the prescribed form. Pending the introduction of the new form, the issuing of courtesy letters and enforcement orders and the referral of matters for licence-vehicle registration have been suspended. A number of issues have enjoyed the contemplation of members in some of the discussions that led up to the introduction of this bill. It strikes me as unnecessary to go through the detail of the bill, given that the matter has come from the other House. I am delighted simply to commend the bill and I look forward to its fast and early passage.

Suspension of certain standing and sessional orders agreed to.

Mr ANDERSON (Liverpool) [11.19]: I lead for the Opposition, which does not oppose the legislation. It deals with a technical breach of the courtesy letter regulation. To recap briefly, under the old system before the self-enforcing infringement notice scheme - SEINS - was introduced, any person who failed to pay an infringement notice had to go to court. Originally each police officer had to be called to deal with the matter by way of an ex parte hearing. Two subsequent amendments enabled those matters to be dealt with under section 18C and section 75B of the Justices Act, which speeded up the process. Nevertheless traffic courts were clogged with these matters. So it was that SEINS was introduced. The technical problem that has been identified and remedied by the bill has not meant that any person issued with an infringement notice has been disadvantaged in any way.
Clearly, in the second reading speech by both the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs and the Minister in the other place, it was indicated that people were aware of what they could or could not do to satisfy the infringement notice or what would happen if they failed to do so. Frankly, it would be remiss of the Parliament not to allow this matter to be corrected in the way in which the bill provides. It would be an irresponsible situation if it were not corrected in this way. Some members of the public will think that they ought to have had the opportunity to do various things. They have been denied nothing by this bill. They could have taken action with regard to the infringement notice at the time of receipt or after it, had they wished, by seeking a rehearing under, I think, section 100B.

All sorts of provisions are available. None of those are lost as a consequence of this bill. It corrects the technicality without infringing upon the rights of people. To do otherwise would have placed the State at considerable financial liability. It certainly would have damaged severely the current process, and I must say that this Government has employed the infringement notice to a level never previously seen. Nevertheless the Opposition supports the legislation for the reasons outlined in the Government's contribution here and in the other place and by my brief contribution. I support the bill.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [11.22], in reply: The Government welcomes the co-operation of the Opposition in responsibly addressing this matter. As has been said, the bill will not impact detrimentally on anyone who has been or will be charged. It merely provides for an entirely legal framework where previously, since 1987, a fairly questionable process was in operation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.